The last time I know of a party massively losing 2 straght election cycles in a row or on the flipside, the other party gaining in 2 straight election cycles in a row was in 1978 and 1980 when Democrats lost nearly 50 house seats and 13 senate seats combined.

Right now it is still debatable whether this is a result of Democrats doing something right or Republicans doing something wrong.  Either way though, Democrats are now on defence.  It’s simple: the more you gain, the more you have to work to keep them.  Putting even more pressure on them is the fact that on the presidential level they gained traditional GOP strongholds like Indiana and North Carolina this year.

If history is to serve as a guide the incumbent party at average loses nearly 30 seats during midterms.  The Clinton administration’s 1st term and Bush administration’s 2nd term were clearly no exception.

I’ve said this before and said this again, expectations are EXTREMELY AND ASTRONOMICALLY HIGH for the newly-painted “blue” government.  Prioritise fixing the economy.  End the Iraq war the way the American people want it but do it prudently.  If you were elected because the previous ruling party was incompetent, prove yourself.  Don’t be interested just in power.  Use your power to their betterment.

Remember, in the same way that voters voted you in to office, voters have that same power to vote you off in 2010 and 2012.  You now have an uphill task of defending what you have gained in 2006 and 2008.

And these guys say ‘08 will be a hum-dinger!

While Charlie criss-crosses the state for John McCain and plotting his own run in the future, Florida Democrats should be thinking about 2010- and our chance to put the ultimate showman out of business.

In 2006, Charlie won the gubernatorial election in a year that was simply bad for democrats- and he did it winning 52% of the vote. He tied his Democratic challenger in Hispanic and female voters. Charlie also won in every single county through the I-4 corridor.

Charlie Crist is a pretty tough guy to go up against.

But, in the 2 years since Davis ran, the state has changed. Going into the 2008 general election, Democrats enjoy a 650,000 registered voter advantage than do Republicans in the state. An let me put this in perspective for you- Davis lost by 330,000 votes. Obama is even poised to win this state. Florida is changing, becoming younger- and increasingly Democratic- everyday.

Even though Charlie Crist enjoys consistently high favorability, voters also believe that he hasn’t made much movement on the issues that matter to them. He’s also spent some of his political capital- not too mention a lot of his time- courting John McCain all the while flip-flopping on important state issues -like offshore drilling. Crist is not a political centrist, he’s a political opportunist, a state cheerleader- with few accomplishments.

There are a lot of reasons why Charlie’s vulnerable in 2010, but we can’t let a high favorability scare away strong Democratic challengers.

Imagine Charlie Crist against a candidate like Alex Sink. A female who could surely carry more of the female vote than Davis, a statewide elected Democrat with a base in the I-4, a former bank executive who knows how to manage a state’s budget with out just making spending cuts, a mom with two kids who understand the issues facing Florida’s public schools.

She may not bring that certain je ne sais quoi-  French for an orange glow- to ribbon cuttings and baseball games, but as governor, Alex Sink would be a strong advocate for Floridians.

And, she’s just the perfect candidate to take back the governor’s mansion.

Just found the news cast of Brian Schweitzer explaining how dumb the voters in Kalispell are.  After reviewing the video it just reminded me that Brian Schweitzer thinks the voters in Montana are just a bunch of idiots.

The Raw Story Photograph

Michael S. Connell, former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, has been subpoenaed in an Ohio vote tampering case.

COLUMBUS — A high-level Republican consultant has been subpoenaed in a case regarding alleged tampering with the 2004 election.

Michael S. Connell was served with a subpoena in Ohio on Sept. 22 in a case alleging that vote-tampering during the 2004 presidential election resulted in civil rights violations. Connell, president of GovTech Solutions and New Media Communications, is a website designer and IT professional who created a website for Ohio’s secretary of state that presented the results of the 2004 election in real time as they were tabulated.

At the time, Ohio’s Secretary of State, Kenneth J. Blackwell, was also chairman of Bush-Cheney 2004 reelection effort in Ohio.

Connell is refusing to testify or to produce documents relating to the system used in the 2004 and 2006 elections, lawyers say. His motion to quash the subpoena asserts that the request for documents is burdensome because the information sought should be “readily ascertainable through public records request” — but also, paradoxically, because “it seeks confidential, trade secrets, and/or proprietary information” that “have independent economic value” and “are not known to the public, or even to non-designated personnel within or working for Mr. Connell’s business.”

According to sources close to the office of Clifford Arnebeck, one of the Ohio attorneys who brought the case, Arnebeck intends to ask the court to compel Connell to testify. An emergency conference with the judge, originally scheduled for Monday, is to be rescheduled. Raw Story

Sen. McCain continually repeats that he “will pull out his pen and veto earmarks and outrageous spending.“

But he cannot…and he knows it!

The line item veto act that Clinton had was overturned by the Supreme Court. In 2006, Bush asked Congress to restore the line item veto.

But the bill, as Sen. McCain very well knows, died in the Senate.

Why is McCain continuing to lie to the American people?

I grabbed this from the blog Mudflats. This is the document the Dems in Alaska produced after vetting her before she took the Gov’s office. Although not groundbreaking, it is pretty interesting.

Check it out.

Palin vetted.

By- Suzie-Q @ 2:45 PM MST

This week will be a news cycle of high content and hype. Another hurricane, a Republican Convention held in the shadows, an energized Democratic party and a world situation that is desperate for change on so many levels.  Many stories and details will be lost in such a news cycle.

In the fast moving news cycle, I hope that one story can filter through:
Jack Abramoff will be sentenced for his crimes on September 4, 2008.

This is important. In September 2006 it became clear that the November Election would turn on the issue of corruption. All signs point to the same thing happening this year.

I’ll try and put this in the simple language of politics:

It’s The Corruption, Stupid

That is what we need to understand if we wish to elect Barack Obama and defeat John McCain. It is what we need to understand if we wish to increase our margins in the House, Senate and State Capitals across our Nation or to have any hope for progressive legislation in 2009.

Corruption is the tipping point!

It helps undecided voters decide who to vote for.

Since August 2007, Rasmussen Reports has been polling voters about their top Issues of Concern. As you might expect, the Economy and the never ending Wars are always at or near the top. What may surprise you is that Corruption is always at the top as well. In some months it has even been ahead. Now that makes sense because voters know that corruption prevents any progress from being made. From health care to energy to foreign policy to taxes to the budget and more, the corruption in Washington is a clear problem to most voters.

The good news for Democrats is that voters trust us to clean up this mess. The latest numbers from Rasmussan give us a 16 point advantage over the Republicans on this issue. Other polls show that Obama leads McCain on the issue of reform as well.

Face it, the Republican brand and Party is tainted by corruption and there are more scandals in the wings.

In fact, I expect that another wave of Republican Scandals will erupt this fall—I suspect that there are some shoes about to drop. Reporters, campaigns and others are digging and there are various Federal investigations are underway. The public perception of Republican corruption must give GOP operatives ulcers.

Rumors are flying and more bad news could break at any moment. Among the worst scandal for the GOP is the ongoing Abramoff investigation.

A major development in the Abramoff Scandal was all but lost in last week’s news cycle. Fortunately, the Washington Post ran a story that Abramoff’s lawyers and the Department of Justice had filed papers in advance on his upcoming sentencing hearing this coming Thursday (emphasis added):

Since his conviction on fraud and conspiracy charges, former lobbyist Jack Abramoff has spent more than 3,000 hours helping more than 100 law enforcement agents in an ongoing federal corruption probe that has implicated “scores of other persons not yet charged,” lawyers said in court filings yesterday. [snip]

If a federal judge in Washington accepts the recommendation from the Justice Department, Abramoff would serve no more than an additional three years and three months in prison, not accounting for credit for good behavior awarded by the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Abramoff’s attorneys are seeking more leniency, which could have him released from prison by 2010. [snip]

They also noted that Abramoff has helped convict more than a dozen people, in addition to admitting guilt himself, and that his case has prompted reforms that the lawyers said are known as “Abramoff Ethics Rules.” [snip]

The court papers indicate an extensive ongoing probe by referencing a document that is sealed because it contains grand jury information. Former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and retiring Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.), among others, are still under investigation.

TPM Muckraker was also on the case and added more stories to their Abramoff collection.  The quick headline is that the investigation is still moving forward and that Abramoff is singing like a bird.

I went and got copies of the Court documents. There are a lot of tea leaves to read, but I think it is clear that some more indictments are coming and that they may come soon—before November. Here are a few finds from the Court documents. First, Abramoff is cooperating in ongoing investigations:

As mentioned previously, there remain several ongoing or completed investigations of Abramoff and the relationships that he had with various public officials. Because Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) prevents us from publicly revealing details about closed grand jury investigations, and because both Rule 6(e) and the law enforcement privilege preclude public dissemination of information about ongoing investigations, those matters are not further described here. Rather, with the consent of Abramoff, the government is filing a sealed, ex parte submission with the Court providing specifics regarding the ongoing or closed investigations and describing Abramoff’s role in those matters.

Second, he has been giving up Members of Congress. For example, the documents shed light on Abramoff’s role in John Albaugh, a key aide of former Rep. Istook of Oklahoma, pleading guilty in the scandal:

Abramoff first suggested that agents look into the relationship between a
lobbyist working for him and Albaugh and provided information regarding their
involvement.

The Albaugh guilty plead moves the investigation closer to John Doolittle, Don Young and John Ashcroft. The court papers also disclose the way that Abramoff worked for Foreign Governments and how he hid that relationship:

The investigation also developed information that Abramoff may have also failed to file reports under the Foreign Agent Registration Act [FARA] for the purpose of obscuring any representation of foreign interests.

This is a crime that Abramoff shares with many working in the world of Republican lobbyists, including several weasels connected to John McCain like Wes Gullett, Randy Scheunemann and Stephen Payne. It would help clean-up Washington if the DOJ would get serious about enforcing FARA disclosure laws. Perhaps that is another shoe about to drop.

There are many other hints these Abramoff court documents and I expect that more details will come out next Thursday when Abramoff has his sentencing hearing. Perhaps he will even testify on his behalf. The one thing we can be certain of is that the Abramoff Investigation is ongoing and that more indictments are coming.

Some targets may still be in office, but others may already be out or on their way out. The rumors I’ve heard mention that Tom DeLay and Karl Rove are the big fish. Then there are various other players below them—a list made up of current and former Congressmen, staffers and lobbyists—who are the building blocks to get to the top. I hope these rumors are true and that this is a broad inquiry. I want to trust that the wheels of justice are still grinding. I think that they are. Sure, Justice is moving slow, but all signs point to real movement.

And this is all the more amazing because of an unprecedented effort to obstruct Justice and slow down and/or misdirect any investigation of the Abramoff scandal.

And leading the efforts to slow down a real investigation has been John McCain.

During a November 17, 2004 Hearing on the Abramoff Scandal, John McCain made a promise to the representatives of the Tigua Tribe of Texas:

I pledge, as a member of the Committee on Indian Affairs, that we will not stop until the complete truth is told.

It was a promise—like all John McCain promises—that McCain quickly broke. Before the same hearing was over, it was clear that McCain had little interests in exposing the truth.

Instead, he spun a narrative of gullible Indians, greedy lobbyists and the straight talking Senator who took them on.

The recent Ralph Reed ad from the Obama Campaign pointed out that McCain never called Reed to testify under oath. Another Abramoff co-conspirator given a pass by McCain was Grover Norquist. In fact, the extremely corrupt Grover Norquist is now one of McCain’s advisors on tax policy. And then there was McCain’s promise to NOT INVESTIGATE any elected Republican involved in the Abramoff scandal.

At the heart of McCain’s cover-up are 750,000 plus pages of Abramoff Scandal documents that McCain has sent to the National Archives stamped with a Do not open until 2056 sticker on each box. Less than 5,000 pages of these documents have been released to the public. There are a lot of uninvestigated crimes in those files.

Oh, and McCain’s chief foreign policy advisor, Randy Scheunermann, was hired by Abramoff’s old lobbying firm to “advise” Greenberg Traurig on how to “work” with McCain’s “investigation”. Since then the lobbying firm has given McCain over $160,000.

McCain’s active cover-up of the scandal made the following details in the Abramoff Court papers stand out (emphasis added):

His speedy acceptance and cooperation have played a significant part in the Government’s assessment and understanding of possibilities for change in public integrity rules and enforcement. Further, his cooperation has lasted and consumed nearly four years of his life and continues today (and will continue in the future). His cooperation has not endeared him to many, including those at the correctional facility where he is located. His cooperation has involved more than 3,000 hours of his time, including interviews with approximately 100 Government officials, as well as searches and reviews of well over 500,000 documents.

So the DOJ only has 500,000 pages of documents for Abramoff to review. Hmmm, it looks like McCain hid up to 250,000 pages of Abramoff documents from the DOJ. Perhaps somebody should open those documents in the National Archives up for review. At the very least, they should be shared with the task force investigating the Abramoff Scandal. More than that, there should be an independent investigation into the way McCain conducted his Abramoff investigation cover-up>.

John McCain and his Party have a corruption eruption problem. He needs to distance his campaign from his Party in Washington and the lobbyists who run it. Americans everywhere know that McCain and his party can not clean up Washington.

To compete with Obama (especially after that amazing Democratic Convention), McCain needed a head fake play and that is where the recently elected Governor of Alaska comes in.

There have been many, many Diaries about Sarah Palin since this novice was elevated to McCain’s ticket. Her resume is thin and those who know her in Alaska are among the most skeptical voices about her readiness to be Vice-President. And yet, she is being sold to the lower 48 as a “Reformer with Results” (they are even using the same tag line they used to use for George W. Bush to sell her). The myth is that she is willing to take on the corruption in her own Party. To hear the spin it sounds like she road a wave of reform to election in 2006. The hype tells the story of a reformer who led the fight to take on Ted Stevens, Don Young and that famous bridge to nowhere. Of course the spin does not survive a fact check.

Both Young and Stevens supported her in 2006 and Ted Steven even cut a campaign commercial for her:

Somehow, once again, history is being rewritten by the Republican Ministry of Truth. We should not let them get away with it.

Like McCain, Palin is a Corruptionist. Sure, she is a small town corruptionist with a small town grifter’s view of power, but now that John McCain has elevated her to the big leagues she is being schooled by Super-Corruptionists like Charlie Black, Randy Scheunemann and Karl Rove. Palin is a fast learner and we can expect Agnew-like scandals from her in the future. In fact she may already have a few in her closet. The big one is most likely the recent Gas Line license awarded to TransCanada. Yeah, of course it is potential scandal about fossil fuels—we are discussing Republicans after all.

In 2006 Frank Murkowski was running for re-election as Alaska Governor. After four years in office, he had become a very unpopular Governor. It was his arrogance that brought him down. In 2002 he left the Senate to become Governor and proceeded to move forward his agenda without building support. He compounded his troubles by appointing his daughter to replace him in his old Senate seat. As we all know these days, the Alaskan Republican Party was and is a cesspool of corruption. Easy access to money from fossil fuels without oversight will do that.

As Murkowski took office there were several competing factions within the Alaskan GOP for control of the oil/gas wealth. Murkowski was one faction seeking control and he did not play well with others.

The big issue facing Alaska was how to build a pipeline to move natural gas from Alaska, through Canada to the lower forty-eight States. Murkowski had a plan and he tried to force it through. In June 2006, Stateline.org wrote that the Gas pipeline dispute fuels wild Alaska race. This dispute was the key to Murkowski’s downfall:

The wildest race for governor of Alaska in 20 years shares center stage with the state’s thorniest political issue over those same two decades: a proposed contract for a natural gas pipeline from Alaska’s North Slope through Canada to the Midwest. [snip]

But the natural gas pipeline issue is extremely controversial. Although there’s a legal dispute about whether the Legislature must approve, Murkowski wants lawmakers to sign off on a proposed contract he has negotiated over the past two years with the proposed pipeline developers: the three major oil producers on Alaska’s North Slope — BP, ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips.

The contract sets fiscal terms for development of the project, although it does not actually commit the producers to construction, one of the most controversial elements of the package. Also, the state would be a 20 percent owner in the pipeline and take its royalty and production tax as gas, rather than cash — other positions that are being hotly debated.

Murkowski also wants to provide “fiscal certainty” for the project by fixing oil taxes for 30 years. [snip]

The controversial $19 billion-to-$27-billion gas line, under discussion since a treaty with Canada was signed during the Carter administration three decades ago, often is described as the largest private construction project in North American history and widely is seen as Murkowski’s best chance for political redemption.

Various pipeline construction ideas have been floated over the years, but it was not until the price of natural gas spiked in the winter of 2000-2001 that planning became serious. Critics accuse the oil companies with leases on the natural gas of “warehousing” the gas, but they responded by saying such a vast project had not been economically feasible until gas prices increased.

All of the other candidates for governor have opposed Murkowski’s proposed gas line contract partly on grounds its terms tie the hands of legislatures for 30 years on oil and 45 years on gas taxes.

In the end, Murkowski lost the fight to control oil revenue in Alaska. In the run-up to the Republican Primary it became clear that he would loose a November election to the Democratic candidate, Tony Knowles.  By early August, Republican conservatives like Bob Novak had written Murkowski’s political obit:

Murkowski, who has paid the price for cutting government programs and for appointing his daughter to the U.S. Senate, will come in third on Tuesday in the primary against conservative former Wasilla Mayor Sarah Palin (R) and businessman John Binkley (R). Palin will come in first, and she is also the most likely to keep the seat. Leaning Palin.

A conservative wave carried Palin to victory in a hotly contested Republican Primary. Signals went out from Washington to ditch Murkowski and go with the young fundamentalist Mayor.

Murkowski was soundly defeated.

Now perhaps Frank Murkowski was a jerk as Governor. I do not know. But I do know that Frank Murkowski was the only Republican willing to take on Jack Abramoff when Jack was at the top of his power. Murkowski may have been arrogant as Governor, but as a Senator he was the only Republican willing to stand up for the workers and victims of abuse on the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. He was the only Republican to be outraged by the labor abuse, human trafficking and the forced abortions protected by Abramoff, DeLay and their allies in Congress—weasels like Congressman Don Young of Alaska.

A July 2000 article in the Anchorage Daily News (Alaska allies at odds over U.S. Islands abuse) told the story of Murkowski’s heroic effort to do the right thing and face down the corruptionists in his Party:

When Alaska Sen. Frank Murkowski traveled to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands four years ago to investigate alleged human rights abuses, he found what he was looking for. Speaking on the Senate floor a year later, Murkowski said he ”visited a garment factory and talked with some Bangladesh workers who had not been paid and who were living in appalling conditions.”

At a more recent hearing before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that he chairs, Murkowski heard from a young woman who had been taken to Saipan as a minor and was forced into prostitution.

”This was occurring under the U.S. flag and supposedly with the protection all U.S. citizens enjoy under our Constitution,” Murkowski said in his Senate speech.

Based on this evidence and more, Murkowski pushed legislation through the Senate in February to correct some of the conditions in the Mariana Islands that many people believe have turned the island territory into a haven for foreign sweatshops that ship more than $1 billion worth of duty-free clothing to U.S. stores.

Murkowski’s bill sailed through his committee and was unanimously approved by the Senate. There was not one dissenting vote along the way. But there it died, stopped cold in the House by his Republican colleague Alaska Rep. Don Young, chairman of the House Resources Committee.

Why?

Young said he simply doesn’t believe such abuses have taken place.

”I’m not going to move anything,” Young said of Murkowski’s bill.

History has shown that Young was in the pocket of Abramoff and his sweatshop-owning Hong Kong based clients. Murkowski was the ONLY Republican willing to confront this abuse.

Murkowski had made powerful enemies by not playing along with the system of Republican corruption in Washington. In the end they took him out and replaced him with somebody they could get along with, the easily marketed Sarah Palin. And now she is the running mate to the favorite “reformer” of Republican corruptionists everywhere: John McCain.

She will be a center of scandal for years to come whether she stays in Alaska or comes to Washington. When he was running against Palin, Murkowski ran an ad that:

describes Palin as a scandal waiting to happen because of ethics issues.

I think he is spot on with that assessment.

McCain and Palin are wrapping themselves in a mask of reform. Republicans know that more scandals will break soon. The GOP brand is in for more indictments and bad news. Some will come out of the Abramoff scandal. Some will come from other sources. Their only hope is to fool voters into believing that they can clean up the mess they made.

McCain’s investigation cover-up of the Abramoff scandal has shown that he is a failure at reform (and then there is his campaign ran by and for lobbyists. Palin is the fresh face designated by the Right Wing to defeat the only Republican who ever challenged Abramoff at the height of his power in Washington. She is a bush league corruptionist but she is now being trained by the professional corruptionists running McCain’s campaign. More scandals are certain to follow her.

And the biggest one may be the recent contract she signed to build that gas pipeline. This strikes me as a deal where one should follow the money and the differences between her deal and the one pushed by Murkowski. I’ll bet that an examination of the money as well as the winners and losers in the deal will lead to scandal.

We must defeat these Republicans weasels and take this Country back!

We have to get to work and Take Action, Volunteer, Register people to Vote and Donate. Now is the time. Use your talents. Use your power.

Visit your neighbors. Talk to them. Work together. Organize your neighborhood for change and you will make connections that will last long pass November.

We have a Country to take back and now is the time to do it.
.
Cheers

Author: Rory B. Bellows

I would not joke around with a woman who knows how to handle an assault rifle.

Seriously, all you have to know about Palin is how she entered the national stage. This is a real life Dagny Taggart who built herself up from nothing. She beat an incumbent Republican Governor in a closed primary without the support of any party leadership. The Alaska GOP is the equivalent of the New Jersey Democrats in terms of corruption so any New Jersey reader would know just how hard it is to beat a sitting Governor in a primary with no party support. Hell, Rob Andrews had party support and he still lost by almost 30 points in a bid to unseat Frank Lautenberg.

In the general election she was outspent, faced a former Governor in the election and the national Democratic trend and won. Before anyone says it is just Alaska, one the real red states, the Alaska GOP congressional delegation is going to get swept away this fall.

Here is a prediction: She will devour Joe Dirt in the debate this fall.

AUthor: Rory B. Bellows

The MSM may have written the obituary for the conservative movement in America, but do not believe the hype. Republican Congressmen Dr. Paul Broun of Georgia was easily nominated in yesterday’s Georgia primary. While incumbent Congressmen winning a primary may not seem like a big deal, it is. The “Republican” establishment in Georgia opposed Broun. They ran Senate Minority Whip Barry Fleming, and outspent Broun by vast amounts. Despite the establishment ganging up on him, Broun demolished Fleming in the voting capturing 71% of the vote.

Broun is a strict fiscal conservative and received the endorsement of the Club for Growth in his re-election effort. Conservatives should take note. Broun is a principled conservative who votes against any bill not specifically authorized by the constitution. When this ideology is effectively articulated and backed up with deed, people buy into it. The Republican establishment in Georgia wanted a more “mainstream” Republican on the ballot this November. Where have these “mainstream” Republicans gotten the GOP? Mainstream Republicans led the GOP to the outrageous spending that led to corruption and their ouster as the majority party. “Mainstream” Republicans led the Party to abandon its principles in foreign policy from non-interventionist to expansionist. The Republican Party under George Bush has overseen the expansion of the nation building policy candidate Bush heroically campaigned against in the 2000 election.

The party needs to take note of one other thing: Broun was an incumbent because he won in 2006 while other so-called “mainstream” Republicans went down to defeat in states all across the country. Maybe it is time to pay attention to what actually works and what voters will go for as opposed to run supposedly more competent and ethical versions of the candidates who were drummed out of office.

There is now a rumor going around that Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT-McCain) will be kicked out of the Democratic Caucus and lose his Chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee.  He was given that position after he agreed to caucus with the Democrats in 2006, when they needed him to give them the lead.

Now, a website, LiebermanMustGo.com, is asking people to sign a petition for Lieberman to lose his chairmanship and be kicked out of the caucus after the November elections, when the Democrats are expected to pick up more seats, so they won’t need him anymore.  The petition has now gathered over 48,000 signatures.  Robert Greenwald, who helped design the site, said, “Given that Lieberman is actively and aggressively attacking the candidate for presidency of his party, it seems pretty clear he should not be given any of the perks that come with being a member of the Democratic Party.”

The whole thing started when Lieberman agreed to address the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota.

Lieberman told reporters that he left the weekly lunch of the Senate Democrats on Tuesday when criticisms of McCain’s energy policies came up, saying, “I just didn’t feel it was appropriate for me to be there.”  Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) said that a Senator came up to him to complain about Lieberman.  Durbin told reporters, “It was the right thing to do.  This is a delicate situation.”  Sorry, Mr. Durbin, but that’s not being a very good party whip right there.  Good for Lieberman, bad for you and the party.

Asked about crossing a point of no return, Lieberman told reporters, “I don’t have any line that I have in my mind.  If it happened, I’d know it when I saw it.”  He, however, said that he doesn’t expect to leave the Democratic caucus any time soon: “Senator Reid has been easy to work with.  I have a lot of good friends in the caucus, and I don’t have any intention of doing that before the end of this session of Congress.”

And Lieberman isn’t worried about getting kicked out of his position, saying, “That decision is up to my colleagues in the Democratic caucus next year.  I’m going to do what I think is right now and not worry about what the political consequences may be for me.  I strongly support John McCain.  I believe in him, his strength, his principle, his effectiveness, so if he thought that I could help him by speaking at the Republican convention, I would do that.  And I would do it really not to go and attack anybody but to explain why I as a Democrat have crossed party lines to support John McCain and why I hope a lot of other Democrats and independents will do the same.”

Lately, Lieberman has been critical of Barack Obama; on a CNN interview he called him “naïve” on Iran, and said, The fact that the spokesperson for Hamas would say they would welcome the election of Senator Obama really does raise the question, ‘Why?’”

He criticized Obama’s lack of a consistent stance on issues during a FOX interview, saying, “Senator Obama has really moved.  Since he clinched the nomination a month ago, he has altered and nuanced more big positions more quickly than I can remember any other presidential nominee.”

Here are some reactions from Senators:

• Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “I very much regret what he’s doing, candidly, but there isn’t anything I can do about it, and that’s really all I want to say.”
• Chris Dodd (D-CT): “I think they’re heading in the wrong direction.  And I see Joe as an ally on most matters and a person who’s been supportive of Democrats here on most issues.”
• Susan Collins (R-ME) (Lieberman has donated to her campaign): “My hope is that he will not be punished for doing what he thinks is right.”
• Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV): “Anytime we have a problem here, with the exception of Iraq, Joe Lieberman’s with us.  So I wish people would leave him alone.  We’ll get to next year when we get there.”

I say he should just stand up one day, give ‘em the finger and move to the other side of the aisle.  That’s some C-SPAN daytime drama for ya!

If I were him, I would not let them use me, just to kick me to the side of the road when they don’t want me anymore.  Show them that they can’t just use you and then dump you.

Now, I say all of this, but I should note that I disagree with Lieberman on most issues.  If McCain were to pick him as his VP (which Lieberman said he does not want, nor expect), it’d be stupid of McCain.  You don’t pick a VP because you agree with them on one main issue.

I like Lieberman, but he’s a liberal - but the Democrats would be stupid to do this to him.  It could come to haunt them.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
:: :: :: :: ::

In 2006, the will of the voters was clear, we wanted change; not just any change, but an end to the Iraq War and accountability for President Bush and his cronies. We went to the polls and were vocal about the change we sought.  As reported at TomDispatch.com, when questioned at the polls, voters declared they were voting “against the war,” clearly believing Democrats would deliver. 

Voters also appeared to be voting for accountability and possibly for the launching of impeachment hearings as well. Polls prior to the election found that a majority of Americans believed a Democratic Congress would impeach. Candidates who campaigned on the theme of accountability, including Keith Ellison (Dem., Minnesota) who promised impeachment, did well. Polls show that a majority of Americans favor impeachment or wish Bush’s presidency were over. Voters in November even booted out a couple of Republicans who had turned against the war, saying that they were voting for a Democratic majority so that the Democrats could investigate the war as well as end it — something a majority of Americans continue to say they want.

As such, no new Republicans were elected and 30 new Democrats were sent to Washington. Sadly, it was clear from the beginning that the Democrats had no intentions of adhering to the will of the people. 

Prior to the election, Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi had already ordered the Democrats in the House to oppose impeachment, but she had not ordered them to support the war. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), chaired by Congressman Rahm Emanuel, however, directed most of its financial support to candidates who did not call for ending the war. Of the 22 candidates funded by the DCCC, only 8 won. The rest of the victorious Democratic challengers, many of them strongly opposed to the war, got themselves elected without Emanuel’s help.

Not only was it clear through their actions and statements that the Democratic leadership had no plans of impeaching President Bush (which I will address shortly) or ending the war, once elected Chairman Emanuel made it clear that the war was not a priority. Instead, the Democrats focused on simpler, safer proposals, preferring to utilize other issues to bludgeon the Republicans. This  was the motivation of the much hyped, first 100 hours.

As reported in the Washington Post:

Pelosi’s agenda for the first 100 hours is a set of tight, doable proposals…

And here’s what Emanuel doesn’t want to do: fall into the political trap of chasing overambitious or potentially unpopular measures. Ask about universal health care, and he shakes his head. Four smart presidents — Truman, Johnson, Nixon and Clinton — tried and failed. That one can wait. Reform of Social Security and other entitlements? Too big, too woolly, too risky. If the president wants to propose big changes to entitlements, he can lead the charge.

The secret for the Democrats, says Emanuel, is to remain the party of reform and change. The country is angry, and it will only get more so as the problems in Iraq deepen. Don’t look to Emanuel’s Democrats for solutions on Iraq. It’s Bush’s war, and as it splinters the structure of GOP power, the Democrats are waiting to pick up the pieces.

The Democrats never had any intention of ending the war. Instead they chose to wait it out to use during the 2008 election. However, they waited too long, and now that the media is circulating the “surge is working” meme and violence in Iraq has decreased, the Democratic Selectee is planning on easing off of his previously iron-clad promise to bring the troops home. However, even more egregious, the Democrats refuse to hold President Bush accountable for the illegal war they allow him to continue to wage: 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ruled out any impeachment of Bush as soon as the Democrats won control of Congress in November 2006. Impeachment resolutions against Cheney were introduced in May and November of 2007 and killed each time by the Democrats, in the same fashion as the Bush impeachment resolution Wednesday.

There is no question that, unlike Bill Clinton, who was impeached for lying about a private sexual encounter, George W. Bush is guilty of offenses that meet the “high crimes and misdemeanors” standard set by the US Constitution.

The adamant opposition to impeachment proceedings on the part of Pelosi, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and the rest of the Democratic leadership does not stem from a belief that such proceedings would be unpopular. According to public opinion polls, a majority of the American people and an overwhelming majority of Democratic voters favor Bush’s impeachment and removal from office.

…

The Democratic leadership opposes impeachment not on legal, but on political and class grounds…The Democrats want to replace Bush as chief executive with one of their own, and their rejection of impeachment is one more effort to demonstrate to the ruling class that they will be more “responsible” in their conduct than their Republican opponents (who impeached Bill Clinton as he was ordering bombing raids against the Iraq of Saddam Hussein).

…

The Democrats regained control of the House in November 2006, in an election dominated by popular hostility to the war in Iraq and to the Bush presidency. Conyers and other Democrats had demanded impeachment hearings when they were in the minority and could not do anything about it. As soon as they became the majority, they abruptly dropped the issue and declared they would have nothing to do with it.

…

Only last month, Conyers sent a letter to Bush warning him that “if you do not obtain the constitutionally required congressional authorization before launching preemptive military strikes against Iran or any other nation, impeachment proceedings should be pursued.”

The unanimous rejection of impeachment proceedings by the Democrats shows that this warning was an empty threat. 

If that wasn’t enough, the complete roll over on FISA by Congressional Democrats is another clear signal that they have no intentions of fighting the big battles or delivering to their constituencies and holding President Bush accountable. In fact, they gave him more than he even wanted:

…the GOP couldn’t even wait for the ink to dry on this “compromise” before publicly — and accurately — boasting that they not only got everything they want, but got even more than they dreamed they would get. To The New York Times‘ Eric Lichtblau, GOP House Whip Roy Blunt derided the telecom amnesty provision as nothing more than a “formality” which would inevitably lead to the immediate and automatic dismissal of all lawsuits against the telecoms, while Sen. Kit Bond taunted the Democrats for giving away even more than they had to in order to get a deal: “I think the White House got a better deal than they even had hoped to get.”

Lichtblau himself noted that “the White House immediately endorsed the proposal” and wrote that the bill “represents a major victory for the White House after months of dispute.” Reporters Dan Eggen and Paul Kane were even more blunt and derisive in The Washington Post, noting that the Democrats “hand[ed] President Bush one of the last major legislative victories he is likely to achieve”; that “the deal appears to give Bush and his aides, including Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, much of what they sought in a new surveillance law”; and that “the negotiations underscored the political calculation made by many Democrats who werefearful that Republicans would cast them as soft on terrorismduring an election year.”

Surrendering and fearful: that’s the face of the Democratic Party. It’s how they show they’re not weak. The most succinct summary of what the Democrats just “negotiated” came from Russ Feingold: “The proposed FISA deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation.” Numerous other Democratic office-holders and Congressional candidates scornfully characterized this bill for what it is, including Andrea Miller, a Democratic nominee for Congress in Virginia, who said: “We have a Democratic majority in the House and yet they seem to be as confused by the meaning of the Constitution as the Republicans.” 

As we all know, Obama also agreed to the FISA capitulation in direct contradiction of his promise to filibuster. 

Congressional Democrats and our new Selectee have been grave disappointments. They have shown time and time again that they will subvert or ignore the will of the people in order to win an election. They have failed to act decisively to end the Iraq War, preferring instead to let more soldiers and innocents die in order to gain a perceived upper-hand in the presidential election. They have adamantly refused to hold President Bush accountable for his illegal and corrupt actions and instead have condoned and retroactively forgiven his most egregious transgressions.  

As voters, we gave the Democrats a chance to end the war, hold President Bush accountable, and protect our Constitution and our privacy. Instead of heeding the will of their constituents, they have squandered their majority and electoral mandate, hoping to dupe us into “rewarding” them in November by electing their appointed presidential candidate. 

In my estimation, the Democratic powers that be have selected Senator Obama, as opposed to Senator Clinton, because with his lack of experience and relative lack of political knowledge, savvy and strength, his potential presidency will provide Congressional leaders with more power and status than the strong executive and independent force that would be a Hillary Rodham Clinton presidency. In short, they stand to gain more from a weak Executive than a strong one. 

It’s time to tell the Democrats No Deal. The Democrats need to prove that they have the principles, integrity and courage to fight for their espoused principles and stand by their platform promises. In November, the Democrats will most likely have a larger Senate and House majority. However, for numerous reasons, they must not and will not regain the White House. A divided government will force the Democrats to prove their grit and commitment to the Party’s core values and will hold the Republican Party in check, giving McCain even more cover to embrace his maverick streak and govern from the center. 

Senator Obama is right about one thing: We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. We, the people, must be the ones to hold both Parties accountable. We should and will do so in November. The Parties must once again be beholden to the voters. For too long we have entrusted our politicians with our power. In November, we take it back, and demand results. 

We must join together and Just Say No Deal, for “If the Parties won’t uphold Democratic principles, who will? If the voters don’t hold the Parties accountable, who will?”

So, a few days ago, the Associated Press came out with a story about some black Republicans selling out their beliefs just to “VOTE FOR A BLACK MAN!!!”  Personally, I think this is despicable and racist, and it would be just as bad as Jesse Jackson voting for Alan Keyes just to get a black man elected.

How are we supposed to fulfill the “goal” of electing an African American, ending race, if we’re VOTING BASED ON  RACE?!?!  It just appalls me that these people are so shallow.

Here’s  some quotes:

Black conservative talk show host, Armstrong Williams, who has never voted for a single Democrat his whole life, told AP, “I don’t necessarily like his policies; I don’t like much that he advocates, but for the first time in my life, history thrusts me to really seriously think about it.  I can honestly say I have no idea who I’m going to pull that lever for in November.  And to me, that’s incredible.  Among black conservatives.  They tell me privately, it would be very hard to vote against him in November.”

That’s ridiculous.  I would never just vote for the white guy just because he’s white.  I’ll vote for a person because I agree with them.  Whether they’re white, black, Asian, Hispanic, or any other race!

Williams went on to say that his  82-year-old mother, who has also never voted for a Democrat, will vote for Obama, “She is so proud of Senator Barack Obama, and she has made it clear to all of us that she’s voting for him in November.  That is historic.  Every time I call her, she asks, ‘How’s Obama doing?’  They feel as if they are a part of this.  Because she said, given the history of this country, she never thought she’d ever live to see this moment.”

And that’s so sad.  An 82-year-old selling out her beliefs just to vote for somebody based on the color of his skin.

J.C. Watts, a former Oklahoma Congressman said that he’s still a Republican, but thinks that the party often neglects blacks and that the Democrats reach out to them.  “And Obama highlights that even more.  Republicans often seem indifferent to those things,” Watts said.  He also told reporters that he thinks Obama will focus on poverty and urban policy.

Writer, and actor on “The Cosby Show,” Joseph C. Phillips began calling himself an “Obamacan” or an Obama Republican earlier this year, but since then has begun to question his support for Obama.  He told AP, “I am wondering if this is the time where we get over the hump, where an Obama victory will finally, at long last, move us beyond some of the old conversations about race.  That possibly, just possibly, this great country can finally be forgiven for its original sin, or find some absolution.  We have to not judge him based on his race, but on his desirability as a political candidate.  And based on that, I have a lot of disagreements with him on a lot of issues.  I go back and forth.”

At least he realizes that voting for Obama to end racism in politics would be ironic, but that makes him look even more ridiculous when he says that he still might do it.

John McWhorter, a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute and New York Sun columnist (who calls himself a moderate), says that Obama’s victory in the Democratic primary “proves that while there still is some racism in the United States, there is not enough to matter in any serious manner.  This is a watershed moment.  Obama is probably more to the left than I would prefer on a lot of issues.  But this issue of getting past race for real is such a wedge issue for me.  And he is so intelligent, and I think he would be a perfectly competent president, that I’m for him.  I want him to get in because, in a way, it will put me out of a job.”

Again - who cares if a black man EVER gets elected President.  And who cares if we ONLY have black men elected President for the rest of the lifetime of this country.  Vote for somebody based on issues, not on skin color.

Former Massachusetts Senator, moderate black Republican, Edward Brooke said that he is ”extremely proud and confident and joyful” at how well Obama is doing.  He called Obama “a worthy bearer of the torch,” in reference to his nomination.  He told the AP that race won’t be a factor in who he votes for, and went on to say, “This is the most important election in our history.  And with the world in the condition that it is, I think we’ve got to get the best person we can get.”

One black Republican, the former Maryland Lt. Governor and failed Senatorial candidate in 2006, Michael Steele, says that “come November, I will do everything in my power to defeat him.  I think people who try to put this sort of messianic mantle on Barack’s nomination are a little bit misguided.”

I always liked him!

Another black Republican, James T. Harris, a radio talk show host in Milwaukee, told the AP that he opposes Obama “with love in my heart.  We are of the same generation.  He’s African American and I’m an American of African descent.  We both have lovely wives and beautiful children.  Other than that, we’ve got nothing in common.  I hope he loses every state.”

Now - that’s an attitude I like to see!

I hope that black Republicans don’t sell out their beliefs just because of race, and I also hope that people don’t vote for McCain out of racism either.  Sadly, I think both will happen.  I know right here in Wayne County, we have 2 VERY racist cities, Taylor and Wyandotte, and although Detroit will help Obama, he may lose a lot of support in those 2 cities (Taylor is a pretty big city and is a Democratic stronghold in the county).

Let’s move past race and vote on the issues!

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
:: :: :: :: ::

Part I - 2000-2007 Domestic Political

I am fast approaching 40 hours of being awake, hoping desperately that the Oregon Primary results showing the clear message of how the majority of the Democratic Party loyalists, Independents and cross-over Republicans, in a state highly reflective of the nation as a whole, would have brought a gracious concession speech by Hillary Rodham Clinton earlier today, or at the very minimum a toning down of the rhetoric as the HRC campaign starts to fall-in behind the rest of the Party. Yet, we did not see this happen but rather all of us watched stupefied as Mrs. Clinton turned up the heat once again with renewed vigor, with renewed & reformulated no win strategies to obtain the nomination. This never ending slogg through the mud and in the trenches churns on.

With every day this continues, the burden of the World’s future uncertainty weighs down more heavily than the day before upon my shoulders. It piles on further, this load of knowledge I carry around with me, stacks yet one more layer higher. The tipping point, between carrying on another day and resignation that things will not get better, teeters on a fine line between my losing it completely and my hope that a viable, just conclusion will be reached. The destination floats on the horizon, yet the wind seems to be constantly blowing in the opposite direction.

A journey to Hell and back started seven years ago and 6 months from now. A journey that never was to be undertaken, one planned at the latest of moments, one that was forced upon an unwilling nation, an unwilling soul, an unbelieving person, a foreshadow of bad things to come.

At mid journey, well after storms with no warning were weathered that diverted our course into storms that were made, a small passage was spied of a speedy route home. The tempest was raging, the course was aligned, but all was for naught as the channel was denied. A resignation of reality settled in for that which could not be happening, but reality is harsh at times and this was like no other and leaving was denied. The journey forced upon me continued with moments of clearing and visions of future happiness glittered off distant waves, only to fade and be stolen by continued storms on the horizons, one after the next. The only difference between two was intensity, duration and from the direction they came. The end result is always the same, more of my ship is damaged, torn and shattered and a port must be reached to make needed repairs to advert disaster.

A haven was reached a year plus half ago, when fair weather looked promising, when repairs could be made, but as always it was short lived and little could be accomplished. Since then the weather has moderated from a constant barrage to a ongoing headache. Flickers of sun have peaked through the clouds this past year, but the continual battering on my being, leaves it far from well and locked below deck. It is as though, weathering so much Hell has killed all hope and soaks the spark of my desire. I have become a shell of my past self hoping for hope, yet the burdens of all I know weighs on me further.

The outlook that the journey was soon to end and most of it had past, opened the chance of a spark in that which interests me, yet again that hope is squashed.

Hell, I can’t keep this parable going, and why should I continue to beat around the bush. A message of my subconscious coming out there? I guess there is no denying it, Bush has brought my life Hell. Don’t get me wrong, I have suffered no worse economically under his complete disregard for any fiscal policy, than I have under my self-imposed breaks from my work. If I counted up the months I’ve worked over the past years and compared them to the ones I’ve “taken” off, I really need not do so as it is probably half-half. Money comes easily to me, sanity does not. I can’t be at peace with my myself, when world around me is a mess and there is nothing that I can do except hope for a change.

Hope, that is something I have lost many years ago, mostly likely following the 2004 elections. I don’t know what it was like in houses of the Bible Thumpers. I don’t envision parties, excitement and jubilation about what they had won, but rather quiet reservation and “hey, we just won.” But I know what it was amongst my friends. Silence. A complete disbelief that yet again some “bellweather” Rustbelt, shit of a state couldn’t get their asses together and boot this son-of-bitch from office.

Am I too hard on Ohio, hell fucking no! What part of you are losing jobs faster than a kid eating French fries at McDonald’s can you not understand? “Support the troops,” my ass! This was a war of choice to make companies rich, not to protect anyone but the pockets of Cheney et. al. “Support the Troops” was nothing more than another catch phrase and buzz word to allow more of the same to continue, a distraction form the true agenda of the Bush administration and Neo-Con slime. “Support the Troops” would have been a vote to get them the hell out of Iraq, not leave them to die! Idiots, true fucking idiots, these thoughtless lemmings of a clueless mind! I’ll bring you “good manufacturing jobs to Ohio” while at the same time, his economic advisors are changing the definition of “manufacturing sector” jobs to include food assembly at your local Burger King & Wendy’s, paying dirt minus taxes.

I have no patience with the voters in middle America anymore. They would rather choose ideology over bread & butter on their tables, Church over their houses and guns over their cars! They watch life as they know it slowly ever so slowly disintegrate around them, by this factory closing one month, followed by another larger business closing the next and all that they invested of their lives into making that life that they new, simply kicked them out, told them to have a nice life, and locked the doors. Yet, still they chose Guns & God or Life and Food.

Everything Barack Obama has said so far has been accurate, that is if these people, too stupid to open their eyes and look around them, assess their situation objectively instead of through rose colored lenses of “God’s glow” they might actually see what the hell they are doing to themselves. Why does the rest of the country have to excuse them for their ignorance of what goes on in their world, in their nation, in their government and in their town? Why do I have to dumb myself down to their level because I too work, yet because I have a college education and cannot turn of my brain to what is happening around me, I am now a Demon because I choose to be aware of my surroundings and engage with my world instead of being oblivious too it?

Screw this excuse, that I hear from Chris Matthews and others, these hard working American’s of the Rust Belt, Breadbasket and Appalachia, are more tired than I and therefore are given a pass for not paying attention to what is going on! Maybe if for once they paid attention, instead of stating “I can’t vote for a black man,” or “Well, his middle name is Hussein and that is petty close to Saddam for me,” their son or daughter might not be coming home in a casket from Iraq. Why do people with education have to be made to feel bad for being able to think, for being engaged? While at the same time, all these people that are being most hurt by things they are too lazy to know and remain engaged to what is causing them harm, are given a free pass to be stupid?!

Democracy is not a right, it is something that is earned. Don’t get me wrong, I have not served and I honor those that do, whether this country is right or wrong. But, in the very same breath, I am expected to defend both the soldier and those too lazy to remain engaged from enemies within. The domestic threat, the corrupt politician, the lobbyist who offers bribes for political favors. No one ever turns the the page and mentions our President is an “enemy” of the State, of the Nation and most certainly, an Enemy of Democracy! Lying us into a war, a war of aggression where the enemy, once our friend, was well contained within the bounds of the No-Fly Zone, that provided economically cheap “live” military targets for our Air Force, and presently absolutely no threat to our security, domestic or abroad.

I can see it now, the yellow “support our troops” magnets are coming out now. He just called the President George W. Bush the enemy! Yes, I did and it is liberating to do so! Having to live under the vigil eye of the thought police, which ironically can not even look out for their own best interests and require people like me to make sure their rights to watch me are not taken away because they are too focused on a diversion, not the main event. While they watch devious, Liberal elite, rabble-roussers like myself speak out about the corruption they have been programed to ignore. Their best “friends” the Bush Administration is taking away yet another one of their rights, and they don’t ever realize it. The call me a traitor or unpatriotic, a menace to democracy, while pointing a finger in my direction, and just behind their back, another right is taken away.

But they don’t need to worry, their token Savior, won’t touch their most important rights. There right to bear arms, or an entire arsenal for that matter; their right to tell women what they can do with their bodies; their right to control what their children learn in school about “not-science;” and their right to remain ignorant. He wouldn’t dare tamper with these, because for year after year he has promised them they could have all these “rights” plus made them a deal they could not refuse. In exchange for their unwavering support and eternal vote he agreed to force this rights on the people of the entire nation, whether they wanted them or not. Then as they were focused on making all abide by God’s will in their blind ignorance, he stole away from them all other rights they didn’t even know they had.

to be continued….

Mark Sanford, the republican governor of South Carolina, is a name that is undoubtedly on the short list to be John McCain’s running mate. Like Senator John Thune, another name on the McCain VP short list, Sanford is socially conservative, well liked by the GOP base, is younger than McCain and looks the part of VP. However, Sanford has an advantage over Thune, he has executive experience.

Sanford was elected to the House of Representatives in 1994 and served three terms, which was in keeping with a campaign promise he made to serve no more than three terms in Congress. In 2002, he defeated incumbent governor James Hodges, a democrat, and became the 115th governor of South Carolina. In the elections of 2006, an election cycle that devastated republicans at every level of government across the country, Sanford was easily reelected to a second term as governor, beating democrat Tommy Moore by eleven points.

It is known that Sanford is campaigning for number two slot on the GOP ticket. In March, he wrote a lengthy op-ed in The Wall Street Journal that praised John McCain and attacked Senators Obama and Clinton. Additionally, Sanford’s national media presence has increased significantly since December 2007. In the lead up to the South Carolina GOP primary, Sanford went on the cable news networks to say why the republicans need to win the White House. After McCain became the presumptive GOP nominee, Sanford continued his television appearances, but added to his repertoire a great deal of high praise for Senator McCain. Additionally, Sanford wrote a column for the newspaper, The State, in which he praised Barack Obama, but said that he disagrees with him on numerous policies. The piece was designed to push Democratic voters towards Obama in the primaries and to appeal to swing voters in the general election.

The selection of Mark Sanford would do more than placate the GOP base, it would help McCain with the electoral map (especially if Senator Obama is the Democratic presidential nominee). Obama’s win in the South Carolina primary showed that he has the potential to be competitive enough in the state that it would force McCain to expend limited resources fending off an Obama presence. With Sanford on the ticket, it would not only help to prevent Obama from forcing McCain to spend money in South Carolina, but it could help McCain in Virginia, a state that Democrats believe that Obama could win.

Without a doubt, Mark Sanford would be a safe and prudent pick for Senator McCain. As a running mate, he would be an effective campaigner, helping to unify republicans and ensuring a good turnout among the GOP base. Lastly, Sanford passes the most important VP test: he has the ability and is qualified to perform the duties of the Office of the President of the United States.

So, I don’t know how many of you remember the 2006 election campaign cycle events (I do - I always said that Lieberman would lose his primary and win as an Independent.  I said it at the very start of 2006 and got laughed at, and look what happened).  Anyway, Joe Liberman and his campaign made statements that implied that joe2006.com was hacked by Ned Lamont (Dem) supporters / the Lamont campaign through a denial of service attack.

While the site was down, the Lieberman site said that Lamont should “make an unqualified statement denouncing this kind of dirty campaign trick and to demand whoever is responsible to cease and desist immediately.”

Well, the FBI office in New Haven was called in to investigate, and part of their findings were recently released:

“The server that hosted the joe2006.com Web site failed because it was overutilized and misconfigured.  There was no evidence of attack.”  The website went down after “Lieberman officials continually exceeded a configured limit of 100 e-mails per hour the night before the primary” (The Advocate).

The system administrator misinterpreted the root cause. The system administrator finally declared the server was being attacked and the Lieberman campaign accused the Ned Lamont campaign. The news reported this on Aug. 8, 2006, causing additional Web traffic to visit the site.

The additional Web traffic then overwhelmed the Web server. . . . Web traffic pattern analysis reports and Web logging that was available did not demonstrate traffic that was indicative of a denial of service attack.

New Haven will be administratively closing this investigation.

So, Lieberman and his campaign look kinda foolish now, but he still got elected, so I don’t think it’ll make him lose too much sleep.  It would’ve been interesting if the results were released before the general election though - I think Lieberman would’ve lost as a result of these results.

Done Reporting,

Ranting Republican
:: :: :: :: ::

That’s the 2008 version of 2004’s Flip-Flopper. In 2006, prior to the midterm elections, John McCain wagged his finger at all the seemingly fair-weather republicans (hah) for trying to distance themselves from Bush. He told us that he wasn’t going to be running for president even though many people on both sides thought he would be a good idea (at the time). He scolded his republican allies for priding themselves on how they differ from George Bush and proceeded to tell us to stand by our president. Because he is our president.

Does anyone besides me remember this?

Anyways, back when people wanted him to run and he didn’t want to run, he wagged his finger at all the naughty republicans and all of us democrats for abandoning Bush. Well, now that he’s the front running republican, I wonder if people will remember such insults. Are you going to let it slide that he told us to stand behind Bush simply because he is our president? I’m not going to respect anyone who says to follow authority simply because it is authority.

Along those lines, check out this buried gem by Guiliani:

“Freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.”

As you may remember, Democrats ran their exceedingly dishonest 06 campaign hypocritically criticizing Republicans for pork, and promising earmark reform,  with Nancy Pelosi endlessly repeating the sound bite, “it will take a woman to clean up the house!”

Not to excuse Republican earmarks, but the idea that Democrats would be any better was risible then and has only become demonstrably so now. If anything, earmark spending has increased under Democrats, and become much less transparent since all pork is now slipped into legislation in the dead of night in committee where no one but Democrats has a chance to see, read or even vote on them.

But how quickly they have changed their tune! Now that Democrats are in charge, meaningful reform was dropped, Republican calls for tougher reform were ignored, and leading Democrats like Steny Hoyer and Rahm Emmanuel are trying to convince Americans that earmarks are actually good!

Now, Democrats have passed an appropriations bill laden with 9,000 earmarks, the majority of which were slipped in in committee.

But as John Fund explains, President Bush stands poised to show some real leadership:

This week President Bush will make one of the most important decisions of his remaining time in office. It won’t get headlines or lead the news, but it could play a major role in deciding whether this country ever gets any kind of grip on the constantly growing federal budget.

Just before Christmas, Congress sent Mr. Bush a $516 billion omnibus spending bill stuffed with 8,993 special-interest earmarks. To make matters worse, most of the earmarks aren’t even in the language of the law itself. They were slipped into a 900-page “committee report” that represented the wish-lists of the Senate and House appropriations committees. Almost no one got a chance to read that report before the budget was passed late at night and with barely a day for members to review it.

Mr. Bush agreed to sign the budget but said he was disappointed at Congress’s failure to overcome its earmark addiction. He announced he was asking his budget director, Jim Nussle, “to review options for dealing with the wasteful spending in the omnibus bill.”

What Mr. Bush knows, and Congress doesn’t want the taxpayers to know, is that the vast majority of the offending earmarks–the ones that aren’t part of the actual budget law and were instead “air-dropped” into the committee report–aren’t legally binding. A Dec. 18 legal analysis by the Congressional Research Service found that most of the committee reports have not been formally passed by both houses and “presented” to the President for signing, and thus have not become law. “President Bush could ignore the 90% of earmarks that never make it to the floor of the House or Senate for a vote,” says Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, who has read the CRS report. “He doesn’t need a line-item veto.” [read more]

This is exactly the kind of fight President Bush and Republicans should pick! And we encourage them to draw as much attention to it as possible. There is no down side. It’s good for the country and good for Republicans. Democrats have utterly failed to pass any meaningful reforms, they’ve made earmarks less transparent, are passing just as many, if not more and the American people should be made aware of it.

I only wish he’d done it sooner.

Democrats oppose the war in Iraq. We all know that…now.

They were for it — when it was going well — when it was popular. But when the going got tough, as it always does in war, Democrats saw an opportunity — Democrats got going.

They campaigned in ‘06 promising to change direction in Iraq. They refused to say what that new direction would be, but when they won, they nevertheless claimed a mandate to pull out of Iraq.

The problem that has arisen for Democrats since then is that America has changed course in Iraq — things have gotten dramatically better on the ground, Iraqis are joining with America to fight terrorists and insurgents alike, Iraqis who had fled are returning in droves, and violence of all kinds has dropped exponentially.

In other words, thanks to President Bush and General Petraeus, the man Democrats smeared as a liar and betrayer of the nation, we are winning! And Democrats have fought that victory kicking and screaming every step of the way.

Now the Democrats are pinning all their hopes on the heretofore “lack of political reconciliation” in Iraq. (This from the party that has blocked desperately needed energy policy, social security, healthcare and other reforms for seven years.)  But the idea that America should leave an increasingly peaceful Iraq to descend into chaos, dragging the greater middle east with it because Iraqi politicians are guilty of being not even as viciously partisan as Democrats, will never fly with the American people. Nor should it.

I have little doubt now that Iraqi leaders will work out their differences. Not simply because reports suggest that that is precisely what is going on behind the scenes, but because they must. The Iraqi people have shown by joining the fight, that they will not accept anything less.

The fact is that Democrats have completely boxed themselves in.

They have proven with their opportunistic vacillating that they are unfit to command the nation’s defenses. National security requires strength and resolve. Democrats have exposed themselves as weak and untrustworthy.

They long ago declared the increasingly successful war, “lost”. They have since done nearly everything in their power to bring about that result. They branded the highly successful surge a “failure”.

President Bush and Republicans are on the way to turning an avowed enemy of the United States with the capability to produce and disperse WMD into a moderate democracy and ally to America.

Democrats will never be able to claim any responsibility for success in Iraq — they are long past the point of no return on that flip-flop. And most importantly, the American people will hold them responsible for trying their best to scuttle it.

“Kharma” is coming for the Democrats, and it’s not happy.

Says Democrats are betraying principles, poisoning politics, and undermining America’s interests for partisan gain.

The man the Democrat party so respected and admired that they made him their Vice-Presidential nominee just a few short years ago, has leveled a scathing rebuke at the Democrat party for abandoning the principles of Truman, Roosevelt and Kennedy, betraying America’s interests and poisoning the American political atmosphere for political gain. He has blasted the Democrat base for their hate-driven “paranoia…delusion and deception.”…

In other words Senator Lieberman (who was overwhelmingly re-elected by his home state of Connecticut despite an attempt by radical leftists to throw him out) has admitted what all Republicans and thinking-independents have known for a long time — Democrats intentionally changed their position on Iraq for partisan gain when the going got tough and have since done everything in their power to undermine the war effort and tear apart the country for their own political gain:

“Since retaking Congress in November 2006, the top foreign policy priority of the Democratic Party has not been to expand the size of our military for the war on terror or to strengthen our democracy promotion efforts in the Middle East or to prevail in Afghanistan. It has been to pull our troops out of Iraq, to abandon the democratically-elected government there, and to hand a defeat to President Bush.

Iraq has become the singular litmus test for Democratic candidates. No Democratic presidential primary candidate today speaks of America’s moral or strategic responsibility to stand with the Iraqi people against the totalitarian forces of radical Islam, or of the consequences of handing a victory in Iraq to Al Qaeda and Iran. And if they did, their campaign would be as unsuccessful as mine was in 2006. Even as evidence has mounted that General Petraeus’ new counterinsurgency strategy is succeeding, Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq, reluctant to acknowledge the progress we are now achieving, or even that that progress has enabled us to begin drawing down our troops there.

Part of the explanation for this, I think, comes back to ideology. For all of our efforts in the 1990s to rehabilitate a strong Democratic foreign policy tradition, anti-war sentiment remains the dominant galvanizing force among a significant segment of the Democratic base.

But another reason for the Democratic flip-flop on foreign policy over the past few years is less substantive. For many Democrats, the guiding conviction in foreign policy isn’t pacifism or isolationism—it is distrust and disdain of Republicans in general, and President Bush in particular.

In this regard, the Democratic foreign policy worldview has become defined by the same reflexive, blind opposition to the President that defined Republicans in the 1990s – even when it means repudiating the very principles and policies that Democrats as a party have stood for, at our best and strongest…

First, several left-wing blogs seized upon the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, offering wild conspiracy theories about how it could be used to authorize the use of military force against Iran.

These were absurd arguments. The text of our amendment contained nothing—nothing—that could be construed as a green light for an attack on Iran. To claim that it did was an act of delusion or deception.

On the contrary, by calling for tougher sanctions on Iran, the intention of our amendment was to offer an alternative to war.

Nonetheless, the conspiracy theories started to spread. Although the Senate passed our amendment, 76-22, several Democrats, including some of the Democratic presidential candidates, soon began attacking it — and Senator Clinton, who voted for the amendment. In fact, some of the very same Democrats who had cosponsored the legislation in the spring, urging the designation of the IRGC, began denouncing our amendment for doing the exact same thing…

there is something profoundly wrong—something that should trouble all of us—when we have elected Democratic officials who seem more worried about how the Bush administration might respond to Iran’s murder of our troops, than about the fact that Iran is murdering our troops.

There is likewise something profoundly wrong when we see candidates who are willing to pander to this politically paranoid, hyper-partisan sentiment in the Democratic base—even if it sends a message of weakness and division to the Iranian regime.

For me, this episode reinforces how far the Democratic Party of 2007 has strayed from the Democratic Party of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, and the Clinton-Gore administration.

That is why I call myself an Independent Democrat today. It is because my foreign policy convictions are the convictions that have traditionally animated the Democratic Party—but they exist in me today independent of the current Democratic Party, which has largely repudiated them.” [read more]

At the very same time Lieberman was excoriating the Democrat party for ignoring the overwhelming success of the surge, Nancy Pelosi took to the floor of the House to prove every single word he said:

“This (war strategy) is not working. There is no light at the end of the tunnel. We must reverse it. We will again make a distinction … to show a new direction in Iraq. The goal is ending it within a year and leave behind just a small force,” she said.

Comments that are flatly refuted by the latest reports from the Democrat-controlled GAO.

Our troops cannot both fight our enemies overseas and defend themselves from enemies here at home. A great deal has been said about Americans not sacrificing enough for this war effort. In many ways I think that’s true. The very least we can do — we must do — is continue to fight and defeat the enemies here at home while our boys risk their lives over there.

Jim Geraghty at National Review makes a point that I’ve been increasingly realizing of late: 2008 is not 2006. And despite the the mainstream media’s propaganda-blitz to the contrary — Democrats are not a shoo-in for the Presidency or even to hold onto congress.

Remember, after all, how Democrats came to power — no progress was being made in Iraq, the media was pushing wall-to-wall Tom Foley coverage, the conservative base was demoralized, and in perhaps the biggest pot-calling-the-kettle-black moment of all time, Democrats were promising to clean up the so-called, “culture of corruption.”

Instead, Democrats have taken more trips funded by lobbyists than Republicans, have spent billions more on earmarks than Republicans, and have spent the last 8-9 months usurping powers that the constitution does not grant them (commander in chief, foreign policy, administration hiring, etc.), trying to sabotage their country in wartime, and abusing their powers to launch over 300 investigations that have discovered absolutely zero wrongdoing and to try to legislate themselves into a permanent majority (amnesty, union card-check, “fairness” doctrine).

This doesn’t even account for the fact that Democrats seem dead-set on nominating the most corrupt presidential candidate since, well, her husband. A woman who is married to an impeached president, who appointed an impeached federal judge to lead her campaign, and who is getting her national-security advice from a man who stole and destroyed top-secret documents to cover-up the incompetence, negligence and corruption of her husband’s administration. Indeed, Democrats seem hell-bent on nominating her despite the fact that we seem to be picking up with the Clintons right where we left off  — with them taking illegal campaign contributions from the Chinese!

No, 2008 is anything but a lock for Democrats.

Remember also that the American people elected Democrats to make things better, and poll after poll shows Americans approve less of the Democrat controlled congress than they ever did the Republican congress. Indeed, under Nancy Pelosi (Quinnipiac favorability rating: 22%) and Harry Reid (Quinnipiac favorability rating: 9%), this congress has marked the lowest approval ratings ever recorded. Compared to Democrat congressional leaders, President Bush’s Quinnipiac approval rating of 35% is downright stratospheric.

And then there is the Democrat agenda, which is increasingly at odds with the American people’s wishes.

Hillary just stepped in it big-time because she couldn’t come out and admit that she supports givng drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. Why couldn’t she? Because voters oppose giving illegals drivers licenses by more than a 3 to 1 margin.

Charlie Rangel, chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, and the Democrat presidential candidates themselves have made it crystal clear that electing Democrats will guarantee monumental new tax-hikes.

Keep in mind also, that the surge in Iraq keeps working better and better. So much so that the GAO has declared it an official “trend,” and Democrats have opposed this winning strategy with gnashing teeth and slashing claws. And that Democrats, by playing to their pacifist base by denouncing military action against Iran have all-but promised they will practically give nuclear weapons to the mad-mullahs. This just after national polls show a majority of Americans would support military action to prevent the terrorist nation from going nuclear.

And finally, my fellow elephants, the “conventional wisdom” — which I think is neither conventional nor wise — that Democrats have 2008 locked up flies in the face of recent electoral history:

After the 1994 landslide “Gingrich Revolution,” Republicans thought Bill Clinton’s defeat in ‘96 was all but a done-deal. Americans thought different. Defeated, they decided they weren’t going to do well in 98 and as such, some strong candidates decided it wasn’t the year to run. But the GOP did well in 98 and could have done even better had they not been so timid.

And Republicans are forgetting perhaps the most important point of all — that the media and the polls always say the Democrats are poised to win the next election when its this far out. Al Gore and John Kerry enjoyed the same type of early hype. But the closer the election gets, the more the American people are forced to examine the choice they are being offered, and in 2008 that contrast could be starker than ever. Democrats are almost unabashedly running a platform of socialism and retreat in the war on terror.

As Geraghty says,

Next year could be a surprisingly good one for the GOP, though it’s clearly not guaranteed. The party will need good candidate recruitment, message discipline, a clear, unifying agenda, and a bit of good luck. [read the whole thing]

But the 2008 election is hardly guaranteed to be the, “Democratic-Tsunami Part Two,” that the media are portraying it is destined to be.

I would also add that Republicans need to quit feeling gloomy, quit listening to the media and start contributing and volunteering. If we do those things, I think we stand a very good chance of not only holding our own, but doing very well indeed.

I think liberals are quite possibly in for a very rude awakening in November, 2008. And personally, I look forward to it most enthusiastically.

“He reminds me of a used-car salesman.”

I can’t say how many times I’ve heard people use that phrase to describe the erstwhile Massachusetts Governor.

Willard Mitt Romney, used-car salesman.

I’ve thought the same thing — just about every time I’ve heard him speak. Sure, his suit is undoubtedly more expensive, but aside from that, the comparison is spot-on:

A big smile you never feel is quite sincere, year-round tan, slicked back brylcreem hair, and a hearty, enthusiastic pitch for his product. He seems friendly enough, and he sure says just about all the right things, but in the end you’re left with the distinct impression that he doesn’t believe a word of what he’s just told you — he just wants to sell you a car.

I’ve been wrestling with that impression as the campaign’s progressed. I’ve tried to be open-minded and listen to his pitch, but no matter how many times he tries to show me the car from a new angle, it’s as if some kid were there on the lot, playing with all the horns.

Mitt shows us how the model has a gun rack, and mentions he’s always been a big advocate for the second amendment. HONK!

He tells us this model doesn’t come with insurance, and that drivers should be free to choose the insurance plan thats right for them. HONK! (Didn’t he sign off on socialist health care?)

He says he’s pro-life. HONK! Pro-gay rights! HONK! Or was that anti-gay rights? HONK! Tough on spending! HONK! Will enforce immigration laws! HONK!

And now he tells us this model is just the change we need. HONK! HONK! HONK!

The ever-evolving Mitt has apparently decided, in his latest pitch, that the way to ingratiate himself to Republican buyers is to haul off and smack them in the face with some of his competitor’s false advertising and tell us everything wrong with the auto industry is our fault…

WASHINGTON (AP) - Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is scolding his party in a nationally broadcast ad Sunday and in an open letter to party leaders that asserts that the blame for Washington’s dysfunction does not rest just with Democrats.

…In the ad and in the letter, Romney wags his finger at the party, portraying Washington Republicans as riddled by scandal and profligate spending. Without naming them, he also distinguishes himself from President Bush and two of his main rivals on the subject of immigration.

“Washington is busy pointing fingers, assigning blame, and spending too much money. There is too much talk and too little action,” he writes in his letter, which will appear in full page ads Monday in New Hampshire’s Manchester Union-Leader and the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call.

“The blame, we must admit, does not belong to just one party. If we’re going to change Washington, Republicans have to put our own house in order.”

That’s it! Forget it! …I’m not buying! Mitt Romney is a lemon!

Yes, Republicans spent too much. But they’ve already been thoroughly excoriated by the base for it. Mitt may not have noticed, but there’s been an election since then in which a great many Republicans lost their seats, and the remaining Republicans lost their majority. Not because Americans were so enthralled with Democrats, but because a great many disenchanted Republican voters stayed home.

And yes, there were a few Republican scandals — a few — which Democrats and their propaganda department, the mainstream media, managed to smear the entire party with — but I might remind Mr. Romney that Republicans have kicked those members out (with the exception of Larry Craig, who is being shown the door).

Meanwhile, Democrats have not only fought to spend vastly more than their GOP counterparts on every single issue facing congress since 2000, but they’ve been trying their hardest to raise taxes and increase spending ever since they took control.

Where is that commercial?

They’ve also had a whole slew of scandals that have gotten nowhere near the same amount of attention. Real scandals, not toe-tapping, but war-profiteering, destruction of top-secret materials, embezzlement, corrupt land deals, and major fund-raising scandals just to name a few. Yet not one of them has been kicked out of the Democrat party, or even suffered so much as an uncomfortable question from the press. Indeed one of them is well on her way to coronation at the Democrat National Convention.

“Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican.”

~ Ronald Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment

If Mr. Olympics thinks the way to win is to bash President Bush and pig pile on Republicans with the media and Democrats — eager to rehash the 2006 election instead of fighting the 2008 election — then its past time for him to go.

Republicans are tired of being attacked and tired of leaders that don’t stand up to Democrats’ lies and false accusations. More than tired, we’re sick to death of it. We’ll take our lumps when we deserve them, but we’ve been absolutely bludgeoned with a seemingly endless string of phony charges and trumped-up scandals. And its time for someone besides the little guys to do something about it.

The point is this: We can tolerate differing opinions, the Republican party is a big tent, and the debate is healthy. But there is an enormous difference between disagreement, or criticism — and disloyal opportunism. Mitt Romney has shown an enormous lack of character in employing the latter, and we shouldn’t tolerate it.

The last thing Republicans need or want is this self-serving, flip-flopping, used-car salesman bashing our President and our Party in order to promote himself. There’s plenty of that to be had on the other side.

It’s time to kick Mitt Romney, and the lemon he’s selling, to the curb.

Just to show you that I don’t let my political bias get in the way of my appreciation of political ads, here’s a Republican ad from 2006. Congresswoman Nancy Johnson was defeated by “liberal Chris Murphy,” but it wasn’t because of this ad! The commercial has the pulse and stylings of “24,” and asks a dichotomous question — would you rather be safe with me, or in danger with him — which I think must be one of the older tricks in the books.

Also, by using a sour-faced black and white picture of him, they successfully make Chris Murphy, a state legislator, look like a street thug.

Also, the footage at the end of Johnson, in a red coat with her hand over her heart, standing with a bunch of saluting red coat wearing senior/vets, is effective, as if it’s saying, “I belong to a generation of men and women who have kept this country safe, and I’ll keep on keeping us safe.”

I hope the failure of the Johnson campaign indicates that fear mongering tactics like this don’t work, but I don’t know. . . the ad is so good.