Democrats with Spine Undermined

14 Feb 2006
To: Chairman Dean (via e-mail), Senators Reid (202-224-7327) & Schumer(202-228-3027)

RE: Betrayal of Paul Hackett and Friends

Whereas Republicans are currently the party of blind loyalty, Democrats are becoming the party of senseless betrayal. This time you betrayed a beloved war hero turned Bush critic. Is Karl Rove paying you, Senators, or is this volunteer work?

I'm sorry I must be so harsh, but I want to make the point that it makes me wonder. Your behavior is reminiscent of the 1919 Chicago Black Sox scandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sox_scandal); snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

For example:

His poll numbers near freezing, Bush nominated Sam Alito. Ann Coulter loves him, the ACLU fears him. This divisive nominee could have been blocked easily, but 19 Democratic Senators wouldn't even abstain from the cloture vote. Who's your daddy?(Repubs needed 60 yes votes to end a filibuster. They had only 54 because 1 Republican did not vote, so they could not have done it without the implicit consent of those 19. (Also scroll down to Jan. 28, 2006 to view Top Ten Unusual Alito Cirmcumstances)

War hero Paul Hackett criticizes Bush and very nearly becomes that otherwise red district's Representative. After jean Schmidt's humiliating performance in which she called another war hero (Jack Murtha) a coward, I'm sure there was a epidemic of voters' remorse in Ohio. Paul Hacket was your best shot, but you wimped out AGAIN!

No Guts, No Glory. I can't waste my money on this group, or as Rumpole headlines in a TPM Cafe post,

Not. One. Dime.

To individuals candidates like Boxer and Feingold, sure, Feinstein maybe, but not to the DNC. Sorry Howard.

Update: Rove's Enemies list.

From an article in SFGate.http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/02/12/MNG41H78RM1.DTL, it seems Karl's list is growing.

Many at this year's Conservative Political Action Conferance (where Dick Cheney is actually popular) expressed frustration with Bush's policy. Highlights:

"The American people don't understand what Republicans stand for anymore,'' roared Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., who proudly declared that he had voted against Bush's prescription drug plan, his Central American trade proposal and his "$100 billion Katrina slush fund.''

"American conservatives have watched dumbfounded as their Congress -- their Republican Congress -- and the Republican White House engineered the largest expansion of the federal government in modern history,'' Tancredo said.

Yet Bush -- until recently -- had enjoyed the unwavering public support of conservatives from all factions, who seemed willing to overlook any misgivings in their united desire to elect a Republican president.

At this year's conference, which sponsors said would attract 5,000 participants, Tancredo received a standing ovation after his remarks in which he said: "It is the president who is out of step with his party.''

Tancredo was not alone in voicing his displeasure -- a sign that Bush may have much more trouble with Republicans in Congress as they move toward the midterm elections.

Bob Barr, a former Republican House member from Georgia, warned fellow conservatives that those who defend the president's ability to spy on American citizens are "in danger of putting allegiance to party ahead of allegiance to principle.''

The president, Barr warned, has overstepped his bounds and "it should not matter the person, the man, occupying the position of the presidency.''

I'm encouraged that when it comes to Bush, liberals, libertarians, and many conservatives are coming to some agreements. 1) We don't want Bush to be our BIG BROTHER. 2) War is wasteful. Liberals focus on wasted life, libertarians on wasted liberty and conservatives on wasted money, which could otherwise be used to pursue happiness.

However, we can't expect that this will lead to a democratic house majority November 2006. There are certain Democratic Senators who are determined to snatch defeat from victory's jaw. My next post will include my note to Senators Schumer & Reid with a copy to DNC Chairman Howard Dean.

Rove's Enemies List

I've long suspected it existed, now we know. The news broken by www.InsightMag.com (subscription)and repeated on Countdown with Keith Olbermann helps explain why all but a handful of Republicans will vote along party lines even when it doesn't seem to be in their best interest.

Karl Rove has been politically threatening "virtually every Republican on the Senate committee as well as the leadership in Congress" with blacklisting if they vote against the President in the NSA wiretapping scandal. Senators on Rove's blacklist won't receive any political or financial support from the Grand Ol' Party in the upcoming elections. On the other hand, those who Rove determines are "loyal" will receive the all the money and all the love. I can't imagine it's the first time Turd Blossom (W gave him the nickname) has bullied his allies.

The sources said the administration has been alarmed over the damage that could result from the Senate hearings, which began on Monday, Feb. 6. They said the defection of even a handful of Republican committee members could result in a determination that the president violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Such a determination could lead to impeachment proceedings.

That puts the Republican Senators in a very precarious position: Between a suspicious public and a vicious Rove. If Republicans shirk their duty to check and balance the executive branch in such an obvious way, there are enough liberals and libertarians watching that it could go either way for Rove. So, I guess they oughta be asking themselves if this ship is worth going down with.

April 2004 is pre-9/11 according to MSNBC.

To Hardball@MSNBC.com
Cc: Feedback@msnbc.com

Re: 2/6/01 Interview on MSNBC Live 10: 30 am PST with Contessa Brewer

Dear Mr. Matthews:

Please correct the record. Ms. Brewer said that the Democrats were playing hardball citing Dianne Feinstein’s statement quoting Bush in 2004. Contessa told you he said it in 2004, but you nevertheless dismissed it as pre-9/11. Here it is from Bush’s now well-known address from Buffalo, New York in APRIL of 2004.

“Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.”

Adding…

“The Patriot Act changed that. So with court order, law enforcement officials can now use what's called roving wiretaps, which will prevent a terrorist from switching cell phones in order to get a message out to one of his buddies.
Thirdly, to give you an example of what we're talking about, there's something called delayed notification warrants. Those are very important. I see some people, first responders nodding their heads about what they mean. These are a common tool used to catch mobsters. In other words, it allows people to collect data before everybody is aware of what's going on. It requires a court order. It requires protection under the law. We couldn't use these against terrorists, but we could use against gangs. “

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html
The President’s clearly inaccurate statement was made more than 2-1/2 years AFTER 9/11/2001 and at least 2 years into the program.

Apparently Contessa Brewer’s interview technique's don't require any registry of the interviewee's response. It's enough read the prompter. She read that this was a bipartisan concern and claimed that Specter was going after AG Gonzales too along with the Democrats, but overlooked the fact that Specter, as committee chair, REFUSED to allow Gonzales to testify under oath. There are questions about the AG’s answers to Russ Feingold in his confirmation hearings, all democratic senators insisted he be sworn in and Gonzales agreed to be sworn in, but Specter said, “No.” This, I understand, means he can’t be charged with perjury for what he says today.

Matthews then went on to say that the majority of Americans supported the program. Not exactly. Americans agree that it’s okay with them if it’s LEGAL(Rasmussen?). You failed to mention that a margin of 42 to 43 percent (Zogby) believe he should be impeached if what he did was ILLEGAL.

This is why public opinion of the media is so low. We can tell when we're being manipulated and won't tolerate it. We have Tivos, we have Google and the 'Net has roots. We check facts. We want the truth the whole truth and nothing but. If you won't sell it to us, we'll find it elsewhere.

I have a bachelor’s in business, not political science. I’m a substitute teacher and a Mom. Here’s the glaring question. If someone who knows as little about Washington and politics as I do knows this so easily, why don’t you?

Summer Mondeau
GoMommyGo@yahoo.com
www.GoMommyGo.Blogspot.com

P.S. Now that I see your internet poll does NOT support your assumption, will you correct yourself publicly?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080261/#survey