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

The Only 2 Things Bush Can't Do. Wait! make that 1 thing.

Finally, someone asked George W. Bush one of the questions that's been on my mind. According to this President, the Authorization to Use Force against 9/11 Attackers, is an authorization to do basically ANYTHING that will, in his sole judgment, protect the American People. So, I was wondering, if his argument holds, is there anything he CAN'T do?

Bush could only think of 2 things. 1) Order torture (!?!) or 2) Assasinate the leader of a country we're not at war with.

From Face the Nation, here's Bob Schieffer's question and Bush's answer:

SCHIEFFER: Let's talk a little bit about this whole idea of eavesdropping without court orders. You said very strongly, and the strongest language I've heard you use yesterday, that you believe it is not only legal, you believe it is absolutely necessary in the War on Terrorism. The--the question I have, Mr. President, is: Do you believe that there is anything that a president cannot do, if he considers it necessary, in an emergency like this?

PRESIDENT BUSH: That's a--that's a great question. You know, one of the--yeah, I don't think a president can tort--get--can order torture, for example. I don't think a president can order the assassination of a leader of another country with which we're not at war. Yes, there are clear red lines, and--it--you--you--you just asked a very interesting constitutional question. The extent to which a president, during war, can exercise authorities in order to protect the American people, and that's really what the debate is about. I--I made the decision to listen to phone calls of Al Qaeda or suspected Al Qaeda from outside the country coming in or inside the country going out because the people, our operators, told me that this is one of the best ways to protect the American people. And it wasn't an easy decision to make, but as I thought through the decision-making process, I asked a couple of questions: One, do I have the authority to do it? In other words, implicit in your question is, will I just act without determining if I have authority. And so, in other words, I got--I--I was convinced by the legal department of the--of this--of this White House and the Justice Department that I did have the authority, and we looked at it very carefully. And secondly, I wanted to make sure that civil liberties were guarded. In other words, that by unleashing this program there wasn't checks and balances on--inside the NSA so that they would circumvent my order, which was listening for phone calls outside the country and in vice versa; in other words, not listening to the phone calls within the country. It is important that this program go on. I understand the debate, and I understand the need to make sure people discuss and debate whether or not I have got the authority to do it, but as I told the American people--and I can't tell you how strongly I feel about this--if somebody is talking to Al Qaeda inside the United States, we need to know why, and that's what this program is aimed to do.

Item 1, contradicts the Signing Statement http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051230-8.html he attached to the McCain Amendment on Torture and item 2 does not make me feel safe... at all. That puts several billion of us in the Ok-to-Assasinate category.

Here's the CBS transcript. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/27/eveningnews/main1248952.shtml

Sam Alito's Top Ten Extraordinary Circumstances

or Why the Gang of 14 should Filibuster:

10. Ann Coulter likes him. That's about as extreme as you can get.

9. Wishes Goliath had beaten David's puny little ass.

8. Lays out plan to weaken and overturn Roe v. Wade.

7. Pursues plan to overturn Roe v. Wade.

6. Brags about membership in racist CAP in order to get a job.

5. Denies remembering CAP membership in order to get a job.

4. Contrary to Supreme Court, tries to strip other judges' power to grant Habeas Corpus to illegal immigrants. If that's not judicial activism, what is?

3. Supports strip search of innocent ten-yr old girl although not called for in warrant. How is this a strict constructionist?

2. Believes in co-equal branches of government except the Unitary Executive branch is more co-equal than the others;

and the number 1 extraordinary circumstance is...

Bush is not your daddy, Senator. He does NOT have mandate; he doesn't even have a boy date. Check the polls. Only Nixon was less popular.

You're reading the Google story all wrong. Google Guys are Good.

If you haven't heard yet, the Bush Administration wanted one million random web addresses and records of all Google searches for a one week period. The government apparently wants to estimate how much pornography shows up in the searches that children do.

The move is part of a government effort to revive an Internet child protection law struck down two years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court. The law was meant to punish online pornography sites that make their content accessible to minors. The government contends it needs the Google data to determine how often pornography shows up in online searches.

From perusing DailyKos, I gather there is a chill running through the netroots, and it's being misdirected at Google, when the real story is:

The government indicated that other unspecified search engines have agreed to release the information, but NOT Google.

Whereas other seach engines rolled right on over without a fight Google general counsel said the company will fight "vigorously."

And isn't it just modern media poetic circumstance (irony) that the Google Guys get vilified BECAUSE they're doing the right thing, while the ones we CAN'T trust quietly sell us out, then benefit indirectly because of our FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt).


So, before you run screaming to Big Brother, check for updates on Search Engine Watch. So far, Ask Jeeves did not hand over data, because they weren't asked to. Yahoo! and AOL have not responded, and MSN issued some legalese that sounds like they caved. Also, noteworthy. Search Engine Watch (www.blog.SearchEngineWatch.com)(still learning to make links) has a better method for the government to get what it wants WITHOUT "...get(ting) the search engines to do their research for them in a way that compromises the civil liberties of other people." as Ray Everett-Church, a South Bay privacy consultant for internet companies describes it. He also pointed out, "The government can't even claim that it's for national security."

Furthermore, this looks like a major move toward a Unitary Executive (i.e. more powerful presidency). Apparently, simple talk of Alito's confirmation was emboldening enough that they're ready to try using new and improved SCOTUS to create a precedent for the government's Right to Spy.

I'm afraid, very afraid. And THAT really makes me nervous. So, the more afraid I get, the more I'm going to act...while I still have the right.

P.S. If anything happens, don't forget to look for me in the blacksites.

Gore to compare/contrast Nixon v. Bush II

Just posted by "The Nation" at 11:00 this morning:

"In a major address slated for delivery Monday in Washington, the former Vice President is expected to argue that the Bush administration has created a "Constitutional crisis" by acting without the authorization of the Congress and the courts to spy on Americans and otherwise abuse basic liberties..."

"...Don't expect a direct call for impeachment from the former vice president. But do expect Gore to make reference to Richard Nixon, whose abuses of executive authority led to calls for his impeachment -- a fate the 37th president avoided by resigning in 1974.
Gore's speech will add fuel to the fire that was ignited when it was revealed that Bush had secretly authorized National Security Agency to monitor communications in the United States without warrants. Gore will argue that the domestic wiretapping policy is only the latest example of the administration exceeding its authority under the Constitution.
With a Congressional inquiry into Bush's repeated violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act scheduled to begin in February -- and with Bush already preparing to pitch an Nixon-style defense that suggests it is appropriate for the executive branch to violate the law when national security matters are involved -- Gore will articulate the more traditional view that reasonable checks and balances are required even in a time of war. And he will do so in a bipartisan context that will make it tougher for Republican critics to dismiss the former vice president's assertion that the Constitution is still the law of the land. "

Here's the rest.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=49140

For more comparisons of Nixon v. Bush, here are some points & quotes I pasted together from ACLU (pdf files) and DNC (video) ads.:


Richard Nixon spied on Americans, lied about it and tried to cover it up in the name of “national security.” In response, Congress passed The FISA act to authorize surveillance of Americans in special circumstances.

George W. Bush spied on Americans, lied about it and tried to cover it up in the name of “national security.” He lied in April 2004 when he said, “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.”

Then he asked the NY Times to keep the story a secret because of “national security” -- which they did until well after the 2004 election.

George W. Bush says that what he did is not illegal. “Did I have the legal authority to do this? … absolutely.” (December 2005)

That sounds like Nixon when he said, “When the President does it, that means it is not illegal.” (1977)

Even Nixon’s lawyer, John W. Dean, thinks Bush II has gone too far. “Indeed, here, Bush may have outdone Nixon: Nixon's illegal surveillance was limited; Bush's, it is developing, may be extraordinarily broad in scope… reports have suggested that NSA is "data mining" literally millions of calls - and has been given access by the telecommunications companies to "switching" stations through which foreign communications traffic flows.” That means the NSA has been able to secretly monitor any phone calls or e-mails you send outside the country.

Whether they're investigating the President’s possible abuse of power, the Justice Dept. will not say, but it is investigating the whistleblower(s).

Dean adds, “In acting here w/o Congressional approval, Bush has underlined that his Presidency is unchecked… utterly beyond the law. …what asserted powers will Bush use next?” ( http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20051230.html)

Here’s a hint. Bush signed McCain’s anti-torture bill, then issued a signing statement when it seemed no one was looking. Legal experts interpret the statement as saying that although Bush is signing the law, he reserves the right to exempt himself from it if HE thinks it’s necessary.”

In America no one, not even the President, is above the law.


Using the power of the White House, unchecked by the Republican-controlled House and Senate, Bush is filling the courts with nominees like John Roberts, Harriet Mier and Sam Alito who share his vision for a powerful, almost imperial, presidency.

And now we're discovering that Bush's domestic spying program was authorized BEFORE 9/11. From out GREAT friends at Truthout.org: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011306Z.shtml

Happy Friday the 13th.

P.S Speaking of dates. According to my calendar, Feb. 1 -- the day after the President's State of the Union address is National Freedom Day. Let it ring.

Who's Bill?

True Story:

As I returned to the car after checking the box, 3-year-old Austin asked casually, " Did we get any mail?"
"Just bills," I said.
"Oh." pause "Who's Bill?"
Chuckling to myself, I explained in clear, 3-year-old terms about buy now, send bill, pay later.
Some time after snack he queried, "Are we going to give Bill his mail?"
Stunned, but amused, I tried again.
After running errands, our last stop was to pay the water bill. As we dropped the payment in the box, Austin asked, "Is that Bill's house?"
"Yes," I answered, as we headed back to the car. "That's Bill's house, and we just gave him his mail." I pointed to the driver pulling into the next parking space, adding, "And that's Bill."

Another amusing Austin story. He once said to me, "Mom, you know why I don't like water?" (I think he was 4-ish).
"Why's that?" I wanted to know.
"It's not my cup of tea," he flatly declared.

This is my first blog, so I appreciate your input.

I also post adiary on DailyKos when I think I have something political to add. If the liberal thoughts from stark raving mom might be your cup of tea, feel free to visit: http://www.dailykos.com/user/GoMommyGo