10/15/06

Rell: Selling Out CT to Big Apple Buyers


It is bad enough when you see the list of companies that have contracts with the State of Connecticut that are also MAJOR donors to the Rell campaign, something Rell claims she has never done... But today we see that Rell was selling out Connecticut to Big Apple buyers intent on gaining more influence on our States business than she will ever give to regular Nutmeggers.

About 75 people attended the $1,000-per-person reception Thursday evening, said Rell's campaign spokesman, Rich Harris.

Like many of Rell's other fundraising breakfasts, luncheons and receptions, the event was closed to the press. The reception was also not mentioned on Rell's campaign website.


Republican Rell influence peddling? Oh no! Never!

What do you have to hide, Jodi, that you can't let the press into these buyouts of our State?

For a full understanding of influence peddling see Republican criminal/super-lobbyist Jack Abrahmoff, criminal Republican Randy "Duke" Cunningham, criminal Republican Bob Ney, or likely criminal Republican Curt Weldon.

OR, of course, you could just look at Rell's mentor, disgraced Republican and former Governor Rowland to know how that scam works:

Her showing at the Garde Arts Center in New London won't hurt her with voters relieved that this steady-as-she-goes matron is not John G. Rowland, her glib predecessor and former political teammate whose greediness landed him in jail.

But a few gaffes in an otherwise OK performance are what viewers are talking about.

Late in the debate, Mrs. Rell pulled a George W. Bush when considering whether she made any mistakes in office. She didn't name any - though surely she could have wished, for just one thing, that the state Department of Transportation had kept an eye on the contractor who installed hundreds of faulty drains on I-84.


"I'm Jodi Rell, and I am perfect BUT please ignore the skeletons in my closet!"

Good lord!

Rell = GOP + Bush + Rowland + $$$ wasted + incompetent

That is basic math for republican politics...

10/13/06

Shays, Kolbe, Foley: More Weird Republican Sex

BranfordBoy at My Left Nutmeg asks about Shays sanity:

"Looks like Chris Shays really, really, really wants to lose. How else can you explain this insanity from the Wednesday debate?"

Shays: Then the next question is, well what has the US done? Well it has been accused of doing torture. That's what it's been accused of. Now I've seen what happened in Abu Ghraib, and Abu Ghraib was not torture, it was outrageous, outrageous involvement of National Guard troops from Maryland who were involved in a sex ring and they took pictures of soldiers who were naked. And they did other things that were just outrageous. But it wasn't torture.

It's difficult though how the dialogue in the rest of the world about that when you have news media all around the world saying we're torturing people. The bottom line for me is this. We follow the Geneva Convention period. That's what we do.


Matthew Gertz has the video


I think the insanity results because all republicans ever think about is sex.


BUT why do republicans have such freakin' weird ideas of what sex is supposed to be?

Republican Mark Foley is one example, and Republican Kolbe may very well be another example:

From NBC news:

Federal prosecutors in Arizona have opened a preliminary investigation of a camping trip Congressman Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz., took 10 years ago that included two teenage congressional pages, a Justice Department spokesman told NBC News. NBC News first reported on the camping and rafting trip on Tuesday.

Kolbe's office denies anything "improper" happened.

More NBC:


NBC News interviewed several people who were on the trip, and their accounts vary. One participant, who requested anonymity, said he was uncomfortable with the attention Kolbe paid to one of the former pages. He was "creeped out by it," he said, adding that there was a lot of "fawning, petting and touching" on the teenager's arms, shoulders and back by Kolbe.

--- Joe in DC at AMERICAblog


Is the GOP setting their standard for all of our childrens futures?

If they are, then our kids are truely all fucked if the GOP remains in power.

GOP - Jack Abramoff Influence-Peddling Scandal

The investigation into the GOP - Jack Abramoff influence-peddling scandal starts to show some results:
Standing before Judge Ellen S. Huvelle, Ney pleaded guilty to conspiracy and making false statements. He acknowledged taking money, gifts and favors in return for official actions on behalf of Abramoff and his clients.

The 52-year-old lawmaker faces a maximum of 10 years in prison. Huvelle said prosecutors had agreed to recommend a term of 27 months, and said federal guidelines suggest a fine of between $5,000 and $60,000.

Despite his guilty pleas, Ney did not resign his seat in Congress. His lawyer, Mark Touhey, told the judge he would do so before sentencing on Jan. 19. Under the Constitution, he'll be gone before then. His term expires when the new Congress is sworn in at noon on Jan. 3.


The GOP had this to say AFTER Ney plead guilty:
House Republican leaders vowed Friday to expel convicted Rep. Bob Ney "as our first order of business" after the elections unless he resigns.


Given the fact that House Republican leaders like Hastert, Reynolds, Boehner, and others are all too busy trying to cover-up their culpability in the Foley scandal you can understand why they won't have time to boot Ney just yet.

I find it intereting that they wait until after their members are found guilty in a court of law to boot members of the corrupt GOP that should have already been under investigation by republican Doc Hasting's committee at the very least for ethical violations, if not for criminal violations.

Of course I always forget the fact that republicans don't investigate other republicans. They just cover-up for eachother and hope the MSM, and the rest of America, don't ask the questions that need to be asked and dig a little into the real facts.

The real facts: Every stinking GOP candidate, in the White House, the Senate, and especially the House, are responsible for allowing, sometimes encouraging, and often participating in actions that show that they believe GOP members are above the law.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely...

10/10/06

Echoes of Conspiracy Theories

Echoes of the conspiracy theory concerning the
Reagan-Bush era Congress Callboy Scandal:

Trandahl's name comes up in three accounts of confrontations between lawmakers and Foley over his reported approaches to underage pages dating back to at least 2001. It's not surprising, since as Clerk Trandahl, a Republican appointee, was a member of the Page Board and exercised day-to-day oversight of the page program.

Now, he's lawyered up with Cono Namorato, until recently the former head of the IRS office of professional responsibility and before that counsel to former Clinton Administration HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, who resigned and pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of lying to the FBI about hush money payments to his mistress.

--- Andrew Zajac at the Chicago Tribune's Swamp Blog


Why would Trandahl need a lawyer that specialized in hush money payments to mistresses? Naaaaah... Who would believe the Foley cover-up would be about prostitutes on Capitol Hill, never mind the possibility of young boys being involved? (I may read conspiracy theories for fun... Doesn't mean I believe them all;)


This whole Foley thing is getting a little too weird with how many GOP politicians and staffers that knew all about it for so long. I keep waiting for another republican to pop up from behind the grassy knoll...

X-posted at The Booman Tribune
and at My Left Nutmeg

10/9/06

Republican Kolbe Joins the Already Disgraced GOP List


Hastert, Boehner, Shimkus, Reynolds, Alexander, and various members of their staff (Trandahl, Fordham) have all been linked into the cover-up of Foley's stalking of young pages in Congress to varying degrees. (From the grossly incompetent, to the criminally negligent.) According to the WaPo this is a 5 year old issue AND...


You can add Kolby to the list:


A Republican congressman knew of disgraced former representative Mark Foley's inappropriate Internet exchanges as far back as 2000 and personally confronted Foley about his communications.


A spokeswoman for Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) confirmed yesterday that a former page showed the congressman Internet messages that had made the youth feel uncomfortable with the direction Foley (R-Fla.) was taking their e-mail relationship. Last week, when the Foley matter erupted, a Kolbe staff member suggested to the former page that he take the matter to the clerk of the House, Karen Haas, said Kolbe's press secretary, Korenna Cline.


The revelation pushes back by at least five years the date when a member of Congress has acknowledged learning of Foley's behavior with former pages. A timeline issued by House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) suggested that the first lawmakers to know, Rep. John M. Shimkus (R-Ill.), the chairman of the House Page Board, and Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-La.), became aware of "over-friendly" e-mails only last fall. It also expands the universe of players in the drama beyond members, either in leadership or on the page board.


A source with direct knowledge of Kolbe's involvement said the messages shared with Kolbe were sexually explicit, and he read the contents to The Washington Post under the condition that they not be reprinted. But Cline denied the source's characterization, saying only that the messages had made the former page feel uncomfortable. Nevertheless, she said, "corrective action" was taken. Cline said she has not yet determined whether that action went beyond Kolbe's confrontation with Foley.


There is clearly NOTHING INNOCENT about these E-mails...


This pushes it all back another by 5 more years and shows that there have been NUMEROUS OCCASIONS over the years where GOP Congressmen have been asked to address the situation.


Just another in a long line of failures by the GOP...


X-posted at The Booman Tribune and My Left Nutmeg

10/8/06

Waking Up Walmart!

Courtesy of Connecticut Bob

Ned Lamont talks about "Waking Up Walmart!"

Rell and DeFelice-ing of Connecticut

What does Jodi Rell do when the contactor costs the state millions by bungling a MEGA project?
State to check for Route 7 project mistakes

The state is inspecting the Route 7 widening project in New Milford to make certain mistakes a contractor made on an I-84 widening project were not repeated on Route 7.

...snip...

The state Department of Transportation and the state attorney general are investigating projects by L.G. DeFelice, Inc., which failed in 2005. They are also investigating the DeFelice successor company, Hallberg Contracting Corp. of West Haven.

Late Monday, Gov. M. Jodi Rell ordered an independent audit of the I-84 project.

DeFelice officially defaulted on the Route 7 widening project in New Milford in May. It was immediately replaced by Hallberg Contracting Corp., which is run by the former president of DeFelice, Stephen Hallberg.

--- The New Milford Spectrum

Good Lord! She orders an audit?

Which crony will you hand more cash out to in order to have your "independent audit"?

I'll give you an audit for free:

Republican Rell gave the contract to cronies (Business as usual for Republicans) and when they messed up so badly, and went bankrupt, Rell turned around and handed the project to a company headed up by Stephen Hallberg, the former president of the same company that messed up the first time!

Jodi Rell's "DeFelice-ing" of OUR public funds through gross incompetence...

Not just once, BUT TWICE!

First on the I-84 project, and the second time on the Super 7 project.
Nothing like repeating your same mistakes over and over again.

Care to rethink whom you should vote for Governor of Connecticut (or for any level of government these days...) if you are a fiscal conservative?

You sure can't vote for the GOP and expect them to take care of your money.

10/6/06

Johnson's Half-Baked Deflection

Hat tip to ct progressive at No More Nancy!:
Johnson's Half-Hearted Stand:

"If any leader from either party tried to cover up this information at the expense of the safety of our children, then they should resign their position immediately.

It would be reprehensible if any Republican leader intentionally covered up the full facts of the case, and it would be equally reprehensible if Democrat leaders sat on this information for a year in order to release it 30 days before an election.

I want an investigation to go forward to find out answers to these questions."


It would be reprehensible for Johnson to say that Dems "might have leaked this", which is a complete and total lie designed to deflect from the real issue.

It is already a known fact that it was a republican staffer that leaked this, and that this would not be an "October surprise" in this election year if GOP leadership had dealt with Foley when they FIRST LEARNED OF HIS IMMORAL BEHAVIOR.

The fact is that the GOP leadership has known about this issue for at least 5 years now.

I hate to break this to you, Nancy, BUT America does not give a damn "who leaked what"... They do, however, care that GOP leadrship has shown absolutely no moral fiber, and absolutely no will to take personal resposibility for their inaction.

Your little political game of deny and deflect has already burned you because your party chose to protect one House candidate instead of the children of America.

And you are welcome Nancy!
(For that nice BIG cup of STFU!)

Come back again when you have some moral values...

As a side note: I put some chocolate flavored Exlax in that BIG cup so she should start running off at the mouth any second now...
:)

To Shays: You Already Did...



What Shays says now:
Shays reiterated his views Tuesday and added that he would not vote for any leader who "knew or should have known about Mark Foley's conduct." Shays' stance satisfied American Family Voices. "Our goal was to have Congressman Shays do what he did," said spokeswoman Hayley Zachary.

--- The Hartford Courant


The problem here is that GOP House leadership has known about Foley's immoral behavior for at least 5 years.
FACT: GOP staff, working for Republican Speaker Denny Hastert, warned the page class of 2001-2002 to stay away from Foley - five years ago.

FACT: Former chief of staff to GOP Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-NY), Kirk Fordham, says he warned Hastert's chief of staff of Foley's behavior three years ago. Whether or not you believe Fordham, his testimony is consistent with the other facts showing that the Republicans knew about Foley's behavior long before last week.

FACT: Both Reps. John Boehner, the Republican House Majority Leader, and Tom Reynolds both say they told Dennis Hastert personally about the Foley issue months ago. Hastert says Boehner is lying. So one of the two most powerful Republicans in the House is lying about an investigation into a child sex predator. That deserves a separate investigation right there.

FACT: Hastert's staff was informed of the Foley emails a year ago, but Hastert would like us to believe his staff simply never told him that a member of Congress, a member of his leadership team, was under investigation for preying sexually on young children - children who Hastert was responsible for.

And finally, the Republicans would have us believe, yet again, that a 52 year old man sending emails to a 16 year old boy he doesn't even know, and talking to that boy about how his 16 year old friend has a great body, is somehow simply "overly friendly." That is absurd on its face.

--- John Aravosis at AMERICAblog


And in an effort to distract and dissemble right-wing-nut cheerleaders manage to get some more egg on their face:
I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you. That Drudge bamboozlement about the Foleygate cybersex IMs being a 'prank'. The kid's lawyer says Drudge's piece was "a piece of fiction."

-- Josh Marshall at Talking Point Memo


But the simple fact remains that YOU, Shays, have already voted for GOP House leadership that knew about Foley's transgressions and they have known for at least 5 years.

I am curious Shays...

Were you irresponsibly ignorant of the GOP Leadership you have already voted for?

OR

Were you willfully ignorant of the GOP leadership you have already voted for?

I won't even impugn your supposed "good character" by suggesting that you might, possibly, have known about Foley's problems personally... That would be irresponsible on my part.

BUT

Either fact suggests gross misjudgment on your part and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you continue to choose to run with the wrong crowd.

The immoral, corrupt GOP crowd.

So please don't tell me what you plan to do in the future or, more precisely, to cover your political ass because your past record already speaks for itself.

Shays, YOU have already voted for DeLay and Hastert…

Which corrupt and immoral GOP leader would you choose to vote for next?

Does it really matter what you say now?

10/5/06

Hastert Mismanages Foley

Silent Patriot at Crooks & Liars writes:

"Jon Stewart and the Daily Show team really went to town on the scandal-ridden GOP tonight. From the cancellation of the "Annual GOP Barebeque and Nude Cub Scout Wrestle" to the passing of the Foley buck among the House Leadersip, Jon puts a hysterical spin on a truly disastrous scandal that's getting worse by the minute.

Reynolds: I did what most people would do in a work place. I heard something, I took it to my supervisor.

Stewart: "I took it to my supervisor?" Tom Reynolds…Congressman? or Assistant Manager at Applebees?
"


I didn't know Hastert was a manager at Applebees?

I would hope that Foley isn't the one providing the "service" at the table... I do have kids, ya know?

Go check out the video and read the rest of the post at C&L.

Have a Cup Of Joe...

I am a Veteran of the US Army Infantry. This sort of BS really galls me when I know that my friends and family are STILL serving in Iraq and Afghanistan with substandard equipment.

In three out of the last four Congresses, Joe Lieberman has had one of the top seven worst voting attendance records in the entire U.S. Senate. He has skipped hundreds of votes, often times to travel around the country to fundraisers for himself. He has skipped half of all votes on the Iraq War since the invasion began and skipped all votes to fund the inaugural budget of the Department of Homeland Security. But today, as Ned Lamont is endorsed by a major veterans group, the Cup of Joe asks a simple question: Why did Lieberman skip a close vote on legislation by Senator Chris Dodd to improve body armor for our troops in combat?



DETAILS OF LIEBERMAN’S SKIPPED VOTE ON BODY ARMOR: Senator Lieberman skipped a tight vote on legislation sponsored by Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd that would have provided additional emergency funding for safety equipment such as body armor for troops serving in Iraq. [Source: Senate Roll Call Vote #376,
10/2/03]


DODD PLEADED FOR SUPPORT ON THE SENATE FLOOR: In trying to corral enough votes for this critical amendment, Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd explained exactly what his amendment would do. “This amendment was designed specifically to see to it that those U.S. troops coming into Iraq, into a theater of war, would receive important equipment they need to perform their missions effectively,” he said. “This equipment includes important high-tech body armor, bullet-proof helmets, special water packs to keep soldiers hydrated, and other survival gear.” He added: “Let us take care of our men and women in uniform going over to Iraq. I do not think any of us want to read a story where one of our young troops has to go out and buy their own equipment to protect themselves. This is the 21st century. And in this day and age, the sole superpower in the world should not have to tell its military personnel to fend for themselves.” Unfortunately, the bill lost on a close vote, with Lieberman nowhere to be found. [Source: Congressional record page S12352, 10/2/03]


NEWSWEEK SAID TROOPS UNECESSARILY DIED OR WERE INJURED BECAUSE OF POOR BODY ARMOR: A year after Lieberman skipped the vote on Dodd’s amendment and the amendment subsequently went down to defeat, Newsweek reported that a study by one defense consultant circulating throughout the Army noted that up to “one in four of those killed in combat in Iraq might be alive if they had had stronger armor around them” and “thousands more who were unprotected have suffered grievous wounds, such as the loss of limbs.” [Source: Newsweek, 4/25/04]


It is pretty sad that Senator Dodd could not count on his "junior Senator" from Connecticut to help deliver a vote that could have saved many Veterans' lives.

Since you have whole-heartedly supported "Bush's endless war failure", AND you have failed to even try to help adequately equip Connecticut's and other American soldiers' lives, please hang this weight around your neck Lieberman:

Connecticut's War Dead

I hope this weight is at least enough to drag you down on election day.

Connecticut Senate Race Info

So you can be an informed voter:

Info on Ned Lamont:

Ned Lamont - Official Campaign Website

Ned Lamont - Ned Lamont, the Political Entrepreneur

Ned Lamont - "Democrats Back Lamont; Lieberman Files Independent Run" (F0x)

Ned Lamont - Unofficial Ned Lamont Resource

Ned Lamont - Unofficial Lamont Blog

Ned Lamont - "The Democrats Mean Business" (WSJ)

Ned Lamont - "Ned Lamont vs. Joe Lieberman" (The Nation)

Ned Lamont - "Lieberman Loses Debate With Challenger Ned Lamont"

Ned Lamont - "Lamont: Lieberman Sounded Like Cheney"

Ned Lamont - "Lamont Fires Up Naples" (New Haven Independent)

Info on Joe Lieberman:

Joe Lieberman - "Seasonal Memory Lapses" by Paul Bass (Hartford Courant)

Joe Lieberman - "Truth About Joe"

Joe Lieberman - "Lieberman Wins Republican Friends, Democratic Enemies..." (WaPo)

Joe Lieberman - "Joe Lieberman is a Big Oil Republican" (LamontBlog)

Joe Lieberman - "Kerry Calls Lieberman the New Cheney" (ABC)

Joe Lieberman - "Joe Lieberman Doesn't Care About Handicapped People" (Wonkette)

Joe Lieberman - "Joe Lieberman is Running With a Bad Crowd" (Firedoglake)

Joe Lieberman - "116 Reasons Not to Vote for Joe Lieberman"

Joe Lieberman - "How Joe Lieberman Tried to Kill Rock 'N Roll" (Huffington Post)

Info on Alan who?
Nevermind... heh

10/4/06

No More Nancy!

CT Progressive had this to say about Nancy Johnson:

"Chris Murphy's campaign just issued a press release demanding that Nancy Johnson publicly call for Dennis Hastert's resignation as Speaker of the House, saying:

If Nancy Johnson had the courage to stand up to her morally bankrupt colleagues in Washington, she would have done so already in a direct, public manner. The Republican leadership she proudly proclaims herself to be a part of knew what was going on and turned a blind eye. Now the people of Connecticut know without a doubt that Nancy Johnson is more interested in staying in Washington than doing what is right.

Johnson has continued to maintain her silence on the issue."


I guess that if silence is consent...

Johnson must approve of the way the GOP leadership she installed in Washington has, and is, mishandling this tragic situation?

10/3/06

Hastert, Boehner, Reynolds - ALL MUST RESIGN!

What are the self-anointed Grand Ol' Protectors from terrorists around the world actually doing when important security issues are discussed on the floor of the House?

This message was dated April 2003, at approximately 7 p.m., according to the message time stamp.

Maf54: I miss you
Teen: ya me too
Maf54: we are still voting
Maf54: you miss me too

The exchange continues in which Foley and the teen both appear to describe having sexual orgasms.

Maf54: ok..i better go vote..did you know you would have this effect on me
Teen: lol I guessed
Teen: ya go voteÂ…I don't want to keep you from doing our job
Maf54: can I have a good kiss goodnight
Teen: :-*
Teen:

The House voted that evening on HR 1559, Emergency War Time supplemental appropriations.

read more at ABC's The Blotter


Apparently the GOP only protects pedophiles... Not America.

Geriatric Ol' Pedophiles.

How long do you think Foley has been protected by the GOP leadership?

One former page says pages were warned specifically to be careful with Foley five years ago.

"I know people who had been interacting with him like that, so I wasn't surprised. You know it's one of those things you know is going to come out some day," Matthew Loraditch, a page in the 2001-2002 class who is now president of the Page Alumni Association, said.

House Republican leaders were told about possible problems with Foley last year, and now they want an investigation to see how many pages may have been victimized by Foley.

ABC's The Blotter


I am willing to bet that GOP leadership has known about this AT LEAST as long as the pages did.

John at AMERICAblog has proven a pretty solid connection to THE COVERUP:


What's more, The LA Times didn't realize, and no one in the MSM has picked up on yet, that Reynolds sent his chief of staff [to "advise" Foley last week http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/10/mr-reynolds-why-is-your-chief-of-staff.html] before the predator resigned. What's worse, Reynolds' chief of staff tried to broker a deal with ABC News last Friday in order to get ABC to cover-up
the worst of the evidence against Foley.


There is no doubt that Foley is a internet sexual predator.

There is no doubt that Republican leadership failed to protect the kids.

AND

There is no doubt that there was a concerted effort to cover this up.

All that remains to be seen is who is simply too irresponsible to be a politician, and who is criminally responsible. And how long the GOP leadership has been this irresposible and criminal.

Hastert? Boehner? Reynolds?

AMERICAblog: Reynolds' chief of staff is link between Foley and House GOP leadership in child sex predator scandal

John at AMERICAblog writes:
"Clearly, the House Republicans have decided that Speaker Denny Hastert is going to resign. Hastert has decided, I suspect, to let the other members use him as their scapegoat - blame Hastert, so then when he resigns, the "problem" will be gone, and the other members can no longer be blamed.

But this is absurd. Congressman Reynolds' office had a direct role in covering up this scandal.

...snip...

The mainstream media has now picked up on the fact that Congressman Tom Reynolds (R-NY) is linked to alleged child sex predator Mark Foley through his chief of staff Kirk Fordham. Fordham was Foley's chief of staff and campaign manager. However, they've still missed a key point (read below).

Here's today's LA Times:
Another former staffer said it was an oft-repeated story around Capitol Hill that Foley's former chief of staff, Kirk Fordham, would sometimes accompany the congressman to keep him out of trouble.

Fordham represents a link between Foley and House GOP leaders. Shortly after leaving Foley's office last year, he became chief of staff to Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds (R-N.Y.), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Reynolds has said he was told this spring about the e-mails that sparked the initial complaint about Foley.

Fordham has not responded to repeated requests for comment from The Times.


What's more, the LA Times didn't realize, and no one in the MSM has picked up on yet, that Reynolds sent his chief of staff to "advise" Foley last week before the predator resigned. What's worse, Reynolds' chief of staff tried to broker a deal with ABC News last Friday in order to get ABC to cover-up the worst of the evidence against Foley.

If this allegation is true, then Reynolds' chief of staff knew that Foley had issues. But we're to believe that the chief of staff didn't mention this to his boss, Reynolds, when the Foley emails came to light months ago?

...snip...

Why won't Tom Reynolds explain why he sent his chief of staff to help a sex predator cover-up the evidence?(emphasis mine) No one has reported on this story yet - come on media, it's a freebie."


Good question John. Go read the whole post here...

10/1/06

Nancy Johnson's Junk in the Trunk Revisited

BrandfordBoy at My Left Nutmeg writes:

Good grief! Nancy Johnson's response to Chris Murphy telling the truth about how her drug-industry-funded health care policies are screwing Connecticut's seniors is to launch a full-scale Rovian Big
Lie
campaign.

A crowd of about 15 Nancy Johnson supporters briefly gathe ed outside Chris Murphy's campaign headquarters Friday afternoon holding signs a d accusing Murphy of "scarin
A number of those protesting at the West Main Street site were senior citizens themselves who expressed concern over losing Medicare.

"These seniors here support Medicare," said Ken Hiscoe, campaign director for Nancy Johnson. "Chris Murphy wants to destroy Medicare Part D."

The protesters chanted phrases such as "Shame on Murphy," "Stop scaring seniors" and "Stop the attacks," prompting passing motorists to honk their horns in support.

"He has been scaring seniors for the past year and a half and it's reprehensible that he would use senior citizens for his own political gain," said Hiscoe.

Louis Salvio, Republican minority leader of the Common Council, also held up a sign and took part in the protest.

"I'm just here supporting Mrs. Johnson," he said.



We already knew about Nancy Johnson's fault when it came to the Medicare D(isaster) plan from one of my previous posts:



It seems that Nancy Johnson's political career has a lot of junk in the trunk...
Deroy Murdock on Medicare on National Review Online:

"This fiscal malpractice has not bought the White House even political dividends. An August 25-26, 2003 Gallup poll found 40 percent of adults approved of the president's handling of Medicare while 48 percent disapproved. After the benefit's adoption, a March 26-28, 2004 Gallup survey saw 35 percent approve of Bush on Medicare, while disapproval climbed to 55 percent. What a bargain: Each one-point drop in Bush's Medicare approval rating cost Americans $44.5 billion.
The GOP Congress should dump the drug benefit. They should spare taxpayers this absurdly expensive new project whose true costs were concealed by an administration that sacrificed integrity and fiscal responsibility on an altar of blind ambition.

Instead, Republicans should develop a modest plan for poor seniors who lack coverage, rather than any American over 65, including multimillionaires and those who already have drug insurance.

The Medicare drug benefit has metastasized from bad policy to bad politics and now to scandal and possible criminality. This law begs to be euthanized. The GOP should pulls its plug. As for the perpetrators of this colossal public fraud, the Justice Department should fit them for orange jumpsuits."


And this is the legislation she was was so proud of and pinning her 2006 re-election hopes on? Well now... If that ain't an elephant passing some serious gas on to the voters?

Chris Murphy flushes Johnson's crap below...

Careful now!

Never stand behind an elephant that is full of it... You never know when it is going to take its next dump on YOU!

So... What does Democrat hopeful Chris Murphy have to say about all of this?

Drug Benefit will be a problem for Johnson in 2006

Nancy Johnson's biggest legislative effort in years - the drug benefit bill - seems to be falling drastically short of doing what it promised - helping seniors afford their perscriptions. The NY Times explains why this bill will be an albatross around the necks of Republicans in 2006, Johnson in particular.


Already, many Democratic strategists argue that the new program - because of its complicated structure and gaps in coverage - could be much more of a problem than an asset for Republicans next year. Some Democratic challengers are already using the issue on the campaign trail, like Christopher S. Murphy, who hopes to unseat Representative Nancy L. Johnson of Connecticut, a senior Republican who played an important role in writing the law.
"Seniors, frustrated with the complexity of the drug benefit, are realizing that it was constructed to help the insurance industry and the drug industry," said Mr. Murphy, a state senator, in a common Democratic refrain. "It's more helpful to those industries than to a lot of seniors."

Read the rest of the story here.

Anyone that has tried to wade through Johnson's "signature legislation", either for themselves or a relative in need of medication, understands what a pile of hooey it is, and they are also begining to realize just how much more it is going to cost the people in need as well as all other taxpayers more than Johnson lied, err, said it would.

Johnson's rolling in it...
Dirty money that is!

Not only does she take drug industry money out the ying-yang in order to finance her campaign efforts, but Johnson also takes dirty money from Tom Delay.

You can feel free to stand behind Johnson if you want to... But don't say I didn't warn you.


Funny there Nancy!

We Bloggers were only ready for this smear attack about 10 months ago... (Almost as long as the GOP leadership has known that Republican rep. Mark Foley was a pedophile!)

4/5/06

Wake Up and Smell the Roses

For those of you that even bother to tune in to the preznits stupid press conferences just to hear him repeat the same scripted responses to the questions nobody gives a damn about asking it is always refreshing when an "old school" reporter (The kind of reporter that actually asks the hard questions Americans want answers to!) like Helen Thomas push back even if bush completely ignores the actual questions.


After grilling Bush, Helen Thomas gets thousands of flowers

By Albert Eisele


The roses kept coming - and coming - and coming - to the Hearst Newspapers office in downtown Washington on Thursday, until they filled a large conference room to overflowing.


By the time the Federal Express delivery was complete, there were 108 dozen roses, nearly 1,300 in every color. They were the result of an e-mail campaign to show support for Hearst columnist Helen Thomas after she grilled President Bush about his Iraq policy at last week's White House news conference.


...snip...


Thomas, the 85-year-old veteran White House journalist whose outspoken criticism of the Bush administration has drawn much hate mail from Bush supporters in recent years, said Friday that she was overwhelmed by the

avalanche of roses.


"It sure beats the brickbats," she said, referring to hundreds of vitriolic e-mails she's received since last week's encounter with Bush. "Some of them attack you ad hominem and call you a traitor and ask if you've ever been to Iraq," she said. "I think it's the frustration of those who are angry with me and take it out in e-mail. I think there should be a logical debate, but maybe that's not possible during an ongoing

war."



Dear Helen Thomas,


The only people that think a debate is not possible at this time are the very few bush supporters left that know they have already lost any and all debate on this subject.


 You seem to be the only reporter that is willing to do what a reporter is supposed to do. Keep on asking the hard questions and pointing out the stupidity of this administration!


Signed,

Stephen

(AKA: Connecticutman1)



As for the rest of you so-called reporters, the clingons and turds, that love to carry water for the GOP:



WAKE UP AND SMELL THE ROSES!

1/24/06

Are Podcasts the next frontier for Blogs?

Always up for a new challenge, some political Bloggers are trying to take on the next frontier of Blogging by getting their messages out in podcasts. For every iPod, Zen, or other MP3 players sold out there in the marketplace the potential target for your political messages grows.

I know! I know...

You are not as technologically savvy as the average 13 year old . My daughter can effortlessly use every electronic/computerized device in our house while I can barely take care of my pet rock. I think it stopped rolling over and died a while back but I am too afraid to take it to a geologist and have it looked at for fear of the diagnosis. ("I'm sorry Stephen. Your rock was low in iron and died of anemeia years ago...") The truth is there is a good chance that if you had to do more than click-N-go on the net you would never have found this diary.

Anyways...

I was surfing the net a while back and came across a great resource (The Buzz Log) for those of you that may have thought about podcasting your Blogs but didn't have a clue how to go about it. It covers the basics of what podcasting is all about and can help you get started.

Bloggers are already starting to get ahead of the curve of the print media when it comes to analysing the news and politics. Now we have the technology available to take on the the radio and television pundits at our fingertips, and to help us reach out to the next generation of political activists.

Now, before you leave and start clicking your way into what I believe will be the future of Blogging... Does anyone know a geologist that will see patients on an outcall basis?

Podcast Popularity
Tuesday January 24, 2006 3:00AM PT

what is a podcast

  1. Video Podcast
  2. Free Podcasts
  3. Podcast Directory
  4. Howard Stern Podcast
  5. RSS Podcast Music
  6. Free Video Podcasts
  7. How to Podcast
  8. Podcast Alley
  9. Video Podcast Directory
  10. Ricky Gervais Podcast
  1. Lost Podcast
  2. What is a Podcast
  3. Podcast Software
  4. Best Video Podcasts
  5. NPR Podcasts
  6. Free TV Podcasts
  7. PSP Podcast
  8. Hip Hop Mix Podcast
  9. Podcast Hosting
  10. This American Life Podcast

1/16/06

Republicans Gaming the Voting Systems

This seems to be a recurring theme across the states:

Blumenthal investigating voting machine company
EDWARD J. CROWDER ecrowder@ctpost.com

BRIDGEPORT — State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said Tuesday that his office is exploring whether a Simsbury company broke the law when it offered a failed bid to provide Connecticut's next-generation voting machines.


What is it they did to cause State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal to begin investigations?

Danaher Controls was the state's first choice to upgrade 3,300 aging mechanical voting machines.

But Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz last week announced the state had dropped the company after learning its machines were not certified for use in national elections.

The development caused the state to miss a Jan. 1 deadline to line up new voting machines to comply with the federal Help America Vote Act in time for this November's elections.

"We're actively exploring possible action to recoup damages to state taxpayers," Blumenthal said. "We need to investigate further what was told the secretary of the state's office — when, exactly, statements were made by the company and how grave the impact will be, both short- and long-term."

During a meeting with the Connecticut Post's editorial board Tuesday, Bysiewicz said the company had made misleading statements on written communications submitted to her office, as it sought the state contract.


OOPS! Just some misleading statements... It seems they forgot to mention not only that they hadn't received federal certification:

"Contrary to their written representations, they had no federal certification and hadn't even applied for federal certification," Bysiewicz said on Tuesday.


But they hadn't even applied for it yet!

Bysiewicz said a new search will begin soon. However, the state already has missed the federal deadline to replace its mechanical-lever voting machines.

Bysiewicz said she received a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice — the agency charged with enforcing the act — pledging to cooperate with Connecticut as it tries again to find a qualified vendor.

A department spokesman, however, stopped short on Tuesday of promising the state would avoid repercussions

HMMM?

They might fund the elections, they might not. Sounds like real promising words from the DoJ.
(Yeah Right!)

And when you consider that Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz has no real reason for some of the demands she puts on manufacturers:

For months Connecticut activists have been questioning Secretary of State Bysiewicz about why she continuously claimed that any voting system used in the state would have to accommodate a full-face ballot. Coming on the heels of the revelation that the sole choice contractor for a voting system for Connecticut, Danaher Controls, would not be able to fulfill their promise of a 2002 federally qualified voting system, the Attorney General has now revealed that there is no law that requires a full-face ballot. In the mean time, the Attorney General is also investigating what actions can be taken against Danaher Controls for misrepresenting their equipment.



Nevermind that it also appears that many of these companies seem to be operating in bad faith, a recurring theme across the states, and gaming the system of federal funding that can be cut off if you don't have "the right electronic machines" in place for the '06 elections.

In some states it appears that even when they chosen a system, that manufacturer may chose not to deal with them at all, leaving them with no realistic options whatsoever.

In Leon County Florida they had decided to dump their Diebold scanners and had made an agreement with ES&S to provide new scanners that provided an easily voter verifiable laser printout of your votes AND met handicap requirements BUT:

Faced with a deadline this month to comply with handicapped-access provisions of federal law in time for the September primaries, Sancho got the County Commission to dump the old ballot scanners late last year and let him bring in a new company to include a laser-printing system. But the new company, Election Systems & Software, has backed out of the plan - leaving Sancho suspicious of its motives and consulting lawyers.

Sancho said ES&S has been seeking Leon County's business since 2004. He said Diebold Election Systems, which provided the current system, had violated its agreement with the county by refusing to upgrade software unless he signed a new contract and agreed never to link Diebold equipment to any other machinery.


Seems like some companies are gaming the system big time! You can thank the corrupt republican Ney for all of this corrupt legislation (HAVA) that allows these electronic voting machine manufacturers to treat our money as their jackpot.


Rep. Bob Ney, an Ohio Republican implicated in a lobbying corruption investigation
, said today he will step aside temporarily as chairman of the House Administration Committee.

... snip...

Ney is at the center of the Justice Department's ongoing corruption probe and has been identified as the congressman referenced by Abramoff in his guilty plea earlier this month.

Ney's decision comes as three House Republicans are waging a spirited campaign to replace Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas as majority leader. DeLay was forced by party rules to step aside after he was indicted by a state grand jury in Texas for alleged violation of campaign finance laws.


Yep... What more could you expect from corrupt republicans?

12/22/05

Fucking Oppressive Xenophobes News

Is this your idea of fair and balanced?


Stormfront.org's top logo boasts "White Pride Worldwide" and features a town hall radio discussion with former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. But a FOX News affiliate ran a story promoting it as "a web site with everything from dating advice and homemaking threads, to discussion boards that focus on news that white activists want to know."

FOX's coverage hasn't gone unnoticed; on a Nov. 9 comment on the site's forums, Senior Moderator James Kelso writes, "Thanks to all for the positive assessments of this Stormfront.org interview with Fox TV. The Fox TV Carolina staff was very professional and made it easy for...me. One detail that I forgot (until just yesterday) was to unmoderate our new Stormfront Member, FOXSC, so that Fox could post more easily on Stormfront. We've also got Fox5News and Fox-News as Stormfront Members." So much for "fair and balanced."

Source for this is The Progress Report


Don't ever let the words "White Pride" sway you. This is just another codeword for extreme racism. To describe a white supremescist website as anything but a bunch of radical, racist, hatemongers is to deny reality.

The reality about their their coverage of that website?

FOX = Fucking Oppressive Xenphobes

Don't ever let Billy-bung O'liely tell you otherwise.

The same station that tries to outrage its viewers with fake wars on Christmas also brings you their propaganda, support, and promotion of racism.

Go figure, eh?

12/20/05

For Justice - Day 5 Roe v Wade

So far in the 12 Days of Justice daily series you have learned that:



Todays diary for Day 5 will be a short and to the point explanation of Judge Alito's views concerning women and abortion rights. It will deal with his radical and demeaning views from the perspective of his positions revealed in certain abortion cases, memos, applications, and discussions of Roe v Wade.


[Updated]: to reflect many edits! Please check the bottom to cross-post easily.


Join me in the back alley to get a clear view of Alito.

In 1985 Alito made crystal clear his position concerning Roe v Wade.


Alito's name does not appear on any briefs the Reagan Solicitor General's office filed in abortion-related cases. However, just a few months before Alito wrote his DOJ application letter touting his contribution to cases in which the government argued that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion," the Solicitor General's office had filed a brief in Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists on that very subject. The brief urged that "this Court should overrule" Roe v. Wade. The Court rejected the Solicitor General's arguments, with only two justices agreeing that Roe should be overturned.


T. R. Goldman at law.com Offers this opinion of the upcoming battle:


If Alito's jurisprudential views match those on the Thornburgh brief -- and at least in 1985, Alito indicated that they do -- then the job application provides the Judiciary Committee with the type of window into a future justice's thinking that, since the failed nomination of Robert Bork, has become almost nonexistent.


This is a nomination demanding to be "Borked" into nonexistence. But this still does not give a clear picture of his views on women's rights. Please consider taking and using any or all parts of the following letter and using it to contact your Senators concerning this nomination. Feel free to adapt and edit this letter, or you can just say how you feel about this in your own words. All we ask is that you take action before it is too late.





What does Samuel Alito think about women and abortion rights?


In Judge Alito's 1992 dissent in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, Alito argued that a law requiring a woman in certain circumstances to notify her spouse before seeking an abortion did not pose an undue burden on a woman's right to choose. Alito asserted that if parental notification requirements were constitutional, as the Supreme Court had previously held, then spousal notification requirements must be permissible as well. (Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 947 F.2d 682 (3d Cir. 1991), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).)


Alito's colleagues on the Third Circuit and a 5-4 Supreme Court majority disagreed. Writing for that Supreme Court majority, Sandra Day O'Connor firmly rejected Alito's troubling logic:


"A State may not give to a man the kind of dominion over his wife that parents exercise over their children."

(Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) at 898.)


Sandra Day O'Connor was correct in rejecting Alito's view of women as subservient to men and less than equal in the eyes of the law.


In a 1985 memo Alito had advised the Reagan Administration that it should attempt to undermine Roe v. Wade. Alito urged the administration to file a friend-of-the-court brief in Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and argued that this brief could promote "the goals of bringing about the eventual overturning of Roe v. Wade, and in the meantime, of mitigating its effects."


Alito wanted the administration to "make clear" that it "disagree[d] with Roe v. Wade," but argued that the most effective long-term strategy of persuading the Supreme Court to overturn this groundbreaking precedent was to chip away at it slowly through extremely restrictive state laws. Overturning Roe v Wade would most certainly result in a return to the days of dangerous "illegal" abortions.


Is this the kind of nomination that sounds like a moderate? This candidate is not representative of my views, nor of mainstream America.


Alito clearly has no problem with forcing his radical ideals on women.


I strongly urge you to vote against this horrible nomination because no woman should be forced by anyone to have to resort to using a coat hanger to perform a back alley abortion. When you consider that Alito's warped views would be replacing the moderate voice of Sandra Day O'Connor there should be no doubt that Alito's nomination must be stopped.


Signed,





Some suggested contacts and petitions:


Your senators


The Judiciary Committee


Your representatives


Congress.org


Campus Progress "Stop Alito's America"


PFAW "Save the Court"


Planned Parenthood Anti-Alito Petition


Naral Anti-Alito Petition


Rolling Justice


Plan B Petition


Sending a FAX via the Web (For those of us that don't have a fax machine at home.)


Again, feel free to copy and paste any and all of the information or images you will see put up over the next couple of weeks by the Anti-Alito Brigade into Blogs and letters as we hold Alito's feet to the fire. Even if you only participate on a few of the days it can help make a difference. There are so many issues where Samuel Alito's views and allegiances are just flat out wrong for a SCOTUS nomination.


Note: Tommorrow's actions and reason's are still being worked on today. Feel free to check it out at Booman Tribune  (Just look for the "Justice" diaries) and any help or participation of any kind you can provide will be greatly appreciated. This is another action brought to you by the group that brought you "Operation Yellow Feather" which was a very successful cross blog protest. These actions are designed to help bring the "Left Blogosphere Think Tank" together on our many shared issues.



Watch for Alice's diaries on the "separation of church and state/religious freedom" for days 6 and 7... On two different days because we want to keep them twice as separated!



Actions for: Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4




HTML code to cross post this in a txt file
Click to open, copy and paste vigorously all over the net! Please!

12/14/05

12 Days of Justice - Day 2

There are many reasons to be wary of the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.


12 Days of Justice - Day 2


Regarding Alito's positions on age discrimination & FMLA.

by AP


My own "copper coinage" (I have someone to thank for that phrase): States have rights; people don't. This warped concept is as antebellum as it is evil. Don't be fooled because Alito's bright enough not to snarl; he's as wingnut as they come ... only quieter.


Anyway, please take this letter and adapt as you will. Feel free to use all or in part.



We want to you to become active in this... So don't be shy to use your cut and past skills on this. Call your senators. Call the Judiciary Committee. Email, write letters, and tell your friends. Alito must not be approved to take a seat on the Supreme Court.

Over the next 12 days the Anti-Alito Brigade will be bringing you many of those reasons, and also some actions that you might consider to help stop this horrible nomination. The main intention of this nomination is to try and tip the balance of power away from the legislative branch and towards the President.


More importantly, Alito is an activist judge that will legislate from the bench on many of the issues that all progressives hold dear to their heart.





X-Posted at: Booman Tribune, My Left Wing, My Left Nutmeg, Political Cortex

Front Paged at: Dembloggers, ePluribus Media




Dear Senator,


I strongly urge you to vote against the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court. Appointing Judge Alito will threaten the fundamental rights and basic legal protections for working Americans of all ages. Two areas of particular concern include the rights found under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)--rights that Judge Alito apparently does not believe are granted to Americans or should be exercised by Americans.


FMLA helps millions of adults balance workplace and family responsibilities by giving eligible workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for life events such as the birth of a child or to care for a parent, child or spouse with a serious illness. The ADEA protects employees and job applicants 40 years of age and older from discrimination based on age. These laws are essential in an age of heightened rhetoric regarding "family values" that are ostensibly held so dear by social conservatives In an age of pension instability and decline of retiree health benefits for older workers, such protections are imperative.


Hostile to the very concept of discrimination.


A recent Knight Ridder article examining Judge Alito's record describes him as being "particularly rigid in employment discrimination cases" and that he has "... seldom found merit in a bias claim."  Is he really so myopic as to believe that discrimination either does not exist or deserves no remedy?  His rulings strongly imply that he doesn't even support the right of individuals to present evidence that discrimination exists.


Apparently so: he was the sole dissent in Glass v. Philadelphia Electric Company (PECO). Glass, a 23-year PECO employee, sued for racial and age discrimination after being denied several promotions, even though during that period he earned two engineering degrees and had only one negative job evaluation. During the trial, PECO claimed that the sole negative job evaluation was the reason that Glass failed to be promoted. When Glass attempted to present evidence to refute that claim, the trial judge refused his motion.  The decision was reversed on appeal with Alito offering the sole dissent, claiming that the trial judge's decision was "harmless."  Incredibly, he further stated his belief that Glass presenting his side of the story could cause "substantial unfair prejudice." Evidently, providing evidence in a case one has filed is itself prejudicial.


Ignoring evidence of blatant age discrimination.


In Keller v. Orix Credit Alliance, Inc., Judge Alito denied a former employee the right to present to a jury his claim under the ADEA despite providing evidence in the form of a statement by the person who fired him: "If you are getting too old for the job, maybe you should hire one or two young bankers."


Views so radical that he does not believe that Congress even had the authority to enact FMLA.


In Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, Judge Alito held that Congress did not have the authority to give state employees the right to sue their employers for damages from violations of the FMLA's unpaid leave provisions. Judge Alito even held that FMLA "creates a substantive entitlement to sick leave."  The Supreme Court later ruled on a similar case that state employees did, in fact, have those rights under FMLA. That 6-3 opinion was written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist.


Supreme Court decisions have real consequences for real people.


Judge Alito's record of opposing basic legal protections for Americans is clear and unambiguous: It is replete with examples of weakening the rights and protections that millions of Americans depend upon. Americans deserve a Supreme Court justice that will rule in a fair manner, not an ideologue who will use his life-long appointment to push a narrow agenda that would winnow away basic rights. His type of extremist judicial philosophy has no place on the Supreme Court. For these reasons, I strongly urge you to vote against this nomination.


Signed,


________






Some suggested contacts & petitions:


Your senators


The Judiciary Committee


Your representatives


Campus Progress "Stop Alito's America"


PFAW "Save the Court"


Planned Parenthood Anti-Alito Petition


Naral Anti-Alito Petition


Plan B Petition


Sending a FAX via the Web (For those of us that don't have a fax machine at home.)


Feel free to copy and paste any and all of the information or images you will see put up over the next couple of weeks into Blogs and letters as we hold Alito's feet to the fire. Even if you only participate on a few of the days it can help make a difference. There are so many issues where Samuel Alito's views and allegiances are just flat out wrong for a SCOTUS nomination.


Note: Tommorrow's actions and reason's are still being worked on today. Feel free to check it out at Booman Tribune  (Just look for the "Justice" diaries) and any help or participation of any kind you can provide will be greatly appreciated. This is another action brought to you by the group that brought you "Operation Yellow Feather" which was a very successful cross blog protest. These actions are designed to help bring the "Left Blogosphere Think Tank" together on our many shared issues.


Actions for: Day 1

12/13/05

12 Days of Justice

There are many reasons to be wary of the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.



Over the next 12 days the Anti-Alito Brigade will be bringing you many of those reasons, and also some actions that you might consider to help stop this horrible nomination.


The main intention of this nomination is to try and tip the balance of power away from the legislative branch and towards the President.


Alito is an activist judge that will legislate from the bench on many of the issues that all progressives hold dear to their heart.


Our intention is that everyone across the Left Blogosphere participates in this any way that they can. Write a few letters, send Emails, send Faxes, and make some phonecalls to your Senators and Reps. (I know Reps don't vote on this, BUT they can provide more pressure on this issue to those that do vote on Alito! Besides, it is fun to piss them off... lol)


Taken from Tampopo's BooTrib diary:


December 12, 2005


You should be very wary of Judge Samuel Alito. Perhaps afraid is more accurate.


Judge Samuel Alito does not respect the primary role of the Legislative branch of our government. Therefore, he should not be considered acceptable to any member of Congress, particularly true Conservatives, regardless of his opinions on other matters held dear.


Judge Alito is a threat to your role in the structure of our government. You practice the art of politicking, balancing constituents' concerns and needs with those of our society as a whole. Legislation is challenged in court, as it should be when the interpretation of a law is in question. Judge Alito's record suggests he is not a "strict constructionist" of the Constitution.


Norm Ornstein, of the prestigious American Enterprise Institute, has recognized the danger Judge Alito represents. In his article, "Judge Alito Doesn't Show Congress Enough Deference," Ornstein states:

  [Supreme Court Justice John] Roberts respects Congress and its constitutional primacy; Alito shows serious signs that he does not...

  ...Roberts is a very conservative guy, and a strict constructionist -- one who means it. He understands that Congress is the branch the framers set up in Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution. It is not coincidence that Article 1 is twice as long as Article II, which created the executive branch, and almost four times as long as Article III, which established the judiciary. Judges should bend over doubly and triply backward before overturning a Congressional statute, especially if it is clear that Congress acted carefully and deliberatively...


The court case that has Mr. Ornstein turning such a critical eye on Judge Alito is from 1996, "United States v Rybar." This case involved a challenge to Congress's right to regulate the possession or transfer of machine guns.


From Mr. Ornstein,

  Congress had passed the law in a reasonable and deliberate fashion. A genuine practitioner of judicial restraint would have allowed them a wide enough berth to do so. Alito's colleagues did just that. But Alito used his own logic to call for its overturn, arguing that the possession of machine guns by private individuals had no economic activity associated with it, and that no real evidence existed that private possession of guns increased crime in a way that affected commerce -- and thus Congress had no right to regulate it. That kind of judicial reasoning often is referred to as reflecting the "Constitution in Exile."

  Whatever it is, it's not judicial restraint.


In response to Alito's opinion, the majority said, "Nothing in Lopez (an earlier Supreme Court case) requires either Congress or the Executive to play Show and Tell with the federal courts at the peril of invalidation of a Congressional statute."


Mr. Ornstein's final sentence is a caution to you,

  Whatever else it does with Judge Alito at the confirmation hearings, the Senate needs to hold his feet to the fire on this larger issue of deference to the legislative branch.


Don't let Judge Alito's opinions on single issues distract you from the danger he presents to our nation's Constitutional foundation. Reject his nomination and encourage your colleagues to do the same.


Three groups to contact:


Your senators


The Judiciary Committee


And your representatives


Feel free to lift the image here or any of the others over at Booman Tribune, and feel free to copy and paste any and all of the information you will see put up over the next couple of weeks into Blogs and letters as we hold Alito's feet to the fire.


Even if you only participate on a few of the days it can help make a difference. There are so many issues where Samuel Alito's views and allegiances are just flat out wrong for a SCOTUS nomination.


Note: Tommorrow's actions and reason's are still being worked on today. Feel free to check it out at Booman Tribune (Just look for the "Justice" diaries) and any help or participation of any kind you can provide will be greatly appreciated. This is another action brought to you by the group that brought you "Operation Yellow Feather" which was a very successful cross blog protest. These actions are designed to help bring the "Left Blogosphere Think Tank" together on our many shared issues.


X-posted at My Left Wing, Booman Tribune , My Left Nutmeg, Political Cortex

And also Front Paged or posted by Cedwyn at: Dembloggers, ePluribus Media,   MyDD, and TPM Cafe reader Blogs as well as by shermanesqe at Street Prophets and C&J

12/9/05

Coulter Feeling Like an Outkast in Connecticut

bzbb wrote up an interesting diary on Cindy Sheehan's visit to Uconn the other day. Given that it is crunch time for students across the nation I thought that I would give bzbb a little cover before coming back with a promissed diary on Anne Coulter's visit to Uconn. (Good luck in your exams, and essay efforts!)


Needless to say, Coulter wasted very little time going from zero to stupid:


STORRS, Connecticut (AP) -- Conservative columnist Ann Coulter cut short a speech at the University of Connecticut amid boos and jeers, and decided to hold a question-and-answer session instead.


"I love to engage in repartee with people who are stupider than I am," Coulter told the crowd of 2,600 Wednesday.


Before cutting off her speech after about 15 minutes, Coulter called Bill Clinton an "executive buffoon" who won the presidency only because Ross Perot took 19 percent of the vote.


Yep! Right into her GOP talking points without a moment to spare.


I said "Darling, you sound like a prostitute pursing"


feel the love down below...


It is pretty darn obvious that protesters left her feeling a little bit like an outkast in Connecticut:


Coulter's appearance prompted protests from several student groups. About 100 people rallied outside the auditorium where she spoke, saying she spread a message of intolerance.


"We encourage diverse opinion at UConn, but this is blatant hate speech," said Eric Knudsen, a 19-year-old sophomore journalism and social welfare major who heads campus group Students Against Hate.


It wasn't the first time Coulter has had trouble at a university speech. In October 2004, two men ran onstage and threw custard pies as she was giving a speech at the University of Arizona.


I know you'd like to thank your shit don't stank
But lean a little bit closer
See that roses really smell like boo-boo


Of course there were some there that were disgusted by this showing, but more likely because this is typically a republican type of reaction to a liberal:


UConn junior Kareem Mohni, 20, said he was disgusted by his peers' reaction to Coulter.


"It really appalled me that we're not able to come together as a group and listen to a different view in a respectful environment," Mohni said.


Get used to this type of reaction to people that spread hatred and spew thoughts that are designed to specifically divide America Kareem.


Aggressive Progressives don't put up with this kind of crap.


Don't you be looking at me crazy like ya want to
The game is over A.C. baby won't you
Just quit the contemplating cause
I'll box you in your muthafuckin mouth


(Posted originally at My Left Nutmeg)

12/6/05

Nancy Johnson's Junk in the Trunk

It seems that Nancy Johnson's political career has a lot of junk in the trunk...

Deroy Murdock on Medicare on National Review Online:

"This fiscal malpractice has not bought the White House even political dividends. An August 25-26, 2003 Gallup poll found 40 percent of adults approved of the president's handling of Medicare while 48 percent disapproved. After the benefit's adoption, a March 26-28, 2004 Gallup survey saw 35 percent approve of Bush on Medicare, while disapproval climbed to 55 percent. What a bargain: Each one-point drop in Bush's Medicare approval rating cost Americans $44.5 billion.

The GOP Congress should dump the drug benefit. They should spare taxpayers this absurdly expensive new project whose true costs were concealed by an administration that sacrificed integrity and fiscal responsibility on an altar of blind ambition.

Instead, Republicans should develop a modest plan for poor seniors who lack coverage, rather than any American over 65, including multimillionaires and those who already have drug insurance.

The Medicare drug benefit has metastasized from bad policy to bad politics and now to scandal and possible criminality. This law begs to be euthanized. The GOP should pulls its plug. As for the perpetrators of this colossal public fraud, the Justice Department should fit them for orange jumpsuits."


And this is the legislation she was was so proud of and pinning her 2006 re-election hopes on? Well now, If that ain't an elephant passing some serious gas on to the voters?

Careful now!

Never stand behind an elephant that is full of it... You never know when it is going to take its next dump on YOU!

Chris Murphy flushes Johnson's Crap

So... What does Democrat hopeful Chris Murphy have to say about all of this?

Drug Benefit will be a problem for Johnson in 2006

Nancy Johnson's biggest legislative effort in years - the drug benefit bill - seems to be falling drastically short of doing what it promised - helping seniors afford their perscriptions. The NY Times explains why this bill will be an albatross around the necks of Republicans in 2006, Johnson in particular.

Already, many Democratic strategists argue that the new program - because of its complicated structure and gaps in coverage - could be much more of a problem than an asset for Republicans next year. Some Democratic challengers are already using the issue on the campaign trail, like Christopher S. Murphy, who hopes to unseat Representative Nancy L. Johnson of Connecticut, a senior Republican who played an important role in writing the law.

"Seniors, frustrated with the complexity of the drug benefit, are realizing that it was constructed to help the insurance industry and the drug industry," said Mr. Murphy, a state senator, in a common Democratic refrain. "It's more helpful to those industries than to a lot of seniors."

Read the rest of the story here.


Anyone that has tried to wade through Johnson's "signature legislation", either for themselves or a relative in need of medication, understands what a pile of hooey it is, and they are also begining to realize just how much more it is going to cost the people in need as well as all other taxpayers more than Johnson lied, err, said it would.

Johnson's rolling in it...
Dirty money that is!

Not only does she take drug industry money out the ying-yang in order to finance her campaign efforts, but Johnson also takes dirty money from Tom Delay.

You can feel free to stand behind Johnson if you want to... But don't say I didn't warn you.

She is full of it!