Mr. David Corn,

Another great post.

Sad when it is hard to tell WaPo from the Onion.

What the heck are the dems thinking?

Thanks

Kirk

I find it amusing when either side is badly losing an issue/argument, the excuse is, "Our issues are right, but we didn't explain them very well."

Could it be that the Democrats are not touching Judge Alito because, despite millions of dollars spent on opposition research, lobbying and advertisements, the American public (along with the American Bar Association) has found that Judge Alito really is highly qualified?

The only other alternative is that Senators Kennedy, Biden, et al, are both hapless and hopeless. Perhaps we should consult Donna Jo Kopechne for an opinion.

"Abramoff linked probe focuses on 5-lawmakers"

Washington Times, by Jerry Seper and Amy Hudson 1/11/2006.

A Justice Department investigation into influence peddling on Capital Hill is focusing on a "first tier" of lawmakers and staffers, both Republicans and Democrats, say sources close to the probe that has netted guilty pleas from lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Law enforcement authorities and others have said the investigation's opening phase is scrutinizing Sens.Conrad Burns(R), Byron Dorgan(D), Harry Reid(D), JD Hayworth(R) & Bob Ney(R).

A source working with the Justice Department on the investigation told the Washington Times that Abramoff was questioned during several interviews about the lawmakers and there purported ties to the lobbyist and his former clients. The source said prosecuters asked Abramoff whether the lawmakers had performed "official acts" in exchange for campaign cash or other favors. Although it is unknown whether any of the five will be charged in the case, the source said Abramoff was being "prepped" by five Justice Department attorneys in that event.

My own opinion:

Looks like Howard Dean (and the regular cornpposters on this site)may have been premature about this being a Republican scandal after all. Harry Reid should now step down from being minority leader while this investigation is ongoing and should return the $63,000 he pocketed from Abramoff's clients. Also, an appology from all the cornposters that defended the Dems on this is warranted.

As far as not being able to tell the difference between the WaPo and the Onion, says more about WaPo than anything I can post.

The only other alternative is that Senators Kennedy, Biden, et al, are both hapless and hopeless.

You might have a point there, but you blew it with the reference to Mary Jo Kopechne (you don't even have enough respect to get the woman's name correct), so tell your story walking, moron.

Ted Kennedy wants to know what you would ask Alito. Go here to ask your question.

Here's my 3-part question:

I would ask Judge Alito: In view of your 1984 Justice Department memo, do you believe that the attorney general, the president, and others in the executive branch of government, have absolute immunity and are, therefore, not subject to the rule of law?

As a second and third part to that question, I would ask: Do you believe that the president has the authority to defy a specified or express statutory mandate by Congress? If you do believe the president can defy Congress, is it because you believe in the unitary executive theory of the presidency which gives extraordinary powers to the president and marginalizes the two other branches of our Constitutional government?

Mary Jo Kopechne.

The American public isn't paying attention and doesn't care. Way too much cell phone gabbing to do. Too much stuff to buy. What is wrong with you? Don't you know there is a big sale on at Wal Mart? Politics? That's just dumb and boring.

David, I have to admit it -- more people would be paying attention if the questions were more focused on the abortion issue.

How about this question:

Judge Alito, why do you hate women?
+++++++++++
It would certainly change the tone -- and get headlines.

The Washington Times? Forgive me if I am mistaken, but isn't that a partisan rag founded by none other than The "Reverend" Moon, as in the "Moonies". The Onion has more credibility, BafHappy.
It may be unwise to hold your breath waiting on that "appology".

Referring to the WaPo article David linked above -- WTF did the illustrious King George mean by this statement???

"...Despite that, Bush said that most Iraqis are upbeat about the future: "The vast majority of Iraqis prefer freedom with intermittent power to life in the permanent darkness of tyranny and terror."
+++++++++
"freedom with intermittent power??? Ya mean, like when busheviks "allows" the Iraqis to be in control of their own country??

micki, my question is, why ISN'T it the issue? it's the one sure fire way to get the bible bangers riled up, and that has always proven successful in the past.

#10 and #11

#10 (I was only partly kidding) He'll say it's about electricity (power), but I refuse to believe him.

#11 Saladin, exactly. Bible beaters go ballistic -- it's red meat.

Robb,

The key quote from the article: "A Justice Department investigation into influence peddling on Capital Hill is focusing on a "first tier" of lawmakers and staffers, both Republicans and Democrats, say sources close to the probe that has netted guilty pleas from lobbyist Jack Abramoff." [emphasis mine]

Who might these "sources close to the probe" be? DeLay's attorneys? Republican cronies at the DOJ? Sounds like bullshit to me.

Robb,

I didn't really expect an appology. Integrity and honesty are difficult for smoe people to deal with. Everyone of you regulars have made it a point to spin this as a Republican scandal (Democrat talking points for minions)before the facts were out on the table. You take Harry Reid at his word without any questioning his ties. Thank goodness the prosecuters aren't as partisan and loyally blind as you. I say send them all to jail if guilty, you say it's OK if it's a Democrat just send the Republicans to jail because I'm biased and don't care what you think. Doesn't pass the smell test if you ask me.

Abramoff Scandal Threatens to Derail Reed's Political Ambitions

The Washington scandal over lobbyist Jack Abramoff may claim a casualty outside the nation's capital: Ralph Reed, a former presidential-campaign adviser who once headed one of the U.S.'s largest Christian activist groups.

Disclosures that Reed once ran an anti-gambling campaign that was secretly financed by casino-owning clients of his friend Abramoff have damaged his ability to raise funds for a bid to become Georgia's next lieutenant governor, other Republicans say. That may undercut his chances of winning an office that he could use as a steppingstone to national political ambitions, they say.

Campaign-finance reports filed this week show that Reed, 44, lagged behind opponent Casey Cagle in fundraising for the July 18 Republican primary during the past six months, after collecting more than twice as much money as his rival before that. Cagle raised $667,000 from June 30 to Dec. 31 to Reed's $404,000.

``A lot of those big corporate donors are now hedging their bets,'' said Matt Towery, the 1990 Republican candidate for lieutenant governor, who was once a colleague of Reed's on Capitol Hill. ``Ralph faces a very difficult and now problematic candidacy.''

*****end of clip*****

Ralph Reed would not make it very long in prison general population. He will not be lieutenant governor of any prison but I bet he is popular for other reasons.

capt

Don

Of course it does Don. If this were true it would make you look like a fool for all the defensive statements you have made in reference to this subject. How about you do a little investigative research and find the truth instead of making defensive comments. I have plenty of time to wait until the investigation on the five comes to light from the Justice Department and will be back to ask what your defense will be at that time. Time is on my side. I promise not to make you look like a monkeys ass when the truth comes out.

Lets be honest, yeh, let's do! I am a regular here and I have not once tried to spin this abramoff scandal into anything. I couldn't care less if it's a dem or repub problem, they are both sleazy as far as I am concerned and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if an equal amount of dems get hauled up in the net. What I have consistantly questioned is his connection to atta, and the Boulis murder he is being investigated on. So far, only one other regular here that I can recall has even brought up these far more important issues.

The concept that this involves dems is crazy pony up the proof and then let's see what gives. The repugs are crazy with power and like a drug it has corrupted them, parroting the talking points by the RNC makes you look like a brainwashed maggot of theirs, so let's get real. Geez. Can't see the truth if your head is too far up your butt.

Saladin

You have more courage than your friends do. I am with you on the Dem-Rep send them all to jail band wagon. I really can't stand it when someone tries to make up dishonest points to defend their party. I am a republican that is discussed with the status quo. I would like to see a House and Senate clean sweep. I think Tom Delay should get what he desrves and I hope that if any Dems are involved that they would not be excused just because there Dems.

The Crookedness of Congress is Nearing Exposure

We have the spectacle of politicians coming to Washington owning hardly more than the clothes they wear, and leaving with whopping bank accounts, bulging stock portfolios and expensive country club memberships.

They call it "public service" for a reason. There is supposed to be a certain amount of personal sacrifice involved in serving oneճ country, a gift a citizen makes to his society.

These guys treat Congress like Willy Lomanճ brother treated Africa: "William, when I walked into the jungle, I was seventeen. When I walked out I was twenty-one. And, by God, I was rich!"

Then, when one of their bagmen gets caught with his hand in the till, they turn into Claude Raines, the police inspector in "Casablanca," who, having been on the take for years, is "shocked---shocked!" to hear there is gambling in Casablanca.

Lobbying at its highest levels is little more than legalized bribery. Itճ rotting the very core of our democracy. Admittedly, it has some informational function, but a lot of it is bad information. If we did away with it altogether, weդ gain more than weդ lose.

But first things first. As an FBI man said last week: "With most cases, the plea is the end, but with Abramoff, the plea is just the beginning."

*****end of clip*****

Plame, Kkkarl, Libby, Abramoff, Reed, et al - The gift that will be giving for years to come.

This does not mean (at least I do not think it means) anybody would give a pass to Democrat or Indy politicians.

As I have posted before, it is a very odd thing that the Republicans are the only ones caught in these nets.

If any others were committing crimes I assume they are on tape somewhere saying something that could challenge their actions and put them in legal peril. (blackmail maybe?)

I wager the slugs have a few trump cards and are keeping their power dry for the time being.

capt

Sal,

It keeps flogging it's straw man: never once has anyone here (other than the trolls) ever suggested that Democrats get a free pass for corruption. The idiot is delusional.

Happy/lets be honest/baf/whoever you are,

Please come back after Reid is indicted, not before.

what the heck #18

Please don't be a party hack! Can't you just have a little courage like Saladin and call a spade a spade if guilty? Is this too much to ask?

Articles & eye-witness's accounts from inside Iraq

As horrible as the accounts of torture are, this is, if possible, even worse. We will never, ever live this down.

Politicians are all crooks but this time it is the party in power that got caught. Just like the dems got caught in the nineties. Anyone remember Rostenkowski? So there is enough crooked politicians to go around, and party affiliations are no guarantee of honesty. They need to be changed regularly and no exceptions. THrow the bums out after two terms and then start over again. Don't let them get lobbying jobs until ten years or better fifteen years if they last that long. One way to keep the revolving door closed. Stope letting these think tanks and other groups write the legislation and start to get a grip on our government while we have a chance.

Excerpt:

Shiha, Abid's 98 year old mother, was deaf and blind. She kept on kissing Ahmad, Dr. Intisar and Sami, and cursing Bush for preventing her of going back to Falluja. There was no door, just a sheet of cloth. Another sheet traditionally embroidered "In the Name of God, the most Gracious, and the most merciful". The family told us how their house in Jolan was shot, how the furniture was destroyed. Strangely enough, every body we met told us how their glass and porcelain buffet were smashed. The American soldiers must have fun smashing these things.

Sami told the family how he spent 20 years in the US, how his friends were crying in the good by party, how they asked him to tell the Iraqi people that they have nothing to do with killing the Iraqis and occupying their country.

Sami asked Lina, 15, one of Abid's daughters:" If I were an American soldier what would you want to tell me?"

"Get out of my country"

"and if I were a civilian American coming as a guest?"

"I would say you are welcome, you can stay"

"for how long?"

"As long as you need"

Abid said we thank the American people who reject the war. Isam, a neighbor in his 30s, a graduate of electricity institute, but studying to be a teacher now, said the resistance is legal, as far as there is occupation people resist. We do not want to be humiliated. We do not want them (the American) to be humiliated. But they did not suffer as we did.

Mohammad Kreidi, is 85, he lives with his 4 sons and there families in one house. He can barely feel what is going on around him, he was dying. Dawood Obeid is 73, he suffers from muscles atrophy, and he lives in another house with his 15 daughters and sons....

Let's be honest, when the f**k was the last time dems ever got excused because they're (not "there" dummy) dems?

Have you discussed with anyone that you're "discussed"? You must mean "disgusted."

This whole hearing biz will end just like the Roberts one did, with easy confirmation. Sure, Alito is providing non-answers to some pointed questions, but that's typical of a politically oriented guy. Hell, Bush the appointer/nominator king, does this all the time. Where's the outrage?

Lets be honest, I have no way of knowing how long you may have been reading posts here, but I can assure you, the regulars I have known for over a year would in no way approve of deceitful politics just because they are put into play by dems. We constantly rant and rave over the incomprehensible behavior of both left and right, what sensible person wants liars and thieves representing our country??

Integrity and honesty? This from someone who continually posts the same unsubstantiated drivel under different names to give the impression that others agree? Please. Spare me.

No one asked you.

Don, what the heck, Robb

You easily dismiss the Democrats as not being invloved yet millions of dollars have exchanged hands. Do you think that they are exempt from temptation? Boy, I wish I could blindly believe that a politician is not capable of being corrupt-heck I wouldn't need to vote anymore. I am not defending any of the Republicans which haven't been indicted for anything on this yet but you are incredibly sure of yourselves that the Dems aren't involved.

Steel frame buildings cannot collapse at virtually the speed of gravity, symmetrically, straight down into a relatively small pile of rubble due to fire or any other natural occurrence. Case closed....

Yeah, I'm kind of pissed off, too! Most of us on the blog have never said Dems are innocents. In fact, we have said, if they are guilty, throw the bums out -- either side of the aisle.

baf/brock/tessitura tenor/antoine/asshole/whatever the handle of the day -- you are full of s**t.

Saladin @28 -- good for you on this one! That jerko was trying (very unsuccessfully!) to suggest that you two were in agreement.

LOL.

"discussed with the status quo"

"just because there Dems"

OK, stop now. You are killing me. My sides hurt.

Does your Mom know what you are up to while she is at work?

how about let's really be fully honest -

Steel cannot remain in a molten state for weeks due to a hydro-carbon fire. Case closed again....

British Officer Blisters US Army in Iraq Critique

"Self-belief and resilient optimism are recognized necessities for successful command, and all professional forces strive for a strong can-do ethos. However, it is unhelpful if it discourages junior commanders from reporting unwelcome news up the chain of command," he wrote.

"Force commanders and political masters need to know the true state of affairs if they are to reach timely decisions to change plans: arguably, they did not always do so," he added.

Aylwin-Foster faulted "moral righteousness" felt by U.S. personnel that "encouraged the erroneous assumption that given the justness of the cause, actions that occurred in its name would be understood and accepted by the population, even if mistakes and civilian fatalities occurred in the implementation."

Aylwin-Foster said U.S. forces in Iraq were more disposed to use offensive military operations than the forces of coalition partners, and U.S. rules of engagement "were more lenient than other nations', thus encouraging earlier escalation."

Aylwin-Foster lauded the U.S. Army's sense of patriotism and its talent, and said it was "in no way lacking in humanity or compassion."

"Yet it seemed weighed down by bureaucracy, a stiflingly hierarchical outlook, a predisposition to offensive operations, and a sense that duty required all issues to be confronted head-on."

*****end of clip*****

An interesting and candid view.

capt

just being honest...bush defends repugs when they are obviously guilty and bashes anyone who doesn't agree with him.

bush is looking more like McCarthy every day -- but even more evil and stooopid.

Cornposters are guilty of treason says Bush

We trolls play you Cornbots like a musical instrument.

We can always get a response, we just say anti-Semite, or call you partisan hacks and TA DA I'm the marionette and you are the puppets.

Why would I go to another board when I own this one and can play with your simple minds.

Roob #29

I don't know what your beef is, but you seem to be rather angry about something or someone. I only asked a question about the integrity/honesty of your position not you yourself. If I were asked this same question I would not be offended and would explain why I seem to show a bias in my answer. However, since I seem to anger you so much I will refarin from directly commenting to you for civility.

If you want to know who I am then just send me an e-mail that is linked on my handle name. Please no-hate mail.

Sorry, I don't have a link for this to keep it shorter...but I think it's worth posting.

Jennifer Van Bergen wrote recent articles on the unitary executive doctrine:

"The Unitary Executive: Is the Doctrine Behind the Bush Presidency Consistent with a Democratic State?" and "Scholar says Bush has used
obscure doctrine to extend power 95 times"

[see:
,
].

She said: "Some aspects of the unitary executive are unobjectionable. The unitary executive doctrine is concerned with presidential powers in three ways: (1) presidential appointments and
removals of officials in the executive branch, (2) presidential control over executive administration, and (3) the president's interpretations of laws in the execution of his duty as president. The first two of
these are not subject to much controversy now.

"As to the third, while clearly the president must interpret the laws he is sworn to uphold in order to uphold them, and in some instances a president may find that a law conflicts with his duties (which may be properly resolved in a number of ways: by working with Congress, bringing the issue to a federal court, etc.), when the doctrine is used as a means to utterly ignore laws and treaties, this is extremely troubling and may create a constitutional crisis.

"When President Bush signed the McCain amendment, which prohibited the use of torture when interrogating detainees, he also issued a
presidential signing statement. By this statement, in which he relies on the unitary executive doctrine, Bush appears to grant himself the authority to bypass the very law he had just signed.

"It seems clear that Bush believes he can ignore laws, even those that he signs or that specifically were meant to prohibit the executive
from acting. Does this also mean he can ignore the courts when he wishes? We need to decide whether a president who is determined to
ignore or evade the law has not acted in a manner contrary to his trust as president and subversive of constitutional government.

"Further, Congress should look very carefully at Alito's views on the unitary executive doctrine. If Alito believes that the doctrine allows the president to ignore laws, disregard clear congressional intent, or override federal court determinations, Alito should not be
confirmed."

Van Bergen is author of the book "The Twilight Of Democracy: The Bush Plan For America"

"Bush could be Hitler if he applied himself."

Margaret Cho

David,

If I understand you rightly, you're saying:

The Democrats should drop (or should not have pursued) their current strategy of slandering Alito with innuendo about Vanguard and CAP, and instead should be honest about why they oppose Alito: because they fear he will not affirm the unlimited abortion license.

I applaud your plea for honesty, but your notion that an openly pro-abortion strategy would make the Dems seem less partisan is all backwards. Dropping their cover of "good-government" concern would expose them as nothing but partisan.

The only way to innoculate the Democrats against charges of ugly partisan politics in the Alito appointment is to confirm him unanimously, as there is no serious non-partisan reason to do otherwise.

How can I defend America's so called democracy when Americans are enslaved under an oppressive Nazi government?

Bush is a dictator! Precedence has been set and we cannot roll it back. Heil Mein Fuehrer!

Saladin

I am sorry if I made it look as if we agreed on an issue of fairness. It seems this has pissed off the other regulars that you might actually be sensible on a issue. I am assuming that you regulars don't like dissenting views due to all the negative attacks. Is this a liberal trait that I was not aware of?

David Corn, how can you expect the Dems to stop Alito (why do I want to type Alioto?) when even the radical Leftist commenters on your Leftist blog can't focus on him? I actually liked your prior "Corn option" -- straight up honest questions. "Would you support having the US SC legislate to make abortion legal by creating an unwritten constitutional right, or would you leave it up to either the state or federal lawmakers?" There are even pro-choice folk who don't like Roe because it is making law, rather than enforcing laws as written. Without Roe, it's likely that more than half the US states would have changed their state laws to make abortion legal; some might have already changed back to make it illegal. However, you know that some 27 million voters chose Bush because of "moral issues" being their biggest reason. (see 3-d analysis Bush-Kerry: on War: 21 mil vs 21 mil; on Tax Cuts: 8.5 mil vs 30 mil; on Morals: 27 mil vs 4 mil. Only 4 mil. Kerry supporters had pro-abortion (or pro-gay marriage) as the most important reason for voting Kerry; 27 mil pro-lifers voted Bush. (52% Catholics; many against Tax Cuts; many against Iraq war -- but pro-life, first) I think the Dems won't win the White House again for 20 years, unless Roe is overturned -- AND I think they WILL win soon after it IS overturned. Bush and Rove and power-hungry Reps only want to LOOK like they're going to overturn Roe, to keep those Big Gov't, anti-War Catholics voting Rep -- because of abortion. As a true pro-life Rep (ex-Libertarian [for Life!]), I'm kinda annoyed at my own analysis. But I favor Bush first of all for pro-Democracy war in Iraq and Mid East.

Alito will be confirmed! Dictatorial powers for Hitler Bush grows and grows to glorious heights.

James, off topic but very interesting nevertheless. brought to you by The Heritage Foundation......What Are Directed-Energy Weapons? Direct-ed-energy weapons include a host of technologies, including lasers and microwave radiation emitters. These weapons can inflict casualties and damage equipment by depositing energy on their intended target. Compared with conventional weapons, which rely on the kinetic or chemical energy of a projectile, DEWs hit a target with subatomic particles or electromagnetic waves that travel at speeds at or near the speed of light. DEWs generate very high power beams and typically use a single optical system to both track a target and to focus the beam on the target in order to destroy it. More of that info is Here

The Impeachment of George W. Bush

Finally, it has started. People have begun to speak of impeaching President George W. Bush--not in hushed whispers but openly, in newspapers, on the Internet, in ordinary conversations and even in Congress. As a former member of Congress who sat on the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon, I believe they are right to do so.

I can still remember the sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach during those proceedings, when it became clear that the President had so systematically abused the powers of the presidency and so threatened the rule of law that he had to be removed from office. As a Democrat who opposed many of President Nixon's policies, I still found voting for his impeachment to be one of the most sobering and unpleasant tasks I ever had to undertake. None of the members of the committee took pleasure in voting for impeachment; after all, Democrat or Republican, Nixon was still our President.

At the time, I hoped that our committee's work would send a strong signal to future Presidents that they had to obey the rule of law. I was wrong.

*****end of clip*****

It is either impeachment or three more years of same crud.

I would bet on three years of the same crud or worse. *sigh*

capt

Fasten your seatbelts folks, we are on a one way ride to destruction and chimpys driving the bus. Alito will be put on the SC and there ain't shyt any one of us can (legally) do about it. The only hope anybody had died with Paul Wellstone, who was conveniently offed prior to the 04 elections. He had the stones none of these other political loser had, and wasn't afraid of stepping on any toes. RIP Paul we will see you soon. By the way, DEW disables aircraft electronics.

"Please no hate mail." Don't flatter yourself.

I shake my private parts in your general direction.

White House Admits U.S. Leader In Iraq Wanted More Troops

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration has acknowledged that its top civilian official in Iraq once called for tripling U.S. forces there.

In a new book, Paul Bremer -- who headed the U.S.-led coalition for 13 months -- says he urged Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in May 2004 to deploy 500,000 troops.

But White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said Bremer's view was just one among many and ultimately, it was left to U.S. commanders to decide.

Administration critics -- including some leading lawmakers -- were outspoken in saying a much bigger U.S. contingent was needed to put down the insurgency.

*****end of clip*****

So Bunnypants lied - AGAIN? Well knock me over with a feather.

capt

I'm typing this as slowly as I can in the hopes that the Bushbutts will be able to keep up. I will also try to shorten big words.

The Abramoff scandal is not about accepting money. The scandal is about taking bribes. It doesn't matter if Reid or Dorgan or Clinton or Pelosi or even if any of the Reds took a billion dollars (a lot of money) from Abramoff.

It's only a crime if they did so in return for political favors. That's what Ney, and Pombo, and Cunningham, and countless other REPUBLICANS did.

You will get an apology for DEMS bribery crimes when they commit one. The only crime that I can think of is letting Joe Lieberman sit in on caucuses with them when he has more reason to meet with the Reds.

Pande #54,

It's not going to stop. They believe that saying the Democrats took money is equal to taking bribes. The Rovian technique of repeating lies and half-truths over and over until they are accepted as the public narrative has infected the political discourse of the right. I mean, for the love of God, we actually had a wingnut refer to the "Clinton recession" on a recent thread. What bizarro universe do these people come from?

DINO's

The "Democrat In Name Only" should be drummed out of the party. Loserman = DINO & Busheney suck up.

IMHO

capt

And, hooray, Billmon finally posts again. Here's a little primer for the folks who say Abramoff was an equal-opportunity briber. Devastating.

Don #55

Actually it is the Justice Department that is saying (investigating) the Dems took bribes Don.

Pnadi #54

If Harry Reid & Byron Dorgan didn't take a bribe or favors then why are they being investigated as the top five? If they are found guilty would you admit that you were wrong in defending them, never mind the appology (that may be more than you could handle).

Dear Cornposters:

Here is another open letter. I know that on this website that there is great concern about Alito's confirmation and the abortion issue. The abortion issue has been a wedge issue and a smoke and mirrors issue. Abortion will continue to surface to deflect the real issues of executive powers, corporate fraud, citizens' freedoms and rights, consumer relief from unscrupulous corporations, and other issues that will really impact American lives.

The abortion issue should be a religious and a medical issue and not a governmental or a political issue. I will not repost The Gerald Doctrine that discusses this very issue. I do not want you to become discombobulated with this issue.

Sincerely,

Gerald

Pandi, Don

Seems like you two and someone else I dare not mention due to a possible temper tantrum are the only ones who subscribe to this blind defense of the Democrats. I guess lobbists only expect votes or favors from Republicans and just give endless money to Dems who have no power other than a vote because there so likeable.

Wow! The `Corn Gambit' appears to have drawn a few Right visitors! The quality of the Right input is also a step up, plus entertaining. I just have to chime in. I heard some of the confirmation exchanges on radio today and I was pretty Happy as a Republican but embarrassed as an American as to the `quality' of our opposiiton Senators. Liberty Dad: Your posting at #47 dovetails w/my thoughts almost to a tee. To the Dems, Abortion is EVERYTHING, even to David. Frankly, I am happy for them to use it as the dominant or even sole litmus test. You're Pro-Life and I leannnn Pro-Choice but I believe we both agree that most Americans would not resort to a single issue to `choose' important folks! The more the confirmation hearings drill in on abortions, the more these little bitty Dem Senators show how narrow-minded they (and the Dem) are.

lets be honest, I'm sorry, I just can't participate in this partisan argument. As my friends here already know, I despise partisan politics and tend to bash the left as well as the right. This has gotten me piled on from time to time. I am not afraid to call it as I see it, fair is fair, and I see the neocons bringing utter destruction to this country, and the dems pretty much letting them get away with it, which makes them equally to blame in my book. I really don't care about who is taking bribes or is involved with that vile Zionist abramoff. As long as the big lies continue unabated, a hundred alitos could be nominated to the SC, and it wouldn't make a speck of difference to me. This is all nothing but a bunch of BS distractions that allow the major crimes to stay below the radar. But, so goes life in DC. American Idol will prove to be the winner.

The quality of the Right input is also a step up...

Happy, I'm glad to see that you're so humble, but...no.

...plus entertaining.

Oh, always. ALWAYS!

A question for the liberals/Democrats:

Do you believe that Ted Kennedy, Herb Kohl, Chuck Schumer and Joe Biden represent the best and brightest of your party?

Which do you think was worse - Ted being kicked out of Harvard for cheating or, according to police reports, for allowing Mary Jo Kopechne to live for two hours before eventually dying an agonizing death?

Ted Kennedy lecturing a straight-arrow monogamist like Judge Alito on ethics was truly priceless.

"vile zionist abramoff"??? WTF. I think you are vile and a fool saladin. Everyone be wary of the ZOG. FOAD:)

I doubt Roe is overturned even after the court swings right. Bush even said that he doesn't think America is ready for abortion to be illegal. The procedure will still exist after Bush.

Blind defense of what? Take it from the rightwing loons like Rich Lowry. (Those are links. Click on them to read the facts) It's purely a Republican criminal conspiracy. Talking about Abramoff as a bipartisan scandal is not honest, it's stupid.

Try naming one political favor that DEMS did that was done in exchange for money. Right. Didn't think you could. That's not called being blind; you're just ignorant of the facts. Arm yourself with facts. We all feel just horrible firing on an unarmed man.

More Bad News for Republicans
*sigh*

Bush's approval rating has not changed since December (38% approve/54% disapprove). However, the Democratic Party holds a sizable advantage over the GOP as the party better able to handle the country's most important problem. Fully 41% believe the Democratic Party can do a better job of handling the nation's top problem, compared with 27% who say the Republican Party. This represents a major shift from a year ago, when the public split about evenly on which party could better address the most important national problem.

Get the bloody details here.

Don, I'll be at the SBC Center for La Revancha tomorrow.

Capt, Joementum has huge backing from the REDS (something like 80%). The only hope for kicking his ass is in the primary

The first time I typed this up, a certain little Tiger pushed the power button on my computer. Funny little . . . .

Many liberal legal scholars, including Lawrence Tribe at Harvard, consider Roe to be a horrible decision. They don't disagree with the results; they disagree with the process, which they consider wholly unconstitutional. The ends don't justify the means.

I'd like to throw open a question. When Roe is overturned, how about allowing each state to allow the legality of abortion - and all issues related to it (late-term, parental notification, etc.)? If this is something in which the people believe, why not allow them to vote upon it?

Go Tiger!

HA!

capt

I see where one of the dimmer bulbs on the left is quoting polls about whom the Americans favor. Seems to me that the only polls that count, at least on the federal level, are taken every other November. How have the Dems been doing in those? How many Democratic senators were there in 1992? How many are there now? How many Democratic representatives were there in 1992? How many are there now?

A poll is a loser's wet dream.

DEN, very interesting!
here's something else weird

pandi #67

Sorry, I do not take anyones word for it. I never said that this was not a Republican scandal, what I said was that the Republicans aren't the only ones being looked at. As far as naming one bribe the Dems took, I couldn't name one bribe by either side-no charges have been brought yet.

Talking about the Abramoff scandal as a bipartisan scandal is not honest it is stupid.

Stupidity is placing such blind faith in someone who took $63,000 from the casino industry and defending them before the facts are out. You must be only willing to except one outcome instead of the facts.

Are you one of those paid supporters that will say anything for a paycheck, sounds like it.

Bush's approval rating on Iraq has soared to 46%. His approval rating will be at 70% by November on Iraq. There is no stopping the glory of Hitler Bush in a totally Nazified country as the United Nazis of America.

here's my email
camjnbp@aol.com

Oh, great. Now Alito sounds like Popeye!

Alito said, "I am who I am and I am my own person" and he also said, "If I'm confirmed I'll be myself."

Another of Popeye's famous sayings comes to mind about these confirmation hearings: "I've had all I can stand, I can't stands no more!"

Democracy

America's plan is working. Iraq will be country with four military bases and a dust bowl. That was the Bush plan from the beginning.

The glory of Bush is man fully dead!

straight arrow monogamist? Ethics apply -- or should apply -- to issues pertaining to innumerable matters. Why are rightwingers so hung up on sex? (Or possibly it's the lack thereof.)

From a quaint little article at Salon:

1. Memogate: The Senate Computer Theft
2. Doctor Detroit: The DOJ's Bungled Terrorism Case
3. Dark Matter: The Energy Task Force
4. The Indian Gaming Scandal
5. Halliburton's No-Bid Bonanza
6. Halliburton: Pumping Up Prices
7. Halliburton's Vanishing Iraq Money
8. The Halliburton Bribe-apalooza
9. Halliburton: One Fine Company
10. Halliburton's Iran End Run
11. Money Order: Afghanistan's Missing $700 Million Turns Up in Iraq
12. Iraq: More Loose Change
13. The Pentagon-Israel Spy Case
14. Gone to Taiwan
15. Wiretapping the United Nations
16. The Boeing Boondoggle
17. The Medicare Bribe Scandal
18. Tom DeLay's PAC Problems
19. Tom DeLay's FAA: Following Americans Anywhere
20. In the Rough: Tom DeLay's Golf Fundraiser
21. Busy, Busy, Busy (Jamming phones) in New Hampshire
22. The Medicare Money Scandal
23. The Bogus Medicare "Video News Release"
24. Pundits on the Payroll: The Armstrong Williams Case
25. Ground Zero's Unsafe Air
26. John Ashcroft's Illegal Campaign Contributions
27. Intel Inside ... The White House
28. Duck! Antonin Scalia's Legal Conflicts
29. AWOL George W. Bush, self-described "war president," did not fulfill his National Guard duty
30. Iraq: The Case for War (all Lies)
31. Niger Forgeries: Whodunit?
32. In Plame Sight
33. Abu Ghraib
34. CIA or KGB, who will Torture?

That's such an old article that it doesn't mention the Schiavo, Social Security, Spygate, Pombo, Cunningham, Miers, or Katrina upfuckery.

With the Grand Ol' spendin' Party driving the Deficit into the stratosphere and King George the Clueless wiping his arse with the Constitution, can't we just get past all this trivial stuff and focus on the one issue that is ruining the lives of all Americans? Ted Kennedy's idiotic driving record. If we don't solve that issue, we'll never get America back on the road to recovery.

No wonder the Grand Ol' torturing Party is coming apart at the seems, they haven't figured out who killed Mary Jo (or Donna Jo, as Bill sometimes refers to her).

Yeah, polls don't really matter. Who'da thought that, back in 2004, 59 million folks could be so dumb?

Dr. Martin Luther King's Legacy

"A true revolution of values will say of war, 'This way of settling differences is not just.'ɉ call on Washington today, I call on every man and woman of goodwill all over America today: Take a stand on this issue. Tomorrow may be too late; a book may close. And I don't know about you -- I ain't going to study war no more."

- Martin Luther King
Click here to watch

I want to know when are the "last throes" coming. Can someone find Cheney and ask him that question for me, I am desperate to know.

#68 says "...they disagree with the process, which they consider wholly unconstitutional..."

Please cite where Laurence Tribe has referred to the Roe v. Wade decision (or process) as wholly unconstitutional.

Bushbutt (until you pick a name and stick with it, you'll keep the moronic moniker) sez,
"Stupidity is placing such blind faith in someone who took $63,000 from the casino industry and defending them before the facts are out."

Consider this my one act of charity; yes, where there's smoke there's usually fire. This (allegations against Reid) however doesn't even qualify as smoke.

Click on Don's link and you'll see the laundry list of alleged political favors that Republicans granted for the money they received. That's the reason for the investigation into Abramoff. Republicans paid him off with favors. That's illegal, not taking money from the casino industry. If they break the law (Dem or Red), lock 'em up.

"Coming apart at the seems?" LOL. I crack myself up sometimes. Well, more than sometimes. seams, pendejo.

Micki, "please cite . . . ." That was funny. Can you imagine a Bushbutt citing facts or information? The utter lack of factual information is a hallmark of all Bushbutts, even amateur Bushbutts like Happy. Reminds me -- I gotta punk Happy (again?). Hi, Happy.

mikek, it's a good thing I don't care what you think. Especially since you dish out insults without any reasoning behind them.
"can't we just get past all this trivial stuff and focus on the one issue that is ruining the lives of all Americans? Ted Kennedy's idiotic driving record. If we don't solve that issue, we'll never get America back on the road to recovery." Pan, that was absolutely HI-LARIOUS!! Whenever they have nothing important to focus on, you can count on the bushbots to focus on the infinitely unimportant! God forbid they should try to wrap their feeble minds around something as complicated as the the fact that the total American debt is roughly $40 trillion, whereas the size of its economy is around $11 trillion. So, the debt to GDP ratio is over 350%! Who says we're broke? We still have checks! Damn that kennedy, his crappy driving will be the death of this country, HAHAHA!

David,

What ever caused you to think that the Dems had a chance against Alito? These are not the days of Bork. The Repubs hold the Senate, unlike the days of Bork. The MSM has shrunk like a frightened turtle into their protective shell and even most who get their news via the MSM do not trust what they hear. When Teddy was borking Bork there was no rebuttal. Now, everybody knows that Teddy Kennedy is just a drunken, festering boil on the backside of humanity. Nothing he says sticks, except to those who keep electing him to the Senate from Massachussetts, which I humbly thank secretly because he is such an idiot.

Alito will be confirmed. Bushco has 3 more years. Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito seem to be in good health and relatively young. Kennedy is likely to be the next to be on his way out. If a Dem doesn't win the Presidency in '08, Souter and Ginsburg may be the next to be replaced. Breyer could be one lonely juror by then.

Happy sez,
"You're Pro-Life and I leannnn Pro-Choice"

But you're Happy that Chimpy nominates a candidate who is afraid to utter the phrase "stare decisis" and is just itching to overturn a woman's right to control what happens in her body. Nah, better let a group of white men decide. Wimmin just cain't be trusted to make the right choice. While we're abrogating rights, can we just let Saladin decide who gets sent to the frontlines in Iraq? Sounds fair to me. You know you chickenhawks cain't be trusted to make the right decision when it comes to protecting the Homeland.

You guys are all pro-Constitution but aren't the least bit alarmed that Chimpy would nominate a judge who is an ultramontaine monarchist. Borkito's call for a unitarian presidency is a call for an Imperial Presidency and a hypocritical disavowal of the "strict interpretation" bullshit that all the other Reactionaries spout. Never mind the Constitution, checks and balances and all that crap.

Happy chirps,
"but I believe we both agree that most Americans would not resort to a single issue to `choose' important folks"

Which is why most dems are more concerned about Borkito's interest in establishing a monarchy in America and his racist / sexist participation in CAP. It's the reactionaries that are focusing on a single issue.

Happy, do you ever bother to do a little reading before chugging the Reactionary Koolaid? Do you ever intend to defend your honor when it comes to your Econ cred?

You still haven't answered my question about Iran's bourse and it being pegged to the dollar or the importance of The Fed declining to publish M3 numbers to hide the decline in the power of the dollar in the world market (especially in light of China's decision this week to diversify their monetary holdings and move away from the Dollar). If there's one thing you can count on, Chimpy hates transparency. And so do you. Why do you hate Amerka, Happy?

Time to clean House

It is not enough that The Hammer was nailed, evicted without being convicted.

It is not enough that a tangle of overlapping scandals now clearly links ex-Republican leader Tom DeLay, his close lobbyist pal, Jack Abramoff, former DeLay aides and associates, and as-yet-uncounted members of Congress. It is not enough that, along with many Republicans, a few Democrats also got Abramoff-tainted money.

None of this is enough _ because the real corruption of Congress isn't centered upon the stylish lobbyist who costumed himself for his perp walk as Central Casting's idea of a Hasidic Soprano. The real corruption scandal is not even the relative handful of members who may someday be convicted for taking Abramoff's money and turning political tricks in return.

The real congressional corruption scandal is the lack of outrage from all who are members of what was once a Grand Old Party. It is a corruption of standards and decency _ yes, even a corruption of conservative values (including balanced budgets and safeguarding liberties).

And at the center of it is the moral, ethical and even political bankruptcy of the House Republican leadership. House Speaker Dennis Hastert and the old guard of the Grand Old Party countenanced a culture of corruption, claiming not to see it, in the hopes that maybe the rest of us never would.

David,

Don't forget Stevens. I did! Of course, should the Repubs win in '08 and set the course for the court until 2012, the Dems, should they win, could attempt to unconstionally rearrange and pack the courts like FDR tried to do. Just teasing, it didn't work then, no way it would work now. Although, I do look forward to your post in 2012 encouraging the Dems to try it.

"I think it's a very different administration ... compared to the Clinton days. They're going to go out of the way to make sure that they are not courting special favors to lobbyists and to special interests . . . From a good government point of view, that's very refreshing. From a lobbying point of view, it's obviously more of a challenge.

Jack Abramoff
Quoted in: Republican power broker
Jack Abramoff on lobbying in the Bush II era The Hill
March 26, 2003

Your knowledge of constitutional law equals that of your knowledge of sex, which, is to say, not much. Anyway, here is what Laurence Tribe and several other left-wing legal scholars said about the process in Roe v. Wade

Accepting campaign contributions and accepting campaign contributions in return for offical acts are VERY different things. One is legal. The other is criminal.

Criminal. Legal. Criminal. Legal. Criminal. Legal.

Sorry. Hit the button too fast. Here's what the left-wing legal scholars, including Laurence Tribe, have to say.

Former Watergate prosecutor and Harvard law professor Archibald Cox once wrote, "Neither historian, nor layman, nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice [Harry] Blackmun are part of the Constitution."

The late Stanford law school dean John Hart Ely said the opinion "is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be."

Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe has said of Roe that "behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found."

Even U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, appointed by President Bill Clinton, criticized Roe vs. Wade before joining the court. In 1985, she called it an act of "heavy-handed judicial intervention" that "ventured too far."

Respondat, micki?

micki,

You're right; fidelity is not the only virtue on which ethics is based. So are things like sobriety and moderation in eating, and honor in school.

Oops-Teddy fails in all of those, too.

Did anyone find the hidden link in Bill's comments? Here? Where? Bill, linkus interruptus?

Ah, there it is. The issue goes beyond Roe V. Wade. It is settled law. Larry thinks a Partial Birth Abortion Ban is stoopid.

Archibald Cox? "His status as a liberal hero was also ironic in that the New Englander had a reputation as a legal conservative." Are we supposed to be impressed that a legal conservative would be unhappy with RVW?

Nice try, Bill. You actually had some facts and quotes and stuff.

Links

http://timothypcarney.com/?page_id=176

Numerous quotes from numerous liberal legal scholars stating that Roe was settled unconstitutionally.

Now, about my open question, which none of you libs has yet to address. When Roe is overturned, do you think the states should have their own votes on the various aspects (partial birth, parental notification, etc.) of abortion?

After all, shouldn't this vital issue be settled by the voters rather than by a bunch of unelected robewearers? Or do you not have the courage of your convictions?

David,

These are the people who you thought could keep Alito off the Supreme Court. Together, they don't have the intellect of, well, you let alone, Judge Alito.

Patrick J. Leahy
RANKING DEMOCRATIC MEMBER, VERMONT
Edward M. Kennedy
MASSACHUSETTS
Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
DELAWARE
Herbert Kohl
WISCONSIN
Dianne Feinstein
CALIFORNIA
Russell D. Feingold
WISCONSIN
Charles E. Schumer
NEW YORK
Richard J. Durbin
ILLINOIS

Better start working on your next big fight. You will need to get started early if you are going to be fighting with the same folks listed above.

The reason that Judge Alito often rules for the "powerful institutions over the little guy," as Corn puts it, is that is what the law requires. Alito isn't carrying out some secret agenda to favor the rich. He's just applying the law. In our democracy, conservative forces have a lot of legislative power, and they use it to protect what Corn calls "powerful institutions." Liberals don't like this; having lost the power to enact legislation that favors the little guy over powerful institutions, they want judges who will do their work for them. That's not the job of judges. Their job is to apply the law as it is written without favoring either the rich or the poor. Roe is another matter. It's a bad decision, poorly reasoned, resting on a tissue of lies. The Constitution nowhere says anything about a zone of sexual autonomy and the Court's attempt to invent such a right will eventually fall of its own weight. That will probably be very bad for the Republican Party, which is divided between liberterians and social conservatives, but so be it: Roe is bad constitutional law (although good legislative policy) and must go.

Over 20 years ago, What Alito, who is not elderly:

Did or did not believe in,
Wrote opinions in support or in dissent of,
Decided to be relevant to put on a resume for a certain job,
etc...

IS MOSTLY irelevant. I recognize that most of you Regulars did not evolve from your younger days (see Thomas Sowell's post on `progression', I think I pasted in yesterday). I Did and continue to evolve; especially my positions on homosexuality and abortion! Like I keep on saying, you Lefies on this blog just keep on getting high stuck in the past! Just because you, Kennedy, etc. think it is important in Alito's case doesn't mean we have to share your belief, No?

Most of you waste an enormous amount of time here and I have no intent to do so. A couple of times a day and

DBL is on to something in #97. Do the Dems understand that the Republicans are united against Roe because (a) they don't believe in abortion, (b) they believe the decision is bad constitutional law or (c) both/all of the above?

If the Dems were to take Roe off the federal table and send it back to the states, where it rightfully belongs, the single, largest issue uniting Republicans would vanish into the night.

But, then again, that would take brains on the part of the leaders of the Democratic Party.

#95 Why do you expect anyone to engage with you when you wholly ignore a legitimate request?

I expect, at any moment, for you to throw up the "you're all illogical" argument very soon.

Roe won't be overturned anytime soon because it's the tried and true red-meat, fundie issue that keeps the Reds in the fold -- the busheviks will make certain that they can continue to toss out the meat for the cause.

And frankly Scarlett Bill, I don't think it's anyone's GODDAMNED business if a woman chooses to have an abortion, robed or unrobed.

You and your woman-controlling brethen can GFYS.

In 1985, she (Ruth Bader Ginsburg) called it an act of "heavy-handed judicial intervention" that "ventured too far."

Yup, if she said that, she was right. It's none of your damned business. You're in my space...you're invading my privacy.

Thomas Sowell is Brock's hero.

Two simple minds, getting it on in anyway they can.

Micki, 100, what you said!!

Brock, Bill, antoine, happy, baf, et al. -- are you working yourself up into a frenzy to call me names again?

Go for it loser! I know your every move.

Micki,

I think that there is a living, breathing creation within the womb who might take exception with the idea that aborting him is "invading my privacy".

Are you getting the attention you crave?

Micki,

Are you saying that a practice, e.g., abortion, is OK even though it may be unconstitutional as long as you feel that it's right? And, if so, will you abide me that same right of "if it feels good, do it".

And I believe you are the only one who is name-calling. I am not the one in hysterics. I am not the one calling for you to perform physiologically impossible acts with yourself.

Well, you keep on "thinking" what you want to think -- beecause MOST women are not buying yuor line of "reasoning." If you don't want abortions, keep your pecker in your pants and fuck off (speaking rhetorically).

Oh, I have given you waaaaaaaaaay too much attention.

My bad. You're emboldened enough for the night.

Pandemoniac #86

Actually, men do have most of, if not all of, control over the reproductive rights of women. If a man decides he never wants children, he can simply have a visectomy and remove the risk. If no man donated to a sperm bank, there would be no source of sperm for a woman to be artificially inseminated. They have the egg only during ovulation and only during child bearing age.

Abortion is another matter. That occurs after the female becomes pregnant. Couldn't happen without a male present or sperm artificially inseminated.

Bill:

With David's consent, since before X'mas, I have actively worked to get the Regulars' language to reflect their physiological ages. One or two never got the message that the frequency of profanity usage is inversely related to maturity. Not worth your time to engage!

The owner of the site says that: "it's up to Alito to prove that to us". Sorry Mac. The USA is a country under THE RULE OF LAW. What does that mean? It means that EVERYBODY IS INOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. That gobble gobble about Alito HAVING TO PROVE HIS INOCENCE ON THIS OR THAT is a FASCIST WAY OF LOOKING AT HUMAN RIGHTS. His enemies, the Democrats ARE THE ONES OBLIGED TO PROVE HIS "GUILT" ON WHATEVER ISSUE THEY ARE DEALING WITH. Fascism is the trait of the Democrats now-a-days. If you are not one of them, YOU HAVE TO PROVE YOU ARE INOCENT. What a big bucket of crap! Fuck you, ignorant morons and fascist-minded partisan pricks. Fuck you.

Good night, everyone!!

I might wish that you all sleep the contented sleep knowing that our Lord, the God of Abraham or the Lord Jesus Christ sleeps with you, but then someone might accuse me of being Gerald.

Now I lay me down to sleep,
I pray to whomever,
My soul to keep,
Don't let the happy billbugs bite.

IF RVW is overturned, it's just as likely to get reinstituted (unless we continue down the road towards a Christian Monarchy that Chimpy has set us down). State's rights would be used to justify a vote on abortion, eventually.

From Bill's link:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg — Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court
“Roe, I believe, would have been more acceptable...." (i.e. it's already acceptable)

She sounds Pro-Choice.

Edward Lazarus — Former clerk to Harry Blackmun.
“... I say this as someone utterly committed to the right to choose, as someone who believes such a right has grounding elsewhere in the Constitution...." (i.e. it's constitutional in his eyes)

Another Pro-Choice vote.

William Saletan — Slate columnist who left the GOP 2004 because it was too pro-life.....

ANOTHER reactionary?

Richard Cohen — Washington Post
“As a layman, it’s hard for me to raise profound constitutional objections to the decision."

Oh, good, for a second there, I thought he was a constitutional scholar.

Alan Dershowitz — Harvard Law School
DERSHOWITZ (on CNN): I don't think they should be very concerned. The woman's right to choose abortion is very well entrenched in not only American law and American consciousness. The vast majority of Americans support a woman's right to choose abortion. It would be absolutely foolish for this president to be seen as responsible for an extremist retrenchment on the issue of abortion.

Sure sounds like he's arguing Pro-Choice.

Cass Sunstein — University of Chicago and a Democratic adviser on judicial nominations
“As a constitutional matter, I think Roe was way overreached. I wouldn’t vote to overturn it myself, but that’s because I think it’s good to preserve precedent in general, and the country has sufficiently relied on it that it should not be overruled."

Sure sounds Pro-Choice.

Jeffrey Rosen — Legal Affairs Editor, The New Republic
“In short, 30 years later, it seems increasingly clear that this pro-choice magazine was correct in 1973 when it criticized Roe on constitutional grounds. Its overturning would be the best thing that could happen to the federal judiciary, the pro-choice movement, and the moderate majority of the American people.
….

Sounds good for the Pro-Choice movement.

Bill, I don't think these guys are against a woman's right to control what happens in her body. Just against the sloppy thinking in RVW.

===+===

See Happy? Miguel has you right where he wants you, looking like a coward because you're afraid of a four-letter word and a few simple questions. And you blame lefties for the level of civility on this blog; just like you blame the liberals in America while your party is in power.

I said it before and I'll say it again. You lack the intellectual capacity and the intellectual courage to defend your thinking. You are weak. You and your party are responsible for dragging the good name of our country and the brave soldiers who defend it through the mud. Keep coming back and I will continue to shred your dimwitted comments to shreds. Remember, only cowards cut and run™.

Miguel, 112

Not necessary. The folks on this site, as well as the host, will respect your right to post here but your insults and profanity are unnecessary and not very endearing to your point of view.

TRH,
"Actually, men do have most of, if not all of, control over the reproductive rights of women....
Couldn't happen without a male present or sperm artificially inseminated."

So that's it? The moment of intercourse is the end of a woman's ability to choose?

Withholding semen is equivalent to withholding the ovum (via birth control). Both are necessary precursors to a human. How does that give a man more control? By your logic, every woman could go on the pill, withhold ova, and achieve the same result that you describe. How does that give men more control?

Your logic is deeply flawed.

Pandemoniac #115

"Shred your dimwitted comments to shreds?" I like it, but isn't that redundant?

Just a bit of wisdom: If you are ever traveling in Eastern Kentucky and stop at a roadside rest to use the mens room, do not ignore the sign above the urinal!

"Please do not eat the big white mints!"

TRH, I forgot to mention that in college, my biology professor believed that it was only a matter of time before somatic cell nuclear transfer was used to stimulate ova to grow into a fetus and devolop into a human -- without the benefit of spermatozoa. He called it the new Amazonia.

Pande, with deep respect, namaste!

Not to go all sentimental, but I truly admire that you take the time -- and have the ability, the sense of humor, and the intelligence -- to refute lies and distortions.

Thank you.

say wha?? On "Nightline", the foreign guy, whatever his name is that does a segment... just said that one-fourth of all pregnancies are aborted. Where da fk did he get that statistic?!!

Pandemoniac,

No life without the sperm is all I am saying. You are saying what right does a bunch of white men have over the reproductive rights of women and I was merely pointing out that all men have a lot of control over those rights. Intercourse with a man who cannot produce sperm does not result in a pregnancy. Intercourse with a man who uses a condom, more often than not, does not result in a pregnancy.

The female produces the egg in a monthly cycle for a certain period of time. The egg is not fertilized unless a male is present or the sperm of a male is artificially inseminated at the time of ovulation. That isn't deeply flawed logic as you suggest, but scientifically proven biological fact. Unless you can show me how a woman becomes pregnant by other means, other than the immaculate means.

Pandemoniac,

I last had Biology in high school, circa 1978.
I trust you are not making those words up, but to me, you may just as well be speaking a foreign language.

Comprende?

On the issue of abortion, there is one important question, and only one. Is the fetus human?

If no, then chop away. Do whatever you like to the fetus, because it's your body and I don't have the right to tell you what to do with it.

If yes, then abortion is killing an innocent human, which trumps any right to privacy. Then it's not your own body that you are chopping apart, it's a defenseless baby's.

We lack the space for an exhaustive analysis of the humanity of a fetus/unborn baby, so it will suffice to say that anything that looks like this, seems pretty darn human. And anything that does this, is indescribably brutal and inhumane.

Redundant. Dang, I'm losing my touch.

How bout:
Happy,
The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

I didn't like the movie, but I liked that quote.

TRH,
A woman can suppress ovulation. That is the equivalent of vasectomy or a condom. That's what birth control does. I'm not making that up. It is simple reproductive knowledge, the sort of thing they teach in most High Schools.

That's even funnier -- that folks who are ignorant of simple biology want to argue the biology of conception and a woman's right to choose what happens in her body. Arm yourself with information (as I warned Happy).

++==++

Lately, I've had a lot of nice folks say some righteous stuff about me and my efforts on this blog. Izzybee where you be? I take it to heart. You are the silent minority. That was an interesting choice of words.

This is all fun and games to me. Google is my friend. And bartleby.com is my ally. I'm not the smartest guy in the world (can I get an Amen from the Wingnuts?); but I agree with Mencken:
"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."

Mencken also said,
"To die for an idea; it is unquestionably noble. But how much nobler it would be if men died for ideas that were true! "

Can I get an Amen from the Iraq war vets?

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

Ouch.

Emiliano Zapata, my Mexican homeboy, "it is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees."

I get emails from people who thank me and ask about my family and my heritage. Most never write back after the initial query. They don't hate Bush any more than I do; but they can't take the lies and propaganda from the Right. They don't contribute to the blog; but they read, and they wait, and they hope. For them:
I know why the caged bird sings.

New thread. I hate being first on a new thread. I ain't making the jump.

Hasta luego, people.

Alan # 121

I would say that he got that figure from the infamous Mr. Ehrlich, the idiotic homeless advocate from the 1980's who continually declared that there were over 3 million homeless people in the U.S. when in fact there were a documented figure in the neighborhood of 500,000. MSM never bothered to question him on the figure but then again, that was all we had in the '80's. MSM is a joke. Always has been, and will continue to be. Now Ehrlich is dead, so are an estimated 40 million aborted babies since 1973. At least you now have the resources available to determine if he is lying or not.

Pandemoniac,

I jumped so you don't have to be first. Yes, both men and women have control over "getting pregnant." I was referring to your reference to white men controlling reproductive rights. You seemed to imply they had none when in fact, they do. It is after reproduction occurs that your argument comes into play. That is where the whole argument begins.

Yeah, when all those troops stormed Normandy and there was a bunch of fighting, it was a sign of how bad World War II was going.

And when our bombers nuked Japan? Those two moments of extreme violence and death and carnage meant things had REALLY gone to hell, not that we were striking a decisive blow.

Similarly, the violence in Iraq means things are going badly there, not that we're slowly grinding away the remnants of a blood-soaked police state dotted with rape rooms, mass graves, and terrorist training camps and setting free the vast majority of Iraqis who might like to live in some semblance of freedom and democracy.

Nope, it's a hopeless quagmire.

"we're not going to support anyone who is likely to vote to end or drastically undermine the right to an abortion"

That sums it up! It is all about abortion. Or at least that is what the Democrats think the public cares about most. (Why they think that is a mystery.)

Roe v. Wade is mere case law. It is as fragile as the whim of a Supreme Court majority. And yet, its reversal would mean only that state legislatures could make laws that place various restrictions, or none at all, on abortion services.

In reality, no one is going to lose her right to an abortion as long as she can get the money for it.

It is clear that the jealousy with which Democrats protect Roe v. Wade indicates a much wider importance than the decision itself. Maybe it really is just the power to make into law what the public would never support by democratic means.

If a B*** J** is an impeachable offense,why cant any of these?

Once the ABA gave Alito its highest rating, he cleared the first hurdle: competence. When the Circuit Court Judges testify that he's a very good judge, he'll clear the second hurdle: ability to handle complex cases, including constitutional issues, in a fair and impartial manner. With that, all the political nonsense ends, and the threat of a viable filibuster with it.

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of old guard politicians trying to make everyone toe the line on Roe v. Wade. They make it sound like it's the most important decision ever made. It wasn't, and all their pontificating doesn't make it so. In fact, it's more like a last gasp to breathe life into it. All over the US, legislatures and people are saying it went too far. So it's time the majority gets heard.

...why do your decisions so often support powerful institutions over the little guy...

This is a constant refrain and one that I frankly don't get. A judge looks to applicable law. If that law tends to support "powerful institutions" over the "little guy", isn't your argument with the people who wrote it? Judges aren't in the business of meting out social justice, the law be damned.

It is really a pleasure to check these leftwing boards from time to time just to remind myself why I left the Democrats years ago. What a bunch of whiners, sad sacks and blame babies.

The bottomline is that a good, decent and highly qualified man is being attacked by someone who drives off of bridges drunk and leaves his girlfriends to die slow, miserable deaths while he swims to shore to sober up, a plagerist in Joe Biden, someone who leaks intelligence secrets in Leahy, etc. THAT'S why the lefties (you know, whose chairman is Howard "yeeeee-ha" Dean and who sees even Jack Murtha vote AGAINST the Murtha bill) just keep losing.

The good guys have the White House, the Senate, the House of Reps, the Governors mansions, and now the Supreme Court. Keep whining, folks, and we'll keep winning.

Does anyone really believe Alito WON'T be confirmed? His meek voice made it impossible for Dems to get angry at him, although they sure tried. With Ben Nelson supporting him already, I find unlikely that the GOP won't find five red-state Dems kill a filibuster attempt. Consider Landrieu, Nelson(FL), Baucus, Bayh, Conrad, Dorgan, Harkin, Johnson, Lincoln, Pryor, and Salazar all come from redish states. Many will suffer politically if they support a filibuster. However, a simple no vote will keep them safe from their Democratic bases. While some of these Sen's may support a filibuster, I'm sure the GOP will sway at least five. In all likelihood, Alito is going to be confirmed

David Corn needs to get out and talk to more young, college aged women, and not just his liberal fan club. Most young women today do NOT see a great need for a right to an abortion. Why is that? Because birth control is so readily available. Young women perceive other women who need abortion as people who are irresponsible because they failed to use birth control. Many young women recognize abortion -- especially partial birth abortion -- as the barbaric practice it is and cannot continue to justify abortion on demand. Look at the polls. Most people, including young college age women do NOT support a completely uninfringed "right" to an abortion at ANY time of the pregnancy! Thus, there is not much objection to a nominee to the Supreme Court who is willing to allow states to restrict abortions under certain circumstances.

ANOTHER HUMILIATING LOSS FOR THE LIBTARDS!

AND KUDOS TO OLE HIC KENNEDY!

HIS RANTING AND RAVING LIKE A COMPLETE IDIOT ONLY ASSURED ALITO'S CONFIRMATION!

MASSACHUSEETS = MASSA-2-SHITS!

LOL!