Thursday, August 31, 2006

Great Music that describes the US in the Bush Era



Check it out, It's been a "long long time...." by Austin's Guy Forsyth.

http://www.guyforsyth.com

posted by Hawkeye's Mash at 11:49 PM 0 comments

Watch out, the FIX IS ON to Replace DeLay with a Clone!


Democratic leaders in the Houston area should be watching the administration of the Congressional District 22 election very closely. With a GOP write-in candidate running in an election with electronic voting, the Dems should watch all the rules VERY CLOSELY. That the GOP election administrator will have signs for the write-in GOP candidate in the voting booth strongly suggests that the FIX IS ON!

Some say they wouldn't do that. HA! They've done it repeatedly in presidential elections of 2000 and 2004. What about this fellow who threw the Ohio election to Bush?

Activists want Ohio election chief out

By JULIE CARR SMYTH, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 56 minutes ago

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Activists filed a civil-rights lawsuit Thursday claiming Secretary of State Ken Blackwell deprived people of their voting rights during the 2004 presidential election and seeking to have him removed from overseeing the general election in November.

The plaintiffs, who range from the Ohio Voter Rights Alliance for Democracy to the head of a Columbus neighborhood association, accuse Blackwell of distributing fewer voting machines per person in black neighborhoods, purging voter registrations and disproportionately assigning provisional ballots to blacks. Those provisional ballots then were disqualified at higher rates than in nearby precincts that were mostly white, the plaintiffs allege.

"The court should appoint someone that everyone will say is honest and competent and will ensure that the appropriate security measures are in place and we don't have this kind of vulnerability in the next election," said attorney Cliff Arnebeck, who represents the plaintiffs.

Blackwell, a Republican running for governor this November, said he sees the lawsuit not as an attack on him, but on Ohio's elections process, run by 88 bipartisan county elections boards.

"They're frivolous, they're off-base, and they're political," he said.

Randy Borntrager, a spokesman for the Ohio Democratic Party, said the party wants Blackwell to stop setting rules that affect his own campaign.

"We just want him to do his job," he said. "It wouldn't be an issue if he would give clear directions to the boards of elections in the counties."

Blackwell also said he would do what he could to keep ballots from the 2004 presidential election beyond their scheduled destruction date. Federal law requires the ballots be saved for 22 months following a federal election. That time period ends next week.

Arnebeck had asked for the records to be preserved longer because the individuals and public interest groups he represents have found irregularities and anomalies among the ballots they have reviewed so far, and they want to keep digging.

Arnebeck's sweeping lawsuit accuses Blackwell of violating state and federal laws and the U.S. Constitution by "inequitably distributing voting resources, suppressing votes, and spoiling ballots" in 2004, the letter said.

Bush prevailed over Democrat Kerry John Kerry by 118,000 votes in Ohio.

Blackwell will not interfere with the group's review, spokesman James Lee said, though he emphasized that county elections boards have the final say regarding what happens to the records.

Lee said that the lawsuit is based on a faulty understanding of Blackwell's statutory duties as the state elections chief.

"Anyone who is objectively looking at the election system in Ohio knows that we have a bipartisan voting system that is run primarily at the county level, that bipartisan boards determined whether to place individual voting machines," he said. "It's amazing that there are still those conspiracy theorists out there who refuse to accept the facts."

posted by Hawkeye's Mash at 9:48 PM 3 comments

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

George W: How can we buy some votes?


George: I just don't know what we can do to start winning some support as we go into the congressional elections across the country.

Karl Rove: Listen you idiot, this is easy, easy, easy. We don't give a damn about balancing the budget or the deficit spinning out of control. Give the people some candy, that is, give them money! It works like a tax cut! Give them money and they'll be able to buy more Hummers and they'll show their appreciation by voting for more GOP "budget cutters!"

Ha, these people are so stupid! Why they even believe that Osama and Saddam were partners in 9/11. Whoa boy, combine a stupid president who'll say anything I say with a huge portion of the electorate that is too busy watching reality shows to think about their vote, and voila, elect more Republicans!!

AP: White House to hand out $800M to combat drought

POSTED: 3:55 p.m. EDT, August 29, 2006

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration will give nearly $800 million to farmers and ranchers devastated by drought, The Associated Press has learned.

Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns planned to announce the aid Tuesday afternoon in South Dakota.

The drought aid includes:

• $50 million in block grants for hard-hit states.

• $18 million from emergency conservation funds.

• $11 million from a grassland conservation program.

• The department would accelerate $700 million in planned payments to cotton, grain, sorghum and peanut farmers.

Two sources confirmed the details on condition of anonymity because Johanns had not yet announced it.

The administration has resisted a $4 billion drought-aid plan in Congress because it would go only to those who already get government subsidies, about four in 10 farmers. House leaders and President Bush have opposed the aid, but senators in June added the aid to a farm spending bill.

Drought has hit farmers in western Corn Belt states -- Minnesota, South Dakota and North Dakota -- particularly hard.

Last month was the hottest July since the Dust Bowl in 1936. Dryness also approached records in many parts of the country, which saw the driest conditions from May through June since 1988.

posted by Hawkeye's Mash at 9:39 PM 0 comments

Sunday, August 27, 2006

Bush Failures: Katrina


Bush: Sure am glad I don't have to go down there and talk to people I made these promises to.

And Bush and Rove believe that they can slip another past the American pubic.

More speechifying pablum will be served up to the American media and people, just like some "date-rape" drug, so that voters might be deluded into thinking Bush is actually doing something and succeeding.

Truth is, of course, this is just another in a long string of Bush failures...

Still Blind to the Poverty

How could George W. Bush have blown the aftermath of Katrina? It's not as if he lacks confidence in the power of his office.

By Johnathan Alter

Newsweek

Sept. 4, 2006 issue - A year ago, in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, NEWSWEEK published a cover story called "Poverty, Race and Katrina: Lessons of a National Shame." The article suggested that the disaster was prompting a fresh look at "The Other America"—the 37 million Americans living below the poverty line. "It takes a hurricane," I wrote. "It takes the sight of the United States with a big black eye—visible around the world—to help the rest of us begin to see again." I ended on a hopeful note: "What kind of president does George W. Bush want to be? ... If he seizes the moment, he could undertake a midcourse correction that might materially change the lives of millions. Katrina gives Bush an only-Nixon-could-go-to-China opportunity, if he wants it."

Some readers told me at the time that this was naive—that the president, if not indifferent to the problems of black people, as the singer Kanye West charged, was not going to do anything significant to help them. At first this seemed too cynical. The week after the article appeared, Bush went to Jackson Square in New Orleans and made televised promises not only for Katrina relief but to address some of the underlying struggles of the poor. He proposed "worker recovery accounts" to help evacuees find work by paying for job training, school and child care; an Urban Homesteading Act that would make empty lots and loans available to the poor to start over, and a Gulf Enterprise Zone to spur business investment in poor areas. Small ideas, perhaps, but good ones.

Well, it turned out that the critics were largely right. Not only has the president done much less than he promised on the financing and logistics of Gulf Coast recovery, he has dropped the ball entirely on using the storm and its aftermath as an opportunity to fight poverty. Worker recovery accounts and urban homesteading never got off the ground, and the new enterprise zone is mostly an opportunity for Southern companies owned by GOP campaign contributors to make some money in New Orleans. The mood in Washington continues to be one of not-so-benign neglect of the problems of the poor.

"This is the greatest lost opportunity I've ever seen in public life," Sen. John Kerry told me last week. "The Jackson Square speech ought to stand as one of the all-time monuments to hollow rhetoric and broken promises." Kerry depicted the response during the last year as a slow-motion Superdome II, where the federal government once more walked right past people in distress.

posted by Hawkeye's Mash at 10:40 PM 0 comments

Saturday, August 26, 2006

The BUSH "We did ok w/ Katrina and we're doing better now" PUSH is on

Watch and listen closely in the coming days at Bush and Rove and the boys work to make their Katrina effort sows ear into a PR silk purse. It is amazing, but Bush seriously thinks that spending weeks at Crawford (again, a year later) and a long weekend at the quiet Maine seashore estate, can prepare him to appear "in command" and working to help Americans and rebuild the Gulf coast.

Once again, he'll fly in, look down from Air Force 1 and helicopters, to witness the reality on the ground from above. No one should accept this and the Democrats should certainly be out front in criticizing his failures.

Check out the Katrina/Bush timeline of those days last year and remember what really happened while Bush played a guitar in California, went to NO to say Brownie was doing a good job and mom Bush went to Houston's Astrodome to comment how people who had nothing before had something better after the hurricane!




posted by Hawkeye's Mash at 11:26 PM 0 comments

Thursday, August 24, 2006

It's All in the Name - Democrat vs. Sherry-Rodriguez-Givens



Cute, the Greasy Old Party enjoys gigging Democrats by calling them the Democrat Party. Apparently attempting to make a point that the Democrats are not "democratic!"

What a laugh. This from the party that does everything possible to turn over taxpayer assets to BIG BUSINESS. This from the party that overturned a democratic election for president in 2000 with a Supreme Court decision that was so bad that even the Supreme Court justices said it would have no precedent for future cases. This from the party that is attempting to force democracy down on the people of the middle east with automatic weapons. But of course this is all a GOP "name game."

But we can all play at that game.

For instance here in Houston and Texas, we all wonder what the heck is woman's name who is running to become the GOP's new Tom Delay? Is it Shelly-Suckula Gives, Shallhe Sekoohla, Sherry-Sekula Rodrigues, Shallia Giffs, Carol Keeton, Sherry Matula, Sheila Givens, Carole Keeton, Sherry Rodriquez, Grandma, Sally Roderick, Carol Rylander, Sherry Schoola, Carol Strayhorn, Susie-Sekookla-Rodreepess-Jipps??

I just don't know. These Grimy Old Pary opportunists are so out of control on the name front, that a majority may vote straight ticket Democratic Party simply to avoid all the confusion and hassle of trying to figure out the correct names to vote against!

See what the Houston Chronicle says about the "Politically Incorrect" approach the Goofy Old Party is taking...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/4137423.html


posted by Hawkeye's Mash at 11:26 AM 0 comments

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

What's Her Name Runs To Become the Next Tom DeLay


NPR's Political Junkie, Ken Rudin, thinks Shelley Sekula-Gibbs might have trouble because of her name. That's a huge issue for SS-G, especially considering that she was Shelley Sekula, then Shelley Sekula-Rodriguez and just Sekula-Gibbs for the last couple years since her TV newsman/husband Sylvan Rodriguez died and Shelley married anew.

(What's her name with her mentor Tommie D)


Actually, a set of great questions arise about writing in SS-G. Will the name have to be complete? Will a hyphen be necessary? What if the name is mis-spelled? Can the election judges help? (I doubt it and I'm sure the Democratic judges like me will make sure there's no extra discussion between voters and GOP election judges) And of course, there's all the fun of trying to do a write-in with the goofy electronic voting machines used in Harris County, with the dial a letter system. It will take five minutes for the computer savvy to do it. Who knows how long for an older, less computer literate person!

Plus, on the state-wide ballot we have the other name confuser, Carol Keeton Rylander, etc. etc. Her name issues are so bad that she wanted to change the ballot to call her, "Grandma!" Of course she also used to be a Democrat before becoming a Republican before becoming an independent to run in this race for Texas Gobnor. No wonder her son is so confused he went to work as W's Press Secretary!

Anyway, SS-G is the best candidate the limpy GOP can get to try this swing for the fences strategy that Tommie D foisted on his party...


NPR's Political Junkie Comment Whether a Write-in can Win

Political Junkie
By Ken Rudin
NPR
8/23/06

Q: What are the chances the Republican write-in candidate for Tom DeLay's old House seat in Texas can beat Democrat Nick Lampson in November? I don't think the GOP has enough time to pull it off. -- Robert Cooper, Washington, D.C.

A: Obviously, given the fact that only three people accomplished the feat in the past half-century, it's not an easy task trying to win election to the House as a write-in candidate. It may be even more difficult, given the fact that the GOP may have some divisions over how they came to endorse their write-in candidate, Houston Council member Shelley Sekula-Gibbs. She was nominated at a meeting of 22nd District Republican precinct chairs over Sugar Land Mayor David Wallace.

Wallace had initially indicated he would remain in the race as a write-in candidate, suggesting that the endorsement of Sekula-Gibbs was a sham and unrepresentative of the district's "grass roots." But with national Republicans insisting that the only way they would fund the race -- they were pledging $3 million -- was if the GOP field was limited to one candidate, Wallace withdrew this week. Part of the decision to bypass Wallace may have been based on his decision to take on and defeat the incumbent Republican mayor of Sugar Land in 2002.

I don't have intimate knowledge about the campaign skills of either Sekula-Gibbs or Wallace, but I would venture a guess that writing in the name of the latter would be easier than the former. And there's another complication: Some Republicans have suggested that the best way to deny Lampson a return to Congress is to vote for Bob Smither, the Libertarian Party nominee, who is already on the ballot.

If Lampson wins in November, as well he might, look for Wallace to seek the GOP nomination in 2008. And if he does win this year, the blame rests with DeLay, under indictment in Texas, whose decision to run and then withdraw was a major miscalculation.

And wouldn't that be something if the Democrats won the House by one seat -- Tom DeLay's.

Now, on to the question: Does the GOP have enough time to unite behind Sekula-Gibbs and hold onto the seat? While the odds don't look so good, it might be helpful to look at what happened in Arkansas in 1958, where the winning write-in candidate launched his effort just one week to go before the election. Here's a look at that situation, as well as the other two times a House candidate won on a write-in:

DALE ALFORD, Arkansas, 1958

The issue here was President Eisenhower's sending in federal troops to integrate Central High School in Little Rock. Most Arkansas politicians opposed the intervention, but Rep. Brooks Hays (D) tried to mediate the standoff between the federal government and Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus (D). This inflamed segregationists in the state, who rallied around a Citizens Council candidate in the Democratic primary. Hays prevailed by a 3-2 margin. Then, with a week to go before the November election, Alford, a member of the Little Rock school board, launched a write-in bid against Hays. Backed by Faubus' allies, Alford won in a major upset by just over 1,200 votes (51-49 percent).

JOE SKEEN, New Mexico, 1980

Five-term Rep. Harold Runnels, a conservative Democrat, was so popular in his district that the Republicans didn't even put up a candidate against him, either in 1978 or '80. Then, on Aug. 5, 1980, Runnels, 56, died of cancer. The state attorney general, a Democrat, announced that the Democrats could replace Runnels on the ballot but that it was too late for the Republicans to do so. Enraged Republicans rallied behind a write-in effort by Skeen, a former state senator who twice ran for governor and who was well-known in the district. The Democrats also had their problems: They nominated David King, the nephew of Gov. Bruce King, to replace Runnels on the ballot. David King had only moved his voter registration into the district some 10 days after Runnels died. Worse, he defeated Runnels' widow Dorothy for the nomination, which led her to launch a write-in candidacy as well. The Democratic disarray enabled Skeen to win as a write-in candidate with 38 percent of the vote.

RON PACKARD, California, 1982

Eighteen Republicans were running in the primary for the seat being vacated by Rep. Clair Burgener (R). The winner was political novice Johnny Crean, whose family wealth bankrolled his saturation of the airwaves in the district, situated just north of San Diego. Crean spent well over $750,000 in the primary, then a substantial amount, mostly attacking his fellow Republicans, while ducking candidate forums and personal appearances. Crean defeated Carlsbad Mayor Ron Packard in the primary by 92 votes out of more than 83,000 cast. Furious, Packard announced a write-in effort. Fearful that the GOP split in this overwhelming GOP district could end up electing a Democrat, there was great pressure on Packard to end his bid. But he refused, and won the seat with 37 percent of the vote. The Democrat finished second with 32 percent; Crean received 31 percent.

posted by Hawkeye's Mash at 5:15 PM 0 comments

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Attack Bush at His "Strongest"!


Remember how Bush and Rove used the Swift Boat Liars to attack John Kerry on one of his greatest assets? Yes, in ten days in the summer of 2004, they ripped Kerry's status as a war hero and turned it into questions about whether he cheated to get his Purple Hearts.



NOW, the Democrats must attack Bush where he's the "strongest," his fairly strong reputation for "fighting terrorism." It is truly crazy that anyone in the US would still think he's done a good job of fighting terrorism, especially since Osama bin Laden and others (UK conspirators plans to blow up airliners headed to the US) are still plotting terrible attacks on US citizens.

We must take on Bush and help American voters realize that he's been playing a continual shell game, especially with the Iraq war. Instead of hunting down bin Laden, Bush took a chicken-shit side-step to attack Iraq. This didn't decrease terrorists, it increased them.

Democrats need to work on this NOW, especially with the 9/11 anniversary coming quickly!

posted by Hawkeye's Mash at 6:06 PM 0 comments

Friday, August 11, 2006

Ask Bush, WHERE IS OSAMA?




With the GOP rushing to their terrorism and fear = electoral success strategy, the Democrats need to ask, WHERE IS OSAMA?. Bush and the boys, i part because of their Iraq war, have been a total failure on the fight against terrorism. Instead, in Iraq, they created a spot to create more and more terrorists.

Just like the "swift boat" veterans who attacked Kerrys strongest asset, his Vietnam veterans heroic status, Dems need to show the American public that Bushs so called "war on terror" has been a charade all along. It is simply a political strategem.

The chant needs to be, WHERE IS OSAMA? WHERE IS OSAMA? WHERE IS OSAMA? Followed by there are more terrorists today than Sept. 11, 2001.

Can the GOP use terrorism to win -- again?

Suspected plot to blow up airliners puts issue front and center

By Bill Schneider
CNN Senior Political Analyst

Friday, August 11, 2006

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Could there be political fallout in the United States from the terror arrests in Britain?

Typically, when Americans become fearful their support for the president tends to go up. President Bush and the Republican Party used the security issue to their advantage in the previous two elections, when they portrayed Democrats as weak and vacillating. Republicans give every indication that they intend to run on the security issue again in 2006.

Vice President Dick Cheney said on Wednesday that one thing he found disturbing about the defeat of Sen. Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic primary on Tuesday was that "our adversaries in this conflict, the al Qaeda types, clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people." (Cheney made the comments after he was briefed on the suspected terror plot, according to a senior administration official.)

Republicans may use the issue against Democrats who voted against renewal of the Patriot Act this year. In the House of Representatives, 123 "no" votes were cast by Democrats running either for re-election or for another office. Three "no" votes were cast by Democratic senators seeking re-election -- Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico and Robert Byrd of West Virginia.

Will the issue work for Republicans this year?

In a CNN poll taken by the Opinion Research Corporation last week -- before the arrest of terror suspects in Britain -- terrorism topped the list of issues that voters said would be "extremely important" to their vote this year. (The poll involved interviews with 1,047 adult Americans on August 2-3, 2006. The poll's margin of error was plus or minus 3 percent.) (Read the complete poll results -- PDF)

But among voters concerned about terrorism, slightly more said they would vote for a Democrat (50 percent) rather than a Republican (45 percent) for Congress.

Republicans still do better on terrorism than on any other issue except same-sex marriage, which is far less important to voters. But the Republican advantage on terrorism had vanished, at least before the news from Britain.

Why did that happen? Here's a clue. As of last week, only 31 percent of Americans believed the United States and its allies were winning the war on terror. That is the lowest figure recorded since 9/11. The prevailing view (45 percent) is that neither side is winning.

One reason is disillusionment with the war in Iraq. A majority of Americans polled recently by the Los Angeles Times and Bloomberg News believe terrorism has increased around the world because of the situation in Iraq (52 percent). Only 5 percent think the Iraq war has decreased the threat of terrorism, while 39 percent say it has made no difference.

This week's primary results suggested a growing anti-incumbent mood in the country. Three incumbent members of Congress -- Republican Rep. Joe Schwarz of Michigan and Democrats Lieberman and Rep. Cynthia McKinney of Georgia -- were defeated by candidates from their own parties, a rare phenomenon.

But concern about terrorism threats could blunt that anti-incumbent mood and lead voters to place more value on experience. If news of the suspected plot had come out only a few days earlier, it might have helped Lieberman.

And it still might, since he has filed to stay in the race as an independent candidate. His Democratic opponent, Ned Lamont, issued a statement saying the terror arrests in Britain show the need to fight "for our security in a rational, serious way rather than being bogged down in a war than is harmful to our security."

For Democrats, all issues in this campaign come down to Iraq. For Republicans, they all come down to the war on terrorism.

posted by Hawkeye's Mash at 9:06 PM 0 comments

Thursday, August 10, 2006

Crying Wolf to Build Support




Bush and Rove are at it again. Hmmm... coming up on another election. Let see, Carl calls for some terrorist media frenzy to shake up the American electorate.

Take a few minutes to remember 2002. Remember the frenzy then, and the fear mongering by Bush, Cheney and Collin Powell? All that summer, the boys were freaking out the American people with scary stories about the Weapons of Mass Destruction that Saddam had all over Iraq, how the terrorists were going to bring suitcases full of nuclear bombs. We HAD to have a major national debate by a fearful press (larded up with lie after lie by the Bush administration) about whether to invade Iraq. The polls early on predicted the Ds would pick up up to 20 congressional seats early in the summer, but after all the fear tactics, the Ds ended up losing seats even though it was an off-year election.

In 2004, Bush/Rove despite completely failing to come close to catching bin Laden, continued to wind up the fear of terrorism. Wagging the dog, the Bush White House talked and talked about how the terrorists were going to attack again, and attack soon. As the Iraq war drifted south, Bush continued to persuade unknowing voters that the war was just because Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately Carl and the boys (especially Bob Perry and slick boat jives) attack John Kerry's stellar record in Viet Nam. Anything to suggest the terrorists could survive and attack the US.

And now, trailing by 20 points or more, George W. Bush and the Greedy Old Party want nothing more than some kind of terrorist threat to the American people. It's worked perfectly in the past, and the boys are hopelessly addicted to its drug-like powers. Watch now as Bush spins and spins the latest terrorist bust to convince the US populace to be afraid, be very afraid. Be so afraid that maybe you'll forget what W's been doing (or not doing) the last six years.

You'all better watch closely. This is a shell game at a global level. While you're all watching for the pea, the boys are going to steal another election!

posted by Hawkeye's Mash at 9:59 PM 0 comments

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Lieberman Going, Going... GONE!



Lieberman loses Connecticut primary bid

3 minutes ago

HARTFORD, Conn. - Sen.

Joe Lieberman

Joe Lieberman, crippled by his support for the
Iraq war, lost the Democratic nomination for a fourth term Tuesday to a political newcomer who portrayed him as an apologist for the Bush administration. Lieberman vowed to run as an independent in November.

His loss to Ned Lamont — just six years after his party made him its vice presidential candidate — made him only the fourth incumbent senator to lose a primary since 1980.



Yes, Joe was Al Gore's running mate six years ago, but if you remember, he was also very quick to push for giving in when Bush stole the election of 2000. Lieberman doesn't understand that sucking up to Bush, Cheney, Delay and others only makes the wrong side stronger. You can stand up for middle-of-the-road issues and policies without climbing into bed with the devil.

Lieberman just wanted to do it the easy way. He had too much power and been too close to power for too long. As always, when that happens, the people and their concerns are forgotten. Hopefully, other Democrats, Independents and the radical right will find out the same thing in the coming months!

Lieberman trailing in Democratic primary

By ROBERT TANNER, AP National Writer 3 minutes ago

Sen.

Joe Lieberman

Joe Lieberman struggled in his bid for a fourth term Tuesday, battling to overcome a tough primary challenge and escape payback from his own party for supporting the
Iraq

ar.

Six years after Democrats backed him for vice president, Lieberman lagged with 47 percent, or 56,891 votes, to political novice Ned Lamont's 53 percent, or 64,383 votes, with 44 percent of precincts reporting.

In Georgia, Rep. Cynthia McKinney, the fiery congresswoman who scuffled with a U.S. Capitol police officer earlier this year, was behind in a runoff for the Democratic nomination.

Elsewhere, voters in Colorado, Missouri and Michigan also chose candidates for the fall elections.

The Connecticut Senate race dominated the political landscape in recent weeks, as Lamont demonstrated the power of anti-war sentiment among Democrats with his campaign. Lamont is the millionaire owner of a cable television company but his political career is limited to serving as a town selectman and member of the town tax board.

Still, he brought himself to the brink of defeating three-term incumbent Lieberman, the Democrats' vice presidential candidate in 2000. It was a race watched closely by the liberal, Internet-savvy Democrats who lead the party's emerging "netroots" movement, groups such as Moveon.org that played a big role in pushing Lamont's candidacy.

On the final day of the race, Lieberman accused his opponent's supporters of hacking his campaign Web site and e-mail system. Campaign manager Sean Smith said the site began having problems Monday night and crashed for good at 7 a.m., denying voters information about the candidate.

"It is a deliberate attempt to disenfranchise voters," Smith said.

Lamont, campaigning early Tuesday afternoon in Bridgeport, said he knew nothing about the accusations. "It's just another scurrilous charge," he said.

A week ago, polls showed Lieberman trailing Lamont by 13 percentage points. The latest polls showed the race tightening, with Lamont holding a slight lead of 51 percent to 45 percent over Lieberman among likely Democratic voters, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Monday.

The telephone poll of 784 likely Democratic primary voters, conducted from July 31 to Aug. 6, has a sampling error margin of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

Democratic critics targeted Lieberman for his strong support for the Iraq war and for his close ties to

President Bush. They played and replayed video of the kiss President Bush planted on Lieberman's cheek after the 2005 State of the Union address.

Lieberman has said he will run as an independent in the fall if defeated in the primary. His falling poll numbers spurred some Democratic colleagues to make last-minute campaign appearances, including former

President Clinton

President Clinton, Sen. Barbara Boxer (news, bio, voting record) of California and others.

In the lead up to Tuesday's primary, 14,000 new Connecticut voters registered as Democrats, while another 14,000 state voters switched their registration from unaffiliated to Democrat to vote in the primary.

In Georgia, McKinney, her state's first black congresswoman, was in a runoff in her bid for a seventh term. In the heavily Democratic district, the runoff winner is likely to win in the fall.

With 13 percent of precincts reporting — most from parts of the district that do not reflect its politics — Hank Johnson, the black former commissioner of DeKalb County, was ahead with 2,541 votes, or 74 percent, to McKinney's 906 votes, or 26 percent.

McKinney has long been controversial, once suggesting the Bush administration had advance knowledge of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. Her comments helped galvanize opposition and she lost her seat in 2002, but won it again two years ago.

In her latest brouhaha in March, she struck a Capitol Police officer who did not recognize her and tried to stop her from entering a House office building.

A grand jury in Washington declined to indict her, but she was forced to apologize before the House. She drew less than 50 percent of the vote in last month's primary.

In other primaries Tuesday:

• In Michigan, Republican Rep. Joe Schwarz, a moderate who supports abortion rights, faces a vigorous challenge from conservative Tim Walberg, a former state lawmaker. The race has drawn more than $1 million from outside groups; Schwarz has received support from President Bush and Arizona Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record).

• In Colorado, two open congressional seats have drawn crowds of candidates.

• Missouri Republican Sen. Jim Talent (news, bio, voting record) and Democratic challenger Claire McCaskill, the state auditor, are expected to win their party's primaries.

posted by Hawkeye's Mash at 8:48 PM 0 comments

Monday, August 07, 2006

"CUT and RUN" Tom Delay Forced to Stay on Ballot!





"CUT and RUN" Tom DeLay can't run away from the election anymore. Even though he tried to run away and he and the Texas GOP tried twist the election laws to get a "new Tom DeLay" candidate, even the GOP-controlled US Supreme Court refused to allow his replacement on the ballot.

Can you imagine the Greedy Old Party trying to convince District 22 voters to vote for "CUT and RUN" Tom after he up and quit his district, leaving voters without representation as the nation teeters on the brink. Everyone knows he's a crook and he constantly is dragging his district through the court system trying to get a special deal. And everyone knows if he inadvertently won this election, he would just "CUT and RUN" again by quitting.

He has always been a chicken hawk, and this latest episode proves it once again.



DeLay Must Stay on Ballot as Court Rejects Appeal
Posted by Pete on Aug 07, 2006 - 11:12 PM [ Edit | Delete ]
By RALPH BLUMENTHAL
August 8, 2006

HOUSTON, Aug. 7 — The United States Supreme Court dealt a final blow on Monday to efforts by the Texas Republican Party to replace former Representative Tom DeLay on the Congressional ballot in November, leaving him the reluctant party nominee from his longtime district.
Three state and federal courts had already ruled that Mr. DeLay had to remain the party’s choice despite his assertions that he had moved to Virginia from Texas. In April, he announced he would give up his re-election campaign and resign his seat to allow the party to select another candidate while he battled legal charges.

On Monday, Republican lawyers filed a final appeal to the Supreme Court, but it was rejected hours later without comment by the circuit justice, Antonin Scalia.



“There’s nothing else we’re going to do legally,” said James Bopp Jr., the lawyer who argued the case for the Republicans. “We’ve certainly exhausted our appeals.”

The court’s refusal to intervene handed a major victory to Democrats, who have fought to keep Mr. DeLay in the spotlight as a reminder of the Washington lobbying scandal involving his associate Jack Abramoff. It will make it harder for Republicans to retain Mr. DeLay’s old seat and will allow Democrats to send a wider message that change is needed on Capitol Hill.

It is unclear whether Mr. DeLay, 59, the former House majority leader, who first won the seat in 1984, will now actively campaign in an election he has said he does not belong in. During the appeals, he never said whether he would run if he remained on the ballot, and Dani DeLay Ferro, his daughter and spokeswoman, said after the Supreme Court decision that he had no immediate statement.

Mr. Bopp said he did not know whether Mr. DeLay would actively run for the seat, but he suggested the outcome might not be as predetermined as Democrats believe.

“It’s now up to the voters to determine if the Democrats will be happy on Election Day for choosing Tom DeLay,” he said.

Mr. DeLay, who had been criticized repeatedly by the House Ethics Committee for his fund-raising tactics, was indicted in Texas in September on charges of violating campaign finance law.

The court rulings prevented the Republicans from choosing a successor out of several eager contenders. The Democrats, though, have long had a nominee in the 22nd District: former Representative Nick Lampson, who lost his neighboring seat after the 2003 redistricting engineered by Mr. DeLay.

In a statement, Mr. Lampson said, “I welcome a strong issue-based campaign against Tom DeLay.”

The Texas Democratic Party chairman, Boyd Richie, applauded the Supreme Court’s refusal to block the lower court orders preventing the Republican Party chairwoman, Tina J. Benkiser, from trying to select another nominee.

“We are not surprised that Justice Scalia has denied the Republicans’ motion to stay,” Mr. Richie said. “Every judge involved in the case so far has agreed with us on the merits of our argument. It is time for Tom DeLay and the Republican Party to get out of the courtroom and quit this abuse of the voters, who have been without representation for months. Both parties have candidates, and it is now time to move forward and allow voters to participate in a fair and meaningful election.”

The legal issue hinged in part on whether party officials could replace a nominee who had been selected by the voters. Having decisively won a hard-fought four-way primary in March, Mr. DeLay upended Texas politics by unexpectedly declaring that he would drop his campaign and resign his 22-year seat to move to Virginia.

But a Texas judge, a federal judge in Austin and a three-judge federal appeals panel in New Orleans blocked the Republican Party from choosing a replacement under provisions of Texas election law and the Constitution that barred tampering with candidate lists and election standards.

The federal courts ruled that the only residency requirement for House candidates under the Constitution was that they lived in the state they were running in “when elected.” No one could know now whether Mr. DeLay would be a resident of Texas in November, the judges said, rejecting claims by Ms. Benkiser that the party could name a replacement because Mr. DeLay had shown documentation of his move to Virginia.

With the clock ticking toward November and the Republicans and Mr. DeLay saying he was ineligible to run in Texas, Mr. Bopp, the lawyer, filed Monday for a Supreme Court stay, arguing that the Democrats, by insisting on Mr. DeLay as the nominee, were infringing on the Republicans’ constitutional right of free association and intruding in Republican Party affairs.

But the appellate judges had ruled that they saw the move more as an effort by Republicans to replace a wounded candidate in ways unfair to the Democrats, and Justice Scalia, in turning down the final appeal, said nothing to indicate that he saw it differently.

Cris Feldman, a lawyer for the Democrats, said: “Five judges to date have agreed the Texas Republican Party violated state and federal law, and it’s apparent that Justice Scalia agrees with us. Now it’s time for Tom DeLay to decide whether he will cut or run.”

posted by Hawkeye's Mash at 10:34 PM 1 comments

Sunday, August 06, 2006

Of course Iraq's in a Civil War


Come on folks, of course Bush, Rumsfeld, and Condi don't want to admit that their war in Iraq has become a Civil War, but of course it has become a Civil War.

According to Merriam-Webster's Online Dicitionary the definition of civil war is simply: a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country. There is NO DOUBT that there are oposing forces at war against each other in Iraq.

The unfortunate fact is that this "war of opportunity" that Bush created knowingly using fabricated intelligence has spawned more terrorists, set off a civil war, stimulated increasing instability in the Middle East.

posted by Hawkeye's Mash at 11:03 AM 0 comments

Saturday, August 05, 2006

The Numbers - GOP must go!

Cost of Iraq war as of 8/3/06

$300,970,330,167


Instead, we could have provided four-year scholarships to

14,590,378

students at public universities.

posted by Hawkeye's Mash at 11:44 AM 0 comments

Thursday, August 03, 2006

DeLay is STUCK on Ballot! GOP comments Ridiculous!

Thanks to FortBendNow.com for the following article about Delay getting stuck on the ballot. Amazing, the GOP's trying to claim that Democrats are attempting to control the GOP candidate selection. Ridiculous! The GOP primary voters elected DeLay to the ballot and now the federal courts won't let them change their minds simply because he's bound to lose because of ethics violations!


Judges: DeLay Must Stay On Ballot; GOP Heads To Supremes

by Bob Dunn, Aug 03, 2006, 02 46 pm

An appeals panel upheld a federal judge’s ruling Thursday that either Tom DeLay must appear on the November ballot for Congressional District 22, or the Republican Party of Texas cannot field a candidate for the race.

Tom DeLay
Tom DeLay

In affirming a July ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Sam Sparks, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges said Texas GOP Chairman Tina Benkiser violated the U.S. Constitution when she declared on June 8 that DeLay was ineligible to run on the general election ballot.

Shortly after the ruling, one of Benkiser’s attorneys said she would file an expedited appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“The court held that the Texas Democrat Party could seek to control who is the nominee of the Republican Party,” said attorney Jim Bopp, who represents Benkiser in the case. The appeals panel ruling “is incompatible with a viable two-party system. Voter choice demands candidates from both parties.”

DeLay, who won the Republican Party primary election by garnering 62% of the vote in a four-way race, announced in April he would resign from Congress. He later stated his intention to move to Virginia and thus become ineligible to be on the Republican ballot.

The day before DeLay was scheduled to resign his congressional seat, Benkiser said she had documentation including a copy of DeLay’s Virginia driver’s license, that led her to conclude he was ineligible to be on the ballot.

But the Texas Democratic Party filed suit against her in Travis County District Court, arguing that the U.S. Constitution establishes eligibility of congressional candidates, stating only that a candidate must be “an inhabitant” of the state he or she intends to serve, “when elected.”

Judge Sparks agreed with that argument, after the GOP successfully had the case moved to U.S. District Court in Austin. Thursday, the 5th Circuit panel concurred.

The three-judge panel “found that Tina Benkiser and the Texas Republican Party violated the Constitution and violated state law,” said Chad Dunn, general counsel for the state Democratic Party. The appeals court ruling leaves in place an injunction preventing the Texas GOP from acting to select a replacement candidate for DeLay.

“When Benkiser reviewed the public records sent by DeLay and concluded that his residency in Virginia made him ineligible, she unconstitutionally created a pre-election inhabitancy requirement,” judges Fortunato Benavides, James Dennis and Edith Clement said in their ruling. ”

The Qualifications Clause in the Constitution “only requires inhabitancy when that candidate is elected,” the judges wrote. “Given this language, Benkiser could not constitutionally find that DeLay was ineligible on June 7, the date she made her decision. Therefore, her application of the ineligibility statute to DeLay was unconstitutional.”

The panel of judges said their ruling conforms with the Texas principle that any constitutional provision restricting the right to hold office “must be strictly construed against ineligibility.” Also, they said, their ruling is supported by past decisions in the 9th and 10th circuits “that struck down pre-election day residency requirements.”

In a prepared statement late Thursday afternoon, Bopp said the appeals panel made a “fundamental error” by ignoring “the fact that the Texas statute only shifts the burden to the candidate to reaffirm his eligibility and thus is not a conclusive bar to his candidacy.

“Tom DeLay, of course, does not intend to return to Texas. He testified that he intends to live in Virginia indefinitely,” Bopp said.

DeLay could not be reached for comment.

Bopp said Texas Democrats are asking for one of two things: Either DeLay withdraws from the ballot so that Democratic challenger Nick Lampson “can run unopposed,” or DeLay must remain on the ballot and run for re-election, even though “he doesn’t want to run.”

State Democratic Party attorney Cris Feldman said the GOP’s “burden for extraordinary relief from the Supreme Court is extremely high, and their arguments are getting more and more creative.

“After five judges have looked at this and upheld our position…it’s time to let the voters speak,” Feldman said.

The appeals panel said the GOP contends DeLay’s declaration of ineligibility was permissible under the law because he is a “frivolous” candidate, and “removing frivolous candidates from the ballot constitutes ‘protection of voters’ under Supreme Court precedent.”

However, the 5th Circuit judges said in their ruling, “this argument fails” because the Supreme Court has discussed the prevention of such “frivolous” candidates from appearing on the ballot in context of people who likely would “only receive minimal support in an election.”

And, the judges said, “There is no evidence that DeLay, the incumbent candidate of a dominant political party, will receive only minimal support.

“Here, we fail to see how removing DeLay from the ballot would protect the voters, inasmuch as it was the voters themselves who selected DeLay as the Republican candidate for the general election.”

The Texas Republican Party faces a tight deadline in gaining a ruling from the Supreme Court. Democrats’ attorney Dunn said Sept. 1 is a “hard deadline” by which Texas counties must have ballots printed including all the candidates’ names.

Bopp said the Supreme Court could rule that the Texas GOP “is going to suffer irreparable harm if we do not have a replacement candidate,” and could allow such a candidate to be selected and put on the ballot.

“Then we can argue after the election” whether that move was proper, he said.

The House of Representatives “can ultimately determine the qualifications of the nominees,” and if the replacement candidate was determined ineligible for office, a special election could be held, or the House could determine that the Democratic nominee be seated, Bopp said.

Texas Democratic Party Executive Committee member Don Bankston of Richmond saw the case in simpler terms.

“We’re pleased the rule of law has been upheld,” he said. “Mr. DeLay may think he’s the federal government, but he still needs to follow the Constitution.”

Lampson echoed Feldman, saying Thursday the case has dragged on long enough.

“Our country is at war, we are facing issues like unsecured borders, skyrocketing foreign debt, and we are in the middle of hurricane season,” he said in a statement. “Yet, Texas’s 22nd Congressional District currently has no voice in the House of Representatives. Texans have waited long enough for an outcome on this case. It is now time for us to move ahead with the election. Regardless of what Tom DeLay decides to do, I look forward to a vigorous issue-based campaign.”

posted by Hawkeye's Mash at 8:24 PM 1 comments

Wednesday, August 02, 2006

John Stossel's an Idiot!

John Stossel's an idiot. Here is a fellow that is ample evidence that the American corporate media machine is hardly liberal. Read this BS and my comments!

August 02, 2006

The Trial Lawyers' 'Justice' Myth

By John Stossel

The Association of Trial Lawyers of America recently changed its name to the American Association for Justice. It may be a smart PR move, because everyone likes the word "justice," and apparently the name "trial lawyers" has acquired a negative tinge. It's good that it has, because although trial lawyers say they "protect the little guy," that's a myth. In truth, for every little guy they help, they hurt thousands. Truch is the US corporate culture is already hurting thousands for most every lawsuit that is one by won by trial lawyers. How about the example of asbestos use in dozens of products. Yes there have been some huge class action suits, but if the corporations that developed the products had stopped based on their own research, thousands perhaps hundreds of thousands of serious injury and disease would have avoided. Instead, the corporations continued with their dangerous practices, caused disease and death.

When those big medical malpractice awards hit the headlines, it sounds like the little guy was helped. "$1 million awarded to victim of medical device!" But the headline leaves out a great deal. First, the suit cost everyone involved -- and that includes you -- much more than $1million. In addition to the million-dollar settlement, there were the court costs and legal fees charged by the defense lawyers -- many defense lawyers, considering the plaintiff probably sued not just the maker of the medical equipment, but the surgeon, an internist, some nurses, the hospital, and God knows how many others. Lawsuits routinely name as many as a dozen people, because to not include someone who is later revealed to be at fault may expose the lawyer to a charge of legal malpractice. Also, the lawyers often have to sue layers of producers and corrupt officials to uncover the final cuprit.

For the lawyers and people like me, a lawsuit is just another part of our work, but for most people, it's a life-wrecking experience. Nurses are terrified. Doctors can't sleep. Their hard-earned reputations are trashed by newspapers quoting plaintiffs' lawyers, who paint deceitful pictures of the doctors' incompetence and negligence. The doctors are forced to hire defense lawyers who eat up their time, energy and entire life savings. Patients suffer while their physicians spend several hours a week with attorneys, preparing for and giving depositions. The suit drags on for years. If only the medical profession would police its own people. Instead they allow doctors who have no skill, have lost their skill or are simply incompetent to keep on working. Someone that leaves a surgical tool in patients abdomen should be sued big time@!

Soon doctors begin practicing hyper-defensive medicine, ordering expensive and largely unnecessary tests to avoid lawsuits. Some of the tests are painful for the patients. Today, 51 percent of doctors recommend invasive procedures like biopsies more often than they believe are medically necessary.

Doctors become more secretive, talk less openly with patients and become averse to acknowledging any mistake. Insurance premiums rise, and both doctors and hospitals pass the cost on to patients. Newly fearful, the medical device manufacturer decides to stick to proven technologies, dropping its plan to pursue a new line of tools that would make surgery less painful and less risky. I could go on, but you get the idea.

Lawyers, of course, get a big percentage of any award, but to cover what the lawyers take, the price tags of all consumer goods are a little higher. Life-saving products are especially penalized by the "lawyer tax." A manufacturer who produces pacemakers says lawsuits add thousands of dollars to the cost of every pacemaker. Lawsuits punish hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent people. Yeah, yeah, yeah, if only the makers of consumer products tried harder to make them safe. Instead, every year kids die from senseless "accidents" caused by unsafe toys and other products, but I suppose that's ok, right Stossel?

Critics of lawsuit abuse tend to focus only on the cost of litigation. The cost is nasty. But the higher cost is just the start of the nasty side effects. What's worse is that fear of lawsuits now deprives us of things that make our lives better.

Sure, fear of the "invisible fist" makes manufacturers more careful. Some lives have been saved because the litigation threat got companies to make their products safer. That's the "seen" benefit.

But that benefit comes with a bigger unseen cost: The fear that stops the bad things stops good things, too -- new vaccines, new drugs, new medical devices. Fear suffocates the innovation that, over the past century, has helped extend our life spans by almost 30 years. Every day, we lose good things.

We can't even begin to imagine the life-saving products that might have existed -- if innovators didn't live in a climate of fear. That'll be the subject of next week's column.

I just hope that climate of fear gets strong enough to convince product makers to ensure their products are safe. If only the makers of tires - was it Firestone? - had ensured their tires were safe many, many people would've lived instead of dying terrible deaths in SUV crashes caused by news, but bad tires. I wonder how much Stossel is paid to write this kind of crap??

posted by Hawkeye's Mash at 9:41 PM 0 comments

Tuesday, August 01, 2006

Lieberman Should Get What He Deserves.

Lieberman's a fool to have been sucking up to Bush over the last five years. Sure he's Jewish and is more supportive than most of the cause for Israel. But that doesn't mean he should kick the Democratic Party in the teeth and ride the Bush "shock and awe" campaign against the American public and our country's ideals.
I hate that he may run as an independent if he loses the Connecticut primary. That could mean a worse Republican might win as Lieberman and the Democratic nominee split a progressive to center vote. Nevertheless, the times are far different than they were when Bill Clinton ran as a DLC centrist candidate. The D Party and the country has faced a continuous attack from the Bushies on all things that make America great since 9/11... and Lieberman helped them! He and others must know this is no longer acceptable!


Bush Baggage Could Cost Lieberman Primary

Connecticut Democrats fume at his centrism and unbending support for the war. A poll shows the senator's rival surging. The vote is next week.
By Ronald Brownstein, Times Staff Writer
August 1, 2006

NEW HAVEN, Conn. — When Sen. Joe Lieberman stopped to campaign at a busy brew pub here Friday, Linda Rogozinski was perched at the bar. As far as Lieberman was concerned, however, she was sitting on the fence.

Rogozinski, a scientist at the Yale University School of Medicine, voted for Lieberman in his three previous Senate races. But he can no longer count on her support — a sign of the troubles Lieberman confronts as he struggles to avoid defeat in a Democratic primary Aug. 8 that has focused squarely on the war in Iraq.

Rogozinski said she has long admired Lieberman as a man of principle. But his unwavering support of the war increasingly seems to her a stubborn refusal to face facts three years after U.S. forces overthrew dictator Saddam Hussein.

"Lieberman is a good guy … [but] I just wish he could modify his position on Iraq," Rogozinski said. "I need to know why it's so important for him to maintain a position he developed three years ago."

Such comments explain why Lieberman, 64, faces the risk of repudiation from his fellow Connecticut Democrats six years after Al Gore selected him as his running mate in the 2000 presidential campaign.

Overwhelming discontent in the state about the Iraq war created the opening for a strong challenge by political newcomer Ned Lamont, 52, a wealthy cable television entrepreneur.

But Lieberman is also being battered by a widespread belief among critics that his long-standing commitment to working with Republicans has become counterproductive at a time when President Bush and the GOP congressional majority pursue an aggressive conservative agenda.

"I want a senator who's out there challenging them … instead of working with them on their crazy policies," said Cheryl Curtiss, a West Hartford School District employee, as she waited for Lamont at a rally Saturday night.

With such sentiments in play, the race has spotlighted broader choices that Democrats face nationwide — not only in this fall's election, but in the 2008 presidential campaign. Beyond measuring the depth of anger about the Iraq war, the Connecticut primary has offered competing visions of how Democrats can revive their fortunes in a deeply polarized political era.

Lieberman presents himself as an inheritor of President Clinton's strategy during the 1990s, arguing that his party must ground itself in the political center while seeking opportunities for bipartisan agreement with Republicans.

posted by Hawkeye's Mash at 11:05 PM 0 comments