|
Post by chadgumbo on Oct 10, 2005 11:26:32 GMT -5
I see Karl Rove has been at it again. Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, has suddenly come out in support of Harriett Miers's nomination for the Supreme Court. And when exactly did Dobson "get on-board"? After receiving a confidential phone call from Mr. Rove.
From The New York Times:
While The Times doesn't say it, talk radio host Ron Rosenbaum said that Dr. Dobson went on to say "If I'm wrong about this, the blood of all those babies will be on my hands."
So here we have Dr. Dobson who 1.) States that he has knowledge that the general public doesn't have, and isn't supposed to have. 2.) He's not going to discuss what he knows with the general public. 3.) The information appears to have come from Rove. 3.) He supports Miers and seems to take the same stance as the president with his "trust me on this one" attitude.
You know what, if you want me to "trust you" then just tell me exactly what it is that makes this nominee so special, so right. You want us to believe that she's the right person. The right person for whom? The president, the veep, and apparently Dr. Dobson. Well, I'm not a Limbaugh dittohead, and while I agree with Dr. Dobson on some things, I'm not a carte blanche Dobson ditto head either. You want me to think this Ms. Miers is the right person? Give me some reasons why.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Oct 10, 2005 16:30:54 GMT -5
Once she is confirmed and on the bench, just picture Dubya with a goofy hair-do and a skirt because he will, in effect, be sitting on the bench himself with Miers for a long time to come. This is a "trojan horse" type deal with reverse psychology at work. I don't buy all of the squawking about her from the right, because for one thing, she is hand picked by their "Commander in...." Why would they suddenly and so dramatically question him over a nomination like her. Truth is...they know she's as "pro-life" as the Pope, and will do just about anything else they need. They're thinking that with no more known about her than there is, and if the "right" is upset about her...the "left" will decide "we better confirm her". More insult!!! Harriet Miers was on the Dallas City Council for one yr in the early '90's until she got booted off for questionable contract awardsand city planning. Like a good "Bush crony"..she was wasting no time and grabbing all she could grab. She has been legal council for the Bush's for many years. She was a Democrat until God told her to start backing Reagan and the Republican Party. Now I have a feeling that if God tells her how to vote...so can Rove etal. Yup...she will definitely be among friends in the Texas good ole boy version of DC.
|
|
|
Post by chadgumbo on Oct 11, 2005 9:33:24 GMT -5
One other thing I started thinking about, after my last post, was something the president had said just a few days before... 'that he doesn't want his justices legislating from the bench.' Then I begin to think about Rove calling James Dobson, and Dobson saying that if he's wrong about this he'll have the blood of all those babies on his hands. He knows she's pro-life, Bush is pro-life, and so on. If abortion is legal, and the laws regarding abortion were enacted in Congress, then isn't the president in effect trying to pick a Supreme Court Justice who who just might be 'legislating from the bench?'
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Oct 11, 2005 11:17:56 GMT -5
... 'that he doesn't want his justices legislating from the bench.' "...his justices..."? Who sez they're his?
|
|
|
Post by chadgumbo on Oct 11, 2005 16:13:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Oct 11, 2005 16:56:52 GMT -5
Nothing directed at you Chad. I'm just a grump. Dubya's possessive nature just bugs me. In fact (and Bill won't like this at all), there's not a damn thing I do like about Dubby...nothing. On another note, I see that Delay's snake attorney, Dick Deguerin from Houston is putting the Travis County DA, Ronnie Earle on trial now. That's a new one.."let's assassinate his character and sneak out..." Even they may have a hard time with it. Ronnie Earle is as clean as they come. And he's prosecuted more Dems than he has Repubs.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Oct 11, 2005 19:02:09 GMT -5
With a little luck and good planning, by the time Delay, Rove, Frist, Abramoff, Ken Lay,......ect, appeal their "problems" up to the Supreme Court it should be...prepared.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Hays on Oct 17, 2005 9:54:53 GMT -5
Here's an analyical bit of reporting (from the Washington Post), printed today (10/17/05) outlining just how Jack Abramoff used his political connections and quite a bit of money to kill a bill that had already passed the U.S. Senate and was about to pass in the U.S. House of Representatives: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/15/AR2005101501539.html?referrer=emailBriefly, the law would have made it illegal to conduct on-line gambling. One of Abramoff's key clients (eLottery, in Connecticut) needed to kill this bill, so it gave him fist fulls of dollars. He sent money to Louis Sheldon (of the Crystal Cathedral in Orange County) and Ralph Reed (of the Christian Coalition) -- tax deductible, of course -- who then cashed their checks and wrote checks for the same amount to front organizations bearing cool Christian names (also tax deductible). These organizations, representing thousands of strong evangelical Christians, then began a direct mail/telephone campaign targeting vulnerable conservative Representatives. Meanwhile, Tom DeLay worked his magic on the floor and voila ... a bill designed to eliminate a vice abhorrent to most conservative Christians was killed by ... conservative Christians! Ah ... the irony of the whole thing.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Oct 17, 2005 12:03:42 GMT -5
Ralph Reed, former leader of the National Christian Coalition resigned that position to "jump on the power money wagon!" He has since been a high priced communications consultant, a top campaign advisor to Bush, Chairman of Georgia's Republican Party, and now a candidate for Georgia's Lieutenent Govenor. OK...that's all fair game and some pretty good jobs, but dig this: Federal investigations of Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, a close ally of House Majority Leader TOM DELAY, have revealed that Abramoff paid $4 Million to Reeds consulting firm to organize Christian opposition to American Indian casinos in Texas and Louisiana... from money that came from other American Indians with rival casinos in Oklahoma and elsewhere. Pretty cheesy. These "Christians" speak with "forked tongues" for money!!! Abramoff is now a top lobbyist for more gambling in Texas assisted heavily by who else...Tom Delay and (so-called) Gov. Rick Perry. From what I've seen, it wouldn't be too hard to get their personal army of "christians" to decide that "gambling might be good for Texas after all". It just depends on who's getting paid what! It's odd quoting myself, but I'm re-stating an "opinion". Too many pages to find it, but somewhere else I questioned if the "christians" (and I use that term loosley) will ever realize what a tool they are. Lot's of "money and shape shifting" going on with this bunch.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Hays on Oct 18, 2005 9:50:15 GMT -5
Maybe we need Joe Leaphorn to get to the bottom of this mess ...
.... somehow, my ironic sense of humor (or maybe it's not a sense of humor at all, it's really that I am just twisted) chuckles at the karmic logic of "getting even". Tom DeLay, Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney (to name just a few) are not especially well-known for their humanism and compassion. Nor are any of them new to game of "getting even". Their problem lies with being the target instead of being the one who targets others. If I had the time and the inclination, it would be very interesting to go back and see what any of those gentlemen (and I use the word in its most arrogant sense of the word) had to say about the legal persecution (and I use that word consciously) of Bill Clinton.
I wonder what they see when they look in the mirror?
|
|
BillL
Full Member
RIGHT ON !!!!
Posts: 172
|
Post by BillL on Oct 18, 2005 18:16:08 GMT -5
it would be very interesting to go back and see what any of those gentlemen (and I use the word in its most arrogant sense of the word) had to say about the legal persecution (and I use that word consciously) of Bill Clinton.
I wonder what they see when they look in the mirror?
Funny you mention that because I was wondering the same thing, albeit from a different angle (surprised, eh?). I wonder where all the folks that stood by Clinton (pick any of the entanglements he was involved in) are now and why they don't defend a fellow member of the brothership or whatever those hacks call themselves? Basically proving my point from way earlier in this thread that they are all (well, most anyway) hippocrits. So, you always end up voting for the lesser of 2 evils. I still feel better knowing that Kerry didn't win. But that's just me.
Bill L
And just to cement the idea that I'm totally out there, I submit the following prediction:
The Dems will be the first major political party to nominate a female presidential candidate, but the Republicans will be the first to get one elected. And both could happen as soon as '08.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Oct 18, 2005 18:36:53 GMT -5
Well...when I see Clinton or Carter on the TV nowdays it's like seeing an old friend, and in the back of my mind I'm thinking..."help us Obi-Wan Kenobi...." ;D
|
|
|
Post by Scott Hays on Oct 18, 2005 19:20:42 GMT -5
Bill, you are right (hee hee) up to a point ... the Democrats have a clear opening here to take the high road, and propose solid and meaningful legislation to once and for all clean up issues related to campaign financing, conflict of interest, corporate/union/lobbyist control of the legislative process, the actual electoral process, voting irregularities (and probably a whole lot of other truly democratic -- with a little "d", please note -- actions that might make a dent in the wholly corrupt system of practices now in place). Certainly the alert and attentive public is yearning for a voice to take the lead.
The Democrats are quite noticeably silent on the entire issue.
Hmmm ...
You might also notice ... though on a slightly different topic ... that they are equally quiet about the blatant issue of poverty and racism that was so visible for about one or two weeks in the not so distant past. The record (and totally unexpected) number of people who are lining up for book signings for Jonathan Kozol's new book The Shame of the Nation: Restoration of Apartheid Schooling in America attests to the large number of people anxious to be informed and to somehow be make some type of statement against the reestablishment of segregation in our public schools. Additionally (and related to schools and schooling), the number of Democratic Congressmen who have stepped forward and admitted that their vote to authorize NCLB was a mistake is a paltry zero.
How about the number of Democrats who voted to authorize the American invasion of Iraq who have stood up and said they were wrong? Do you know that recent polls suggest that a majority of Americans now feel that George W. Bush should be impeached if it can be proven that he lied about the reasons we invaded Iraq? The Democratic Party is going to have a hard time finding a nominee who can stand in front of his or her Party regulars and talk to them honestly about a "war" that he or she supported (and has yet to renounce) that the majority of the Party has come to oppose.
No ... hypocrisy is not a monopoly of Republicans. But the window for real change is closing fast. I am certain this pleases the leadership of the Democratic Party, and takes them off a very uncomfortable hook ... how in the world would they answer to theirpuppet masters if REAL change became an option? They would find themselves in the same situation as the leaders of the British Columbia Labor Federation, who sided with the "Labor" Government of BC in condemning a strike by teachers. Assuming the teacher's union would bow to the pressure applied by the labor bosses, everyone stopped paying attention and allowed the rank and file to hold a meeting to reverse the 82% vote for a strike ... instead, they voted 95% in favor of going on strike anyway. The government immediately enacted emergency legislation to make a strike by public employees illegal (and this by a "labor" party), and the BCLF sided with the government (and the media), warning teachers not to strike.
They did.
And when they did, other rank-and-file trade unionists began calling for a general strike, unless the government rescinded Order 12 and went back to the bargaining table with the teachers. The one day general strike is called for next Monday.
This is what happens when the "leaders" suddenly find that the people they have been leading suddenly don't follow them anymore. This is what the Democrats fear. This is what the Republicans have been struggling so hard to stave off (and why things like secret tribunals, wire-tapping without court orders, monitoring of internet & library activity, the use of the armed forces in domestic disturbances, waiving of habeus corpus as either enacted or sought by the Republicans is so frightening).
This is why we are not better off with George W than either John Kerry or Al Gore. There would be no war being waged. The middle class would not be being squeezed to pay for wars, corporate excess, off-sourcing, increased health benefits while huge tax breaks go to wealthy; the middle class would not be worried about losing social security and prescription drug protection in an age when interest rates are rising, the cost of all essential products are rising, unemployment (and I mean real employment -- not the weasel worded counting of part time jobs in the service economy) is rising, and we face the increasing threat of yet another war with (take your pick) Iran, Syria, N. Korea and ... gasp ... ultimately China.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Hays on Oct 18, 2005 19:30:34 GMT -5
Oh ... I forgot to explain why the rank and file of other unions in BC called for a general strike to support the teachers. There are two reasons:
(1) the teachers are calling for restoration of their right to bargain for substantive structural school issues -- taken away in the last round of bargaining that was pretty much imposed on them (they weren't allowed to vote on the agreed to settlement) -- as opposed to just issues of salary and hours. They want to have a say in things like class size, how students are grouped in classes, as well as their salary (third on their list of demands). Parents (mostly working class trade-unionists) agree ...
(2) a local judge ruled on Friday that the Union cannot use money collected from dues to pay striking teachers emergency salaries while they are on strike, since the strike is "illegal" ... most trade unionists recognize this as a blatant effort to destroy the one source of leverage that trade unions have over corporate puppet masters, and see a general strike as the only vehicle for forcing the government to rewrite the law.
Our government is doing its darndest to keep this type of news out of the news, and to keep the escalating pressure being felt by workers in this country from being promoted in support of direct action. It is counting on its union boss goons to keep workers in line, while simultaneously doing everything in its power to undermine the ability (and the right) of workers to organize. But if it has to ... you can count on whose side of the bread this government (and probably a Democratic government) will come down on if workers decide that the only friends they have are their democratic right to assemble and to speak out against those who squeezing them to squeeze the last bit of juice out of a rapidly collapsing world economy.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Oct 18, 2005 20:12:52 GMT -5
... you can count on whose side of the bread this government (and probably a Democratic government) will come down on if workers decide that the only friends they have are their democratic right to assemble and to speak out against those who squeezing them to squeeze the last bit of juice out of a rapidly collapsing world economy. A plot that was "written" in the '70s by The Carlyle Group's boss...The Trilateral Commision.
|
|