She really needs to can this guy, but it would be a symbolic sacking, he has screwed her over so many ways it's not funny at all.

He also has time to promote his book and do a book tour, besides whoring with clients.

Her judgement in listening to this pig is seriously cast into doubt. What other kinds of greedy pigs will she listen too if she were president?

That's the crux of the problem, never mind his execrable campaign strategy (for her, its worked out quite swimmingly for him I'd say) and the total lack of vision it demonstrated, her judgement is being called into question, andt here really isn't much she can do at this point to change that impression. Except if she fires the creep and somehow wins the nomination, she can say her jedgement has improved and she is surrounding herself with dedicated advisors, as opposed to mammon worshipping advisors.

Posted at April 4, 2008 4:08 PM in response to Penn: "I Am Sorry" For Meeting With Colombian Ambassador

Agree'd. And whether Obama wants it or not, WE need to demand it, for OURSELVES, screw the politicians or the media, complicit as they are.

Posted at April 2, 2008 4:31 PM in response to One Policy, Two Stories

They played Frontline's Bush's War this weekend, and while they didn't get into the Shia-Shia angle so much, they painted a pretty bleak picture for Iraq, and while they weren't entirely explicit about the oil angle, they showed the impact on Iraq far better than anyone in the conventional media has to date.

But what they don't say at all, what nobody really can wrap their hands around, is that THEY DID IT ON PURPOSE.

Cheney, Rumdrunk, Feith, Wolfowitz, did it so that Corporations would profit, and oil would be secured. But since the views and values that these maniacs hold are not just wrong and comic book in depth, but fundamentally insane, nothing went right.

And the Corporations continue to profit.

Posted at March 31, 2008 3:44 PM in response to Today's Must Read

Obviously #1 will be the answer, can't be fettering advice with accountability, now can we.

Indeed, I think I'll inquire with her how that vote is looking.

AGAIN!

Posted at March 27, 2008 2:58 PM in response to Feinstein Questions Mukasey on Disbanding of LA Public Corruption Unit

I guess the Dems don't think it's such a winner, otherwise they would be more nervous about things.

So is there any chance that we can put pressure on Rocky, remind him that we don't really care if he was having sex with the dog or anything else, so if you want to come clean, please feel free?

It's eithe that or he's as stupid as his performance on the committee says he is.

Posted at March 18, 2008 3:25 PM in response to Today's Must Read

That's right everybody, all Congresspeople are crooks and thieves and knaves, so why should we worry who gets elected, right?

Its not like elections matter, right?

Or do you think that an Al Gore Administration would have launched us into a war in Iraq after 9/11, if they would have even had a 9/11 under a Gore Administration.

There's some GOP talking points going on here that I do not care for at all.

Now, if you wanted to say all Republicans are crooks and thieves and knaves, well, okay then. And actually, that last quotefrom Abercrombie is not as far fetched as some seem to think:

“With this proposal we are indicting ourselves, yielding and retreating to those who would tear this House down and denigrate us as crooks and knaves and hustlers…we cringe before our critics,” he said. “If we have no respect for ourselves—how to we expect it from anybody else?”

If the Republicans hadn't blocked any ethics reforms whill engaging in the most profoundly unethical behaviors since 1992 or so, and if the Bush Administration weren't the greatest assemblage of crooks and thieves and knaves we've ever seen in this country, just look at HUD right now for instance, then perhaps Democrats under the prodding of these new vocal progressive advocacy groups that exist today might have actually taken steps to curtail the excesses, improved the election systems and so on. Maybe not, but we'll never know now.

And I find it pretty depressing to read the mindless Congress are crooks talking points here and elsewhere, as if that is the solution, accepting the premise of republican framing, then regurgitating it for all to see. Thanks, thanks very much.

Posted at March 12, 2008 3:28 PM in response to Pelosi Gets Reform Bill While GOPers and Some Dems Kick and Scream

You know, when the Dems do the right thing, its okay to acknowledge it without adding the "but they'll cave in the end" clause at the end of the sentence.

Really, its okay, try it, you might like it.

Doesn't mean you stop faxing and e-mailing and calling at all.

Now, Rockefeller, he's a peach, ain't he. Maybe if the West Virginia progressive Dems started making noise looking for an alternative to Rockefeller now, heck start a PAC or something to raise a little cash to put an ad in his local paper, http://wvgazette.com/News , and let him know that his position is unacceptable.

And if he has an embarrassing problem like Spitzer seems to have, tell him we don't really care, and he needs to come out with it before Drudge smears him all over creation with it.

Posted at March 11, 2008 4:35 PM in response to House Surveillance Bill Contains Provision to Aid Telecom Suits

good thoughts testing.

But we have the basis for doing so already, its called the Constitution, in this case its the Fourth Amendment that is the issue.

We just have to figure out a way of forcing management to use the damned words on the parchment as written and interpreted.

Exclusivity, what the eff is that? That sounds like something so meaningless and wishy washy, only a Democrat could come up with it.

Accountability goes hand in hand with responsibility which is intrinsic in oversight, NANCY.

I don't have her fax # for DC, if someone has it handy please post it, and send her a copy of the 4th amendment, I'm pretty sure exclusivity isn't one of the words used.

Yep, just read my pocket Constitution. Exclusivity isn't in there.

Posted at March 6, 2008 3:47 PM in response to Pelosi: Surveillance Bill Focus Should Be on "Exclusivity"

I dunno, maybe because he likes and respects Senator Edwards and the issues he's running on?

For party unity?

Same for Hillary and Edwards.

Just sayin.

Posted at February 11, 2008 4:53 PM in response to Edwards Endorsement Meeting With Obama Canceled

OH. MY. GAWD!!!!!

A meeting was cancelled!!!

(Runs shrieking from the room)

Hillary must have put a voodoo spell on the meeting place.

Yeah, and John Edwards fighting for the poor and underpriveliged, truly irrelevent issues, he shouldn't even fight for those now because he isn't running for president and president is just like god and makes all of the decisions and decides to grant waivers so Chevron can dump more toxins in the Great Lakes or approve the air quality at Ground Zero or grant greater media concentration rules and stuff like that.

Koresh, what a party I belong to.

Posted at February 11, 2008 4:13 PM in response to Edwards Endorsement Meeting With Obama Canceled