BS: The Republicans (US)

Subject: BS: The republicans
From: kendall
Date: 24 Feb 10 - 07:55 PM

They seem to have hit a new low. Over 100 years they have had to do something about health care and all thy have done is resist. Now they have even resorted to arguing about the shape of the friggin' table!
Makes me proud to be a liberal.

Subject: RE: BS: The reblicans
From: Rapparee
Date: 24 Feb 10 - 08:40 PM

Sounds like the Paris Peace Talks all over again.

Subject: RE: BS: The reblicans
From: GUEST,999
Date: 24 Feb 10 - 09:58 PM

What they wanted.

What they got.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 05:47 PM

Last November, when Attorney General Eric Holder testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) demanded that he identify the attorneys in the Justice Department (DOJ) who either represented Guantanamo Bay detainees or worked for groups who advocated for them. "This prior representation creates a conflict-of-interest problem for these individuals," argued Grassley. He, along with six other Republicans, followed up with a letter to Holder requesting that the Attorney General release the names of all DOJ political appointees who worked on behalf of detainees.

In February, Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich responded to Grassley's inquiries, saying in a letter that "only five of the lawyers who serve as political appointees in those components represented detainees, and four others either contributed to amicus briefs in detainee-related cases or were otherwise involved in advocacy on behalf of detainees." Weich named two of the lawyers, Principal Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal and National Security Division Attorney Jennifer Daskal, whom Grassley had previously identified.

The right wing responded incredulously, labeling the lawyers "The Gitmo Nine" and questioning whether "past work for terrorist detainees has biased" them. "Just whose side are they on?" asked the far right Investors Business Daily in an editorial titled "Department of Jihad." On Monday, Keep America Safe, the right-wing organization set up by Liz Cheney, Bill Kristol and Debra Burlingame to "make the case against President Barack Obama's moves to wrench America away from Bush era foreign policy," released an internet ad calling the yet-to-be identified lawyers "the al Qaeda 7." Keep America Safe spokesman Michael Goldfarb essentially accused them of treason, telling Politico that the lawyers had "propagandized on behalf of our enemies, engaging in a worldwide smear campaign against the CIA, the U.S. military and the United States itself while we are at war."

THE RETURN OF 'PURE McCARTHYISM': Cheney's ad questioning the loyalty of Justice Department lawyers has been met with swift push back from advocates of the rule of law. "It is absolutely outrageous for the Cheney-Grassley crowd to try to tar and feather Neal and Jennifer and insinuate they are al-Qaeda supporters," retired Col. Morris Davis, who formerly served as the chief prosecutor of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, told the Washington Independent. "You don't hear anyone refer to John Adams as a turncoat for representing the Brits in the Boston Massacre trial." "This is plainly unacceptable in the United States,"

Ken Gude, the Associate Director of the International Rights at the Center for American Progress, told Politico's Josh Gerstein. "Condemnation is not sufficient. This is pure McCarthyism." "It's not kind of like McCarthyism, it is exactly what Joe McCarthy did with his Communist witch hunts," Gude added in comments to TPMmuckraker. "Cheney accuses the Attorney General of the United States of being a supporter of al Qaeda and running the 'Department of Jihad.'" The American Prospect's Adam Serwer noted yesterday that the smear campaign also impugns the loyalty of members of the military who represented detainees at Guantanamo Bay. "The logical conclusion of their argument is that the military lawyers who act as defense counsel to detainees in the military commissions are also traitors and should be court-martialed," wrote Serwer. As Gerstein pointed out, "even the Bush/Cheney Administration didn't have much tolerance for public attacks on the loyalty of lawyers representing Guantanamo detainees." Gerstein noted that "in 2007, Defense Department detainee affairs chief Charles Stimson made similar comments, calling for a boycott of firms handling such cases, often pro bono. The Pentagon publicly distanced itself from Stimson's statements, which were condemned by a broad array of voices in the legal community. Stimson eventually apologized and resigned a short time later."

Bush administration veterans have also spoken out against the Keep America Safe attack. "While it's legitimate for the public to inquire about the past work of DOJ political appointees, we need to recognize that our judicial system cannot function without pro bono counsel, and it doesn't make a lawyer less patriotic just because he or she has represented a criminal or terrorist suspect," former U.S. attorney and homeland security adviser Kenneth Wainstein told the Washington Post.

THE RULE OF LAW IS 'THE AMERICAN WAY': Unmentioned by most of the conservatives impugning the patriotism of Holder's Justice Department is that the Supreme Court has sided with many of the lawyers they are seeking to smear. Katyal was the lawyer who won Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the case that struck down the Bush administration's military commissions system. Daskal signed her name to an amicus brief in the Boumediene v. Bush case arguing that Guantanamo detainees be accorded habeas corpus rights to challenge their convictions.

The Supreme Court sided with Daskal's position. Former Bush White House lawyer Reginald Brown told the Washington Post, "It's beyond a cheap shot to suggest that a lawyer is an al-Qaeda sympathizer because he advocates a detainee's position in the Supreme Court." "These lawyers were advocating on behalf of our Constitution and our laws. The detention policies of the Bush administration were unconstitutional and illegal, and no higher a legal authority than the Supreme Court of the United States agreed," said Gude. "The disgusting logic of these attacks is that the Supreme Court is in league with al-Qaeda." As Col. Davis noted with his reference to John Adams, lawyers "zealously" defending the rights of the accused is "the American way." But adherence to the rule of law in the fight against terrorism is exactly what bothers the conservatives at Keep America Safe. Justifying the "al Qaeda 7" ad, Burlingame complained to CNSNews that "this is what you get when you have a country run by progressives, taking us back to the mindset of the 1990s in which civil liberties and the legal, due process protections for terrorists was their chief concern, their chief priority." As Lt. Col. David Frakt, who has represented detainees both in military and civilian courts, told Serwer, "The right is treating the lawyers who came up with the justification for torture as heroes, and the lawyers like Katyal who helped restore the rule of law as villains." "They've just got their heads screwed on backwards."

ANOTHER HYPOCRITICAL POLITICAL ATTACK: Yesterday, Fox News' Mike Levine revealed the identity of the seven other lawyers who worked on behalf of detainees before joining the government. The Justice Department confirmed the report, stating that "each of the nine people referenced in the letter filed legal briefs that are available by using something as simple as Google" and that their names were not initially revealed because the Department did not want to "participate in an attempt to drag people's names through the mud for political purposes."

Levine also pointed out that "the Obama Administration is not the first to hire lawyers who represented or advocated for terror suspects," naming three Bush administration lawyers who worked in such a capacity. ABC News' Jake Tapper reported that "it does not appear that any of these conservatives and Republicans stated any objections to the Bush Justice Department's hiring" of those lawyers. This hypocrisy should come as no surprise. For a long time now, conservatives have attacked the Obama administration's national security policies over issues they stayed silent on during the Bush administration. For instance, conservatives have lambasted Obama over the fact that the would-be Christmas Day bomber was read his Miranda rights, despite the fact that when President Bush was in charge, the "shoe bomber" Richard Reid "was read or reminded of his Miranda rights four times in two days."

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 05:52 PM

WOMEN'S RIGHTS -- UTAH LAWMAKERS PASS BILL TO CRIMINALIZE ILLEGAL ABORTION AND MISCARRIAGES: The Utah legislature passed a bill last week that defines illegal abortions and miscarriage as "criminal homicide," carrying penalties of "up to life in prison." The measure, not yet signed by Utah Gov. Gary Herbert (R), "goes further than any other state" in holding a woman "criminally liable" for trying to end a pregnancy through illegal means. Not only does the measure impose severe penalties for illegal abortion, but it also narrows the definition of legal abortion in an attempt "to further restrict abortion," according to the bill's sponsor, state Rep. Carl Wimmer (R).

Moreover, it "holds women legally responsible for miscarriages caused by 'reckless' behavior," allowing a district attorney to allege homicide merely by showing that "a woman behaved in a manner that is thought to cause miscarriage, even if she didn't intend to lose the pregnancy."

Critics say that the standard is so subjective that a pregnant woman who "returns to a physically abusive partner," or drives "without wearing her seatbelt" could legitimately be convicted under the statute. Missy Bird, executive director of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund of Utah, sums up the problems with the legislation: "This creates a law that makes any pregnant woman who has a miscarriage potentially criminally liable for murder."

...(PROGRESSIVE REPORT)

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: artbrooks
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 06:30 PM

Associated Press - March 4, 2010 2:55 PM ET

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - Utah Gov. Gary Herbert wants a new version of a bill passed by lawmakers that some fear could result in criminal homicide investigations of women who have miscarriages.

Herbert spokeswoman Angie Welling said Thursday Herbert wants to ensure there are no unintended consequences from the bill that would make abortions not performed by a doctor through a medical procedure illegal.

For example, Welling says the governor is worried a pregnant woman who has an accident while skiing could be charged with a crime.

She says Herbert has asked Rep. Carl Wimmer, the bill's sponsor, to pass a new version of the bill that excludes reckless behavior.

Wimmer opened a bill file Thursday that he says will address misperceptions about the bill and supplant one lawmakers have already passed.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: katlaughing
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 07:32 PM

Thanks, Amos, and Art, for posting the Utah info. I was gobsmacked and so disheartened when I read it yesterday. I was not surprised having worked in hospital with a lot of LDS pregnant women and having a cousin who felt no compunction about making his wife pregnant so many times, she went into congestive heart failure, after which he still impregnated her. She died shortly after their, I think it was, eleventh child was born. Nothing happens in Utah without the Church being involved. I am sure the religious extremists are ecstatic about this.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 08:31 PM

I've been wondering if our overwhelming Democratic majority has been part of the problem. With such overwhelming opposition, the Republicans have no hope of getting anything they want, so perhaps they've circled their wagons and simply refused to negotiate about anything.
Whatever the case, things aren't working very well in Congress right now, and it seems so strange since the Democrats still have such a majority. They'd better figure out some solution, or they will be a minority party again soon.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: katlaughing
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 09:33 PM

Here is an excerpt my friend in Texas sent to me. It is about what the religious extremists are doing. It's things like this that had better get stopped or it could lead to a civil war. There is more, with a billboard espousing their group HERE. And, if you can stand it, here is the Repent Amarillo website. For an in-depth article, part of which is quoted below, please click HERE. (Wasn't sure which thread to put this on and didn't want to start a new one. I figure it's related to this one since these kind of wingnuts have taken over the GOP.)

Quote:

Some very scary shit is going down in Texas. Scarier than usual. "Repent Amarillo" is a rabid group of religious nuts—homegrown religious extremists of the conservative Christian variety—and they're not just going after the gays.

    At first, the swinger community was mystified by the attention. On the 60-some hours of surveillance footage the Meads have, a swinger can be heard telling a Repent member that the swingers haven't done anything to bother them."You're going to hell, and it bothers me," Grisham responds. "What bothers me is you're going to hell."

    Perhaps the most insidious tactic Repent uses is trying to destroy the reputation of the swingers. In Amarillo, people can be ostracized over a whiff of impropriety. On one tape, Grisham directs followers to get the license-plate numbers in the Route 66 parking lot. "A new couple can be here three or four hours," says Mac. "Whenever they leave, the Repent Amarillo group will call them by first and last name, know where they live, know where they work, just within a very few hours."

    Randall Sammons says he was fired from his job of 13 years in August after his boss learned Sammons was a swinger from another employee, a Repent member. He believes he's now as good as blacklisted in Amarillo. "I'm screwed at finding a job," Sammons says. Russell Grisham, David's 20-year-old son who has a conviction on his record for hacking the computer system at his high school, has posted the names, photos and workplaces of swingers on the Internet, including one man whose wife works for a school district. ("Family-wise, it will kill both of us," the man says.) In at least two instances, Repent members called swingers' employers.

Having successfully harassed a local and very discreet group for heterosexual swingers out of existence, Repent Amarillo's "warriors" are now planning to go after...

    1. Gay pride events.
    2. Earth worship events such as "Earth Day"
    3. Pro-abortion events or places such as Planned Parenthood
    4. Breast cancer events such as "Race for the Cure" to illuminate the link between abortion and breast cancer.
    5. Opening day of public schools to reach out to students.
    6. Spring break events.
    7. Demonically based concerts.
    8. Halloween events.
    9. Other events that may arise that the ministry feels called to confront.

They're also going after churches they believe to be insufficiently Christian (Episcopalians, Christian Scientists, Unitarians), palm readers, people who practice witchcraft, and anything and everything that might create a "demonic stronghold" in Amarillo. And they're not just threatening to pray for people: Repent Amarillo's "actions" include prayer, according to Repent Amarillo's website, "but [also] may involve more aggressive use of soldiers and prayer warriors." Check out the group's locked-and-loaded website. (Please note: Repent Amarillo's website "is not designed for non-Christians," or the wrong kinds of Christians, so don't look long lest you defile the group's website with your eyes and turn into a pillar of salt.)
Hello? Moderate and liberal Christians? In Texas and elsewhere? Now might be a good time to speak the fuck up. Maybe you could spit out a few press releases, organize a massive, anti-Phelps-style counter-protest, and come to the defense of the people and churches and artists and businesses being menaced by your co-religionists. This calls for something above and beyond mewling in comments threads on liberal blogs about how "we're not all like that." Don't tell us, tell them.

End Quote

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 09:56 PM

Ok...got it. I was once offered a job in Texas. I probably would not have made it thru one year....

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 02:33 AM

I dunno, Kat. I think that any sort of organized opposition to the wacko Phelps organization, would just give them a semblance of legitimacy. I don't want to acknowledge that they live on the same planet, and I certainly don't want to give any implication that they fit the definition of "Christian." They're lunatics. Angry opposition and publicity is just what they want. Far better to organize quiet, peaceful, clever ways of making them look ridiculous.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: katlaughing
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 03:45 AM

Joe, I didn't write that, however I am not sure I agree with you. It would have been horrible if a bunch of folks hadn't been there to protest against phelps and his gang when we had Mathew Shepherd's funeral in Casper. It would have been unconscionable.

From what my friend says, there are plenty of people like the above group in Texas; towns even more conservative than Amarillo. I don't know how anyone could organize quiet, peaceful, clever ways of making them look ridiculous. THEY consider themselves to be Christian and so do those around them. Making them look inane would be a hard sell there, imo. We could do so from outside their bailiwick but I am not sure that would have much effect on them, directly.

I don't think we can remain silent.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 02:22 PM

When a group is so arrogant and dangerous as to put up maps of their enemies, it is very close to what happened to the abortion doctor in Wichita. Do we wait until a few of those demonic palm readers & 'witches' places have been fire bombed? It is clear to me that some of those people are fully capable of such things.

Let me be clear... THIS is why 'state's rights' is mostly a shield for hate laws & bullying of those who are 'different'.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 02:34 PM

I've often wondered about this, and really haven't come up with an answer that satisfies me: how DO we respond to hate groups?

For one thing I think we need to have strict discipline and completely rule out all violence, aggression, and hateful expression on our own side; and I think any demonstration we make must be peaceful, positive, and exemplary. Rather than attacking the hate group, I think we're better off promoting whatever they're attacking. If they're attacking a funeral, then we should line the streets with silent people showing respect for the deceased.

It's too easy to be dragged down to the level of hate groups like the Phelps organization, so it's important to use good judgment and a positive tone.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 03:21 PM

That is obviously the sane way to cope with it, Joe....but all thru history it has been easier to form groups which are 'against' something.

Quiet, peace loving folks are harder to stir up for a 'cause' until they feel directly and personally threatened. I don't know how the 5% of folks in Amarillo can go about defending against the 10% of active haters and 80%+ of 'Christians' who sympathize with the haters, but I don't envy them. Unfortunately in these situations, just calling for 'justice' and an end to persecution can get you lumped with those being persecuted and subjected to similar abuse.

To really be effective, counter-measures must have the support of the police & local government, and in some parts of Texas, that ain't easy!

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 03:30 PM

Or you could do the sensible thing, and jail the bastards.

I can't believe that, after everything that has happened in the USA since the civil war, the lynch mob mentality is still rife, and worse than that, promoted almost exclusively by people who call themselves Christians.

N.B. I said "call themselves Christians", because nothing could be further from Christian than the attitudes they display. Time for some heavyweight response from the real Christians, along the lines of public excommunication.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 03:51 PM

I don't know how to characterize these groups, hate or extremists of one sort or another. Like Kat, some sort of reply seems required, but like Joe, I don't know how to go about it. To object effectively, the approach must be visible, involving media and money.


The title of this thread is offensive to me and I am sure to many others.
I object to tarring all Republicans with this brush; many sincere, caring people support conservative policies and are just as opposed to the extremists.

Similarly, I object to blaming all LDS members for the extreme position shown in the abortion bill passed by the Utah legislature; I know many would not agree with the bill.
--------------------------------------

Not mentioned specifically here is the Texas Board of Education, which controls content of many schoolbooks. The current chairman wants all of the founding fathers characterized as Christians, and wants Christian emphasis placed on the nature of the United States. He seems to envision Christianity as the state religion. This would place us in the position of some Islamic states and the state of Israel.

The decisions of the Texas Board are important, since their textbook purchases are large enough that publishers have tended to follow their wishes in several instances that have been publicized in the past (California is exempt from the Texas textbook threat; they have their own board and specify their textbooks but have not tended to extremism).

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Alice
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 04:48 PM

Conservatives, liberals and centrists who choose to discuss issues with civility and honesty are coming together in gatherings called the coffee party usa.

Pledge of civility:
As a member or supporter of the Coffee Party, I pledge to conduct myself in a way that is civil, honest, and respectful toward people with whom I disagree. I value people from different cultures, I value people with different ideas, and I value and cherish the democratic process.

Here is an interesting video from a conservative, independent, US veteran about the Tea Party and the Coffee Party:

VIDEO Alan P. Alborn of Manassas, Virginia

About the Coffee Party (non-partisan)
"We are diverse — ethnically, geographically, politically, in age and in experience.

We are 100% grassroots. No lobbyists here. No pundits. And no hyper-partisan strategists calling the shots in this movement. We are a spontaneous and collective expression of our desire to forge a culture of civic engagement that is solution-oriented, not blame-oriented.

We demand a government that responds to the needs of the majority of its citizens as expressed by our votes and by our voices; NOT corporate interests as expressed by misleading advertisements and campaign contributions.

We want a society in which democracy is treated as sacrosanct and ordinary citizens participate out of a sense of civic duty, civic pride, and a desire to contribute to society. The Coffee Party is a call to action. Our Founding Fathers and Mothers gave us an enduring gift — Democracy — and we must use it to meet the challenges that we face as a nation."

The website to join is here:

http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/

There is also a facebook group at the above link.

Alice

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: katlaughing
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 04:51 PM

Good point about the textbooks.

I did not blame ALL LDS members. I have relatives who are LDS and do not agree with it. As I said, though, it is no surprise to me that it came about in Utah and that nothing important happens there without the Church's sanction.

Joe, somewhere on here I wrote about that day in Casper. The pro-Mathew people were quiet and respectful. They did carry signs, some of them, which counter the hate-filled ones his people had and were screaming about. The really neat things were the cops kept phelps and co. behind a barrier in a small space AND, out of a clear blue sky, dark, somber clouds amassed very quickly and let down a silent, noise-dampening, gentle snow which shut phelps and co. up immediately. They left. Mother Nature really helped out and it was a most unusual snow for WY with no wind.

When I was PR person for the Natrona County Grassroots Project, a human rights org. and working with the WY Grassroots Project, we had a monthly seminar, speaker, movie, etc. which we invited the public to, free of charge. We always made it a point to reach out to those who we knew were anit-gay, abortion, etc. any of the human rights issues we were working on, most of them not all that popular in WY. I think we made an impact. We certainly got a lot of press when there was a hate crime and we offered help to those who were targeted. We wrote letters, articles, attended school board mtgs., etc. in support of them.

One of the women who trained us was a lesbian who travelled around the northwest teaching non-violent skills to people like us. She had been to meetings in Montana where big, intimidating men would come stand in the back of the facility with their arms crossed and their guns strapped on, visibly a threatening stance. She was a very courageous young woman.

I'll tell you the most significant and effective response I've heard about as far as communities goes and it happened in Billings, Montana. You may remember my writing about it:Not In Our Town how it all started.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: katlaughing
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 04:55 PM

Forgot to say, Q, I also didn't say ALL Republicans are like the extremists, BUT the ones you speak of had better get some kind of coalition going to counteract them because right now the GOP IS the extremists. I heard, on NPR today, of a woman running for Congress who said she "has Sarah Palin values!" THAT is scary!

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 05:43 PM

While it seems a bit blown out of proportion - for the wrong reasons - a recent flap perhaps gives some clues about where the party stands. You do need to read the text (and I have only found parts of it) and ignore the pictures (which appear to be selling quite well).

GOP taking cues from Tea Party?

Secret memo depicts Obama as Joker, Dems as 'Evil Empire'
BY Neil Nagraj DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Thursday, March 4th 2010, 12:01 PM via the Washington Post

Included in the presentation was the above slide¹, which was published on the Web site of the Washington Post. The Republican Party's battle plan for victory this fall may be steeped in the Tea Party movement's aesthetics.

A secret GOP fundraising document urges the party to fill its coffers by playing on donors' "fear" of Barack Obama and a pledge to "save the country from trending towards socialism," Politico.com reports, complete with an image depicting Barack Obama as the Joker.

The strategy was presented by the RNC's Finance Director, Rob Bickhart, and Finance Chairman, Peter Terpelk, to fundraisers at a GOP retreat in Florida, the Web site reports.

Included in the Power Point presentation is a slide titled 'The Evil Empire' depicting Sen. Harry Reid as Scooby Doo and Nancy Pelosi as Cruella DeVille, along with the Joker caricature of Obama.

Politico reports the document also appears to heap scorn on the very hands feeding the GOP, with slides accusing the party's donors of being "reactionary," "ego-driven," and driven by "peer pressure."

A Democrat gave the 72-page-document to Politico, saying it had been left behind at Boca Grande's Gasparilla Inn & Club, the site of the retreat.

The RNC "reacted with alarm to a question about it," Politico reports, and quickly began emailing donors in an attempt at damage control.

A spokesman for the party hastily tried to distance the party's embattled chairman, Michael Steele, from what he called an " unacceptable" depiction of President Obama. Steele was reportedly not at the event.

[end quotes from that article]

¹ You'll have to click the link to see the picture.

Although the spokesman makes reference to the "unacceptable" depiction of President Obama, it would seem that what really horrified the core of the party was the content of the slide show that depicted small donors in what must be mildly described as "unflattering terms." (albeit perhaps accurately?)

For those using short-range electrons for their web browsing, a very similar article appears at:

Republicans embarrassed by 'evil empire' Obama smear

Posted by Richard Adams
Thursday 4 March 2010 17.40 GMT
guardian.co.uk

The document also contained a wealth of embarrassing details about Republican fundraising tactics. Politico reported: "The small donors² who are the targets of direct marketing are described under the heading 'Visceral Giving.' Their motivations are listed as 'fear;' 'Extreme negative feelings toward existing Administration;' and 'Reactionary.'"

The document also mentions the $80,000 (£53,000) price tag for donors wanting to join an official RNC visit to meet British Conservative party leader David Cameron in September – after the UK general election, when Republicans hope he will be Britain's prime minister.

[end quotes]

² Was the minimum ticket price for admission to the latest tea party set at $500 per seat to avoid having "small donors" hear about what the party thinks of them?

It would be interesting to find the whole 72 pages of the pitch, although since it was a Power Point presentation it's unlikely to have included any "intelligence." Even the US Pentagon at least briefly banned Power Point as "incapable of providing any useful information" a few years back. (Since the military has its own definitions of "intelligence" it may have crept back in, of course.)

John

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 06:08 PM

Q said: The title of this thread is offensive to me and I am sure to many others.
I object to tarring all Republicans with this brush; many sincere, caring people support conservative policies and are just as opposed to the extremists.

When Kendall started this thread, I think he meant to talk about mainstream Republicans and their unified opposition to everything. The discussion drifted into right-wing extremist groups that espouse racism and such. I don't think we'd accuse the mainstream of the Republicans of THAT, but it does seem that their sole purpose nowadays is to win the next two elections and do away with the Democratic majority. The Republicans seem to have no interest in running the country when the Democrats are in power - all they want to do is stymie the Democrats and get themselves elected.

Even Republicans I respected like John McCain and Olympia Snowe, are afraid to buck party unity, and it has almost brought our country to a standstill.

Isn't there a better way to run a country?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: John P
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 06:42 PM

I'd like to know how they get every single Republican in Congress to go along with the idiotic obstructionism. Who decides what the party line is, and what do they threaten their members with? I find it hard to believe that so many congresspeople all think exactly the same, and are all equally willing to stop the wheels of government.

John

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 07:39 PM

This is simple math here... The Repubs are not at all concerned about low approval ratings for Congress... They want those ratings to hit "zero"... That will bring about a "throw-the-bums-out" vote in NOvemeber and that will put more Dems in harms way than Repubs... That is their strategy... Period!!!

Thanks, Alice, for mentioning the "Coffee Party"... This might blunt some of the uncivil behavior that out government and society seems to condone by very rude and borish people...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: mousethief
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 08:21 PM

I remember when Newt Gingrich brought the government to a standstill because he had to leave Clinton's airplane through the rear door and not the front. Anybody remember that? Looks like obstructing government has been in the Republicans' toolkit for some time. Shameful.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 10:26 PM

many sincere, caring people support conservative policies and are just as opposed to the extremists.

Then they should get off their asses and say so & DO something about the extremist assholes, no?

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: LadyJean
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 10:47 PM

My dad was a staunch Republican, staunch as in he voted for Nixon more than once.
He was also my first history teacher. One of my lessons was on the Scopes trial. In dad's version the heroes of that story were Scopes and Darrow. Dad used to watch The 700 Club and laugh at people who thought that way in the 20th century.

This isn't my parents' Republican party.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 11:18 PM

From the Progress Report:

The Real Consequences of Obstruction


For the past year, Republicans have embarked on an aggressive obstructionist agenda, determined to block any progress the Democratic majority may try make on health care, jobs, or even approving presidential nominees essential to keep the government running. This week, the country saw the real-life effects of this partisan game. Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) became a "poster child" for GOP obstruction and demonstrated the outsized influence a determined minority can exert over policies affecting the entire country. Although he's not the first obstructionist, he likely won't be the last. Most recently, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) put a blanket hold on President Obama's nominees in order to secure pork funding for his state. Although he eventually relented on most of the nominees, he continues to block several military officials. Since last week, Bunning had been blocking legislation that would offer a 30-day extension on unemployment and COBRA health benefits, which expired on Sunday for millions of Americans, over objections about how the bill would be funded. Although the blockade was primarily Bunning's work, he was aided by a party that either stayed silent or even cheered on his obstruction. Even when Bunning finally relented last night and allowed a vote to go forward on the legislation, 18 Republican senators joined with him to vote against the temporary extension of benefits. Although the suffering of millions of Americans has now been eased, their well-being will continue to be subject to the whims of dysfunctional obstruction if lawmakers continue to put their partisan interests over the best interests of their constituents.Ê

OBSTRUCTION FOR OBSTRUCTION'S SAKE:

The callousness of obstruction was best demonstrated on Thursday, when Bunning became incensed at repeated Democratic attempts to pass the unemployment benefits extension -- because they made him miss a college basketball game. At one point, while Sens. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) were asking him to relent, Bunning blurted out "tough sh*t" from the back row of the chamber. Additionally, it's not clear why Bunning waited until the last minute to insist on certain funding mechanisms for the legislation. It was widely known that these unemployment benefits were set to expire and a temporary extension would be coming up for a vote; Bunning could have raised his concerns earlier -- in a way that wouldn't have held Americans hostage. Yesterday on the Senate floor, Bunning simply said, "The question I've been asked mostly is 'why now?' Well, why not now? What better time for it than to stand up when the Majority Leader has the ability to do exactly on this bill what he has done on 25 bills in the last five months?" Democrats countered that the temporary extension qualified as emergency spending, and was therefore not subject to pay-as-you-go rules. Of course, Bunning's rhetoric on fiscal discipline rings hollow, since he and his fellow Republicans all recently voted against such a measure, which requires "new spending measures be offset in the budget by other funds." Additionally, an investigation by The Progress Report found thatÊin 2003, Bunning not only voted for an unpaid-for unemployment benefits extension, but he also put out a glowing press release lauding the measure as "hopeful news for our most needy families in Kentucky."

GOP AIDING AND ABETTING:

Only two Republican senators -- James Inhofe (OK) and Susan Collins (ME) -- publicly condemned what Bunning was doing. Others stayed silent or sided with obstruction, in line with what Republicans have consistently been advocating. Yesterday on the Senate floor, Collins asked for unanimous consent for the Senate to proceed on the unemployment benefits legislation, saying that she was speaking on behalf of "numerous members of the Republican caucus." However, it's unclear who those senators were, since they were too cowardly to speak up themselves and join Collins' criticism that Bunning was "hurting the American people." Collins reportedly had the "blessing" of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), but he avoided the topic. Even though he spoke after Collins on the Senate floor, he refused to follow her lead and discuss Bunning, instead launching into "a speech criticizing Democrats on health care legislation." When reporters pressed McConnell yesterday on whether Bunning was "speaking for the Republicans," McConnell repeatedly tried to dodge the question, finally giving up and asking, "Are there any questions on any other subject?" Other members of the GOP were outspoken in their full-throated endorsement of Bunning's obstruction. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) told reporters that Bunning's block was "not as big of a deal as some of you are trying to make it." On the Senate floor, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said of Bunning, "I respect him for the courage he's showed." Similarly, Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) has said that Bunning's move is something that the Senate should "honor," and Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) has said that he "admire[s]" the obstruction. Yesterday, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) even put up a blog post praising Bunning, saying he was "stand[ing] up for taxpayers." Perhaps realizing that significant political backlash Republicans may receive from this stunt, Cornyn was backing down yesterday,Êinsisting that Bunning was just "one senator. This does not represent the position of the caucus." Nevertheless, he joined Bunning and voted against final passage of the unemployment benefits extension.

ACTUAL EFFECTS:

Obstruction has real consequences, and this point was hammered home by Bunning's extreme stunt. On Monday, 2,000 federal transportation workers were furloughed without pay, since the legislation being blocked also contained transportation funding. The Department of Transportation had to halt "critical construction projects," and "safety programs that operate in partnership with the states and advocacy groups" -- such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving -- were disrupted. On Friday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) pointed out that as many as 1.5 million people would be "unable to watch local TV stations," since the bill included a "satellite television extension" allowing rural residents to watch local TV stations via satellite. According to MultiChannel news, without the extension, "satellite operators will not be allowed to import distant affiliate TV station signals to viewers who cannot receive a viewable version of their local affiliate." Doctors faced a 21 percent cut in Medicare payments, and small businesses and flood insurance were also affected. Stories in local newspapers around the country added up the toll, withÊ54,300 New Yorkers, 27,400 Texans, more than 23,000 South Carolinians, and 4,300 Kentuckians, for example,Êput at risk because of the GOP obstruction. As Durbin said yesterday, "Sometimes just because we have the power to do things, we ought to think twice before we use that power."
Ê

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 01:24 AM

I live in one of the most conservative counties in California, perhaps in the nation. I constantly have to watch what I say, or else I'll lose the platforms I have found to speak from. We do have a few moderate Republicans in local and county government, and several have been edged out of their party, accused of being RINOs (Republicans In Name Only). Same thing is happening in the government of the State of California. Republicans who vote in favor of any taxes, or in favor of any Democratic-sponsored legislation, are ostracized and denied campaign support. The local parties are sponsoring conservative candidates to run against incumbents that have been labeled RINOs.
It's a nasty thing.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 01:23 PM

Let me put a bit of a different perspective on this.

IF we had a multi-party system like, for example, Israel, it would be easier for people with widely divergent viewpoints to sort themselves out.

These days, particularly with incessant media coverage exaggerating things, we have a number of issues which polarize people...environmental claims, abortion, gun control, 'globalization', immigration... add your own to the list.

Now, when conservative extremists on any issue need a platform and want to elect legislators who reflect their views, they 'sometimes' try to form a party, but usually it is easier to just use a ready-made entity and co-opt it for their own purposes.. (kinda like 'folk' being handy for shoving all sorts of music into).
It is obvious that those flaky Democrats won't be very receptive...*grin*....so they congregate in the Republican party and often scare/convince/intimidate 'moderate' Republicans to agree on a number of issues. Then, when the far right needs a candidate who will further their agenda, they make it clear that, in order to get even basic Republican views supported, the whole party must adapt and adopt more extreme views than it might (and than it did 30, 40, 50 years ago) otherwise.

There are mindsets...(and we can argue forever where they come from)... that seek 'power for its own sake', and which have narrow, intolerant views of ideas other than their own, and which have few compunctions about methods (including lies and inconsistent logic) to get what they want...like Machiavelli explained long ago.
   Sometimes there are even deviant personalities (Hitler is the 'common' recent example) who combine hate with a certain cleverness and move entire nations into paths of destruction..... and the party they choose, when they can't easily create one, is the most 'conservative' party they can find. ((Where do you think Karl Rove and Dick Cheney would have landed if they had been born in Europe in the early 20th century?!!))

So...it is not exactly being 'Republican' that is the problem and that prompted the concerns that started this thread, but the way in which 'Republicianism' has been corrupted and co-opted by those with no scruples about how to push special interest agendas.

This is perhaps an over-simplified analysis...but it IS clear that this is NOT the Republican party *I* had friendly, meaningful dialogue with 40-50 years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 02:07 PM

Obstructionism has been part of the U. S. system of government since the beginning.
The Republican Party smells blood and will not 'conciliate' with the Democrats.
The Fall congressional elections will see the defeat of many Democrats.

Israel is hardly a model for democracy with limited participation allowed for the oppressed Muslim minority.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 02:18 PM

I hope you didn't think *I* was suggesting Israel was a 'model' for anything... it was just my example of a state where folks had many parties to choose from in order to act as a bloc for certain purposes.

Here in the US, almost any minority party with any clout just steals votes FROM whoever is nearest...in Israel, they form temporary alliances.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 08:08 PM

Late last year, the House of Representatives passed the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009, a regulatory reform package aimed at protecting consumers and taxpayers from Wall Street excess, but the Senate has yet to approve its own regulatory reform bill. Last month, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT), who is leading the Senate negotiations, reached an "impasse" with the committee's ranking member, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL).ÊSen. Bob Corker (R-TN) restarted negotiations, saying that regulatory reform is "too important to fail," and last week, Corker said that a deal with Dodd was "real close."

The main sticking point that remains in the process is whether or not to create an independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) like the one included in the House bill. While Dodd's initial bill included a CFPA, Corker has called a new agency a "non-starter" and Shelby has characterized it as "folly and dangerous." The banking industry has also been lobbying heavily against the CFPA, claiming that it will drive up the cost of credit. So instead, Dodd is reportedly looking to create a consumer protection division inside of another bank regulator. The Senate has also not moved on an Obama administration proposal to prevent banks from trading with federally insured money.

COMPROMISED CONSUMERS: The goal behind creating an independent CFPA is to ensure that there is a body within the regulatory structure focused solely on consumer protection -- as the rest of the bank regulators make bank "safety and soundness" their primary concern -- and to crack down on the pernicious lending practices that helped precipitate the financial crisis. Dodd's initial compromise proposal, which the Republicans rejected, placed a new consumer division inside the Treasury Department. Instead, Corker proposed placing it insideÊthe Federal Reserve. That proposal, and Dodd's willingness to examine it, represent quite a turnaround from the previous few months, when the Fed was the subject of heavy criticism from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. Dodd himself has said that the Fed was "an abysmal failure" at consumer protection, "which failed for over 14 years to put an end to the predatory mortgage lending practices that led to the financial crisis." The "Fed option" has been met with skepticism from Democrats on the banking committee and consumer advocates. "In my 20 years of trying to get the Federal Reserve to properly protect consumers, it has been an uphill, and very often unsuccessful, battle. I am very leery of any consumer regulator being placed inside the Fed," said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY). "Why put consumer protection back in the Fed after it's been so woefully neglected?" asked Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR). House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA), meanwhile, called the proposal "a joke," and said that he wouldn't bring the Senate bill to a vote if the "Fed option" remained.

REPUBLICAN VETO POINTS: As Demos' Heather McGhee said, leaving consumer protection responsibilities with the Fed "would codify consumer protection's secondary status in federal financial regulation." And, in fact, the banking industry considered the proposal a "victory" that "alleviates their concern." "Regulation of the products should be connected to the regulation of the bank," said Scott Talbott, senior vice president of government relations for the Financial Services Roundtable, which represents the country's largest financial firms. Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) wants to go even further, saying that he would only agree to support regulatory reform if the Federal Reserve Chairman was given veto power over the consumer division's rule-writing. Shelby supports Gregg, even though he had previously said that the Fed's "poor oversight of our financial institutions and markets helped produce the greatest economic crisis this country has experienced in eighty years." Dodd, however, has said that the consumer division must have rule-writing authority and an independent source of funding, both of which are indeedÊcritical if the agency is to beÊeffective. "Consumer abuses were one of the root causes of the financial crisis and regulatory reform legislation should address this problem," said Andrew Gray, a spokesman for FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair. "[T]he ideal way to do this is through an independent agency with the power to write rules for the banks and non-banks alike."

VOLCKER ON THE SHELF?: While the CFPA has been contentious, both parties seem united in wanting to shelve a proposal by the administration aimed at reining in banks' risky trading. The administration's "Volcker rule" would bar banks from trading for their own benefits with federally insured dollars and mandate that no bank hold more than ten percent of the liabilities in the financial system. However, Dodd dismissed the idea, saying that "I can't write regulations," and Corker said the proposal is "just not helpful." Outside of the Senate, meanwhile, the proposal has garnered significant praise. Five former Treasury secretaries said that it is "a key element in protecting our financial system and will assure that banks will give priority to their essential lending and depository responsibilities." Former Citigroup CEO John Reed added that it would "limit the propagation of [bank] failures." The rule also gained the backing of one currentÊbank CEO last week, with Citgroup's Vikram Pandit saying that "banks should operate as banks, focused completely on serving their clients." "I donÕt believe banks should use capital to speculate that way," Pandit said, when asked about the kind of trading the Volcker rule is meant to curb. Last week, Dallas Federal Reserve President Richard Fisher advocated a more radical approach to the banks, saying that financial firms considered "too big to fail" should be broken up "into ones of more manageable size." "Given the danger these institutions pose to spreading debilitating viruses throughout the financial world, my preference is for a more prophylactic approach," he said. "And this should be done before the next financial crisis, because it surely cannot be done in the middle of a crisis."

(The Progressive Report)

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 06:11 AM

Q,

"This would place us in the position of some Islamic states and the state of Israel."

AND Great Britain, most if not all of South America, and many nations of Europe. Look at what you are saying- MOST nations have a state religion- SOME have restrictions on other religions ( many in the Middle East) but most have religious TOLERANCE even with the state religion.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 07:23 AM

Re: Olympia Snowe:

She suggested a "trigger" for health care reform.   For her trouble, she was called a traitor by some in her party. And her idea was rejected by the Democrats--especially liberals.

Even Scott Brown's honeymoon is now over---in record time.   Since his own true believers consider him a traitor for supporting the recent jobs bill.

There's not much incentive, it seems, for Republicans to work with Democrats on anything.

There are "true believers" all over the political spectrum. And they brook no compromise.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 07:30 AM

Moderates--even on Mudcat--seem to be an endangered species.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 08:40 AM

"I beg you, look for the words 'social justice' or 'economic justice' on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words.... 'Communists are on the left, and the Nazis are on the right.' That's what people say. But they both subscribe to one philosophy, and they flew one banner...On each banner, read the words, here in America: 'social justice.'"
-- Glenn Beck

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 08:59 AM

Dear Jesus, why does anyone with pretensions to basic intelligence listen to this moron? And how did a high school dropout get a job as commentator on things he doesn't begin to comprehend?

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 10:42 AM

"...how did a high school dropout get a job as commentator on things he doesn't begin to comprehend?"

They know their audience....

(as long as the polls show a certain % watching, Faux News would put an autistic baboon on.)

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 03:44 PM

"Your Papers, Please!" - Get Your Fingerprints Ready! Cross-Party
Senate Alliance Pushing National ID Card

http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000687.html


Greetings. According to the Wall Street Journal, U.S. Senate
immigration reform advocates Chuck Schumer and Lindsey Graham are
proposing a mandatory biometric (e.g. fingerprint-based) National ID
Card system, and are attempting to brush away privacy concerns as
trivial and irrelevant ( http://bit.ly/au3xGq ).

Touted as "merely" a "right-to-work" card aimed at addressing illegal
immigration concerns, there's simply no fast-talking around the fact
that this plan will set in motion a massive national ID infrastructure
that will ultimately penetrate every aspect of our lives. Anyone who
suggests otherwise is -- sorry to say -- either a liar or a fool.

I basically care not one whit what other countries have done in this
regard. When it comes to civil liberties, each nation is in the end
responsible for their own nirvanas -- or hells. So apparently we'll
need to save ourselves from the seemingly well-meaning but clearly
bullheaded and misguided efforts of these two usually relatively
sensible Senators.

Frankly, I can't think of many more effective ways to trigger an
outpouring of civil disobedience among otherwise law-abiding and
patriotic Americans than trying to stuff biometric ID cards up our
you-know-whats (where the new airport full-body scanners won't be able
to see them, by the way).

"Your papers, please! NOW Comrade!"

(Note that while Lindsey Graham from S. Carolina is indeed a Republican, Chuck Schumer is registered as a Democrat)

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 04:29 PM

"South Carolina has given the United States two things: The Civil War, and Lindsey Graham. I'm not sure which is worse".

Not mine, but I can't recall the correct attribution.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 06:27 PM

Al-Qaeda 7' smear campaign is an assault on American values

By Eugene Robinson
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
The word "McCarthyism" is overused, but in this case it's mild. Liz Cheney, the former vice president's ambitious daughter, has in her hand a list of Justice Department lawyers whose "values" she has the gall to question. She ought to spend the time examining her own principles, if she can find them.

A group that Liz Cheney co-chairs, called Keep America Safe, has spent the past two weeks scurrilously attacking the Justice Department officials because they "represented or advocated for terrorist detainees" before joining the administration. In other words, they did what lawyers are supposed to do in this country: ensure that even the most unpopular defendants have adequate legal representation and that the government obeys the law.

Liz Cheney is not ignorant, and neither are the other co-chairs of her group, advocate Debra Burlingame and pundit William Kristol, who writes a monthly column for The Post. Presumably they know that "the American tradition of zealous representation of unpopular clients is at least as old as John Adams' representation of the British soldiers charged in the Boston Massacre" -- in other words, older than the nation itself.

That quote is from a letter by a group of conservative lawyers -- including several former high-ranking officials of the Bush-Cheney administration, legal scholars who have supported draconian detention and interrogation policies, and even Kenneth W. Starr -- that blasts the "shameful series of attacks" in which Liz Cheney has been the principal mouthpiece. Among the signers are Larry Thompson, who was deputy attorney general under John Ashcroft; Peter Keisler, who was acting attorney general for a time during George W. Bush's second term; and Bradford Berenson, who was an associate White House counsel during Bush's first term.



"To suggest that the Justice Department should not employ talented lawyers who have advocated on behalf of detainees maligns the patriotism of people who have taken honorable positions on contested questions," the letter states.

But maligning is apparently the whole point of the exercise. The smear campaign by Cheney, et al., has nothing to do with keeping America safe. It can only be an attempt to inflict political damage on the Obama administration by portraying the Justice Department as somehow "soft" on terrorism. Even by Washington's low standards, this is unbelievably dishonest and dishonorable.

"Whose values do they share?" a video on the group's Web site ominously asks. The answer is obvious: the values enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

The most prominent of the nine Justice officials, Principal Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal, represented Osama bin Laden's driver, Salim Hamdan, in a case that went to the Supreme Court. In a 5-to-3 decision, the court sided with Hamdan and ruled that the Bush administration's military tribunals were unconstitutional. Are Liz Cheney and her pals angry that Katyal was right? Or do they also question the "values" and patriotism of the five justices who voted with the majority?

The letter from the conservative lawyers points out that "in terrorism detentions and trials alike, defense lawyers are playing, and will continue to play, a key role." It notes that whether terrorism suspects are tried in civilian or military courts, they will have access to counsel -- and that Guantanamo inmates, even if they do not face formal charges, have a right to habeas corpus review of their detention. It is the federal courts -- not defense lawyers -- that have made all of this crystal clear. If Cheney and her group object, they should prepare a blanket denunciation of the federal judiciary. Or maybe what they really don't like is that pesky old Constitution, with all its checks, balances and guarantees of due process. How inconvenient to live in a country that respects the rule of law.

But there I go again, taking the whole thing seriously. This is really part of a death-by-a-thousand-cuts strategy to wound President Obama politically. The charge of softness on terrorism -- or terrorist suspects -- is absurd; Obama has brought far more resources and focus to the war against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan than the Bush-Cheney administration cared to summon. Since Obama's opponents can't attack him on substance, they resort to atmospherics. They distort. They insinuate. They sully. They blow smoke.

This time, obviously, they went too far. But the next Big Lie is probably already in the works. Scorched-earth groups like Keep America Safe may just be pretending not to understand our most firmly established and cherished legal principles, but there is one thing they genuinely don't grasp: the concept of shame...." (WaPo)

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: mousethief
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 12:23 AM

"Your Papers, Please!" - Get Your Fingerprints Ready! Cross-Party
Senate Alliance Pushing National ID Card

Dear God just when you thought the Patriot Act couldn't get any worse.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 10:26 AM

"When it comes to this, I shall prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty - to Russia for instance, where despotism can be taken pure and without the base alloy of hypocrisy."
      
       -Abraham Lincoln
         24 August 1855

Republicans: The Party of Lincoln? Puh -leeze!!

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 08:34 PM

"Rush says he'll leave the US if health care passes -- but every other developed country on the planet already has universal health care. The only places he could go to find very small government and everything privatized are places like Somalia and Afghanistan. And if he talked in those places the way he does here, they'd cut out his tongue." (My sister)

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 07:20 AM

"Rush says he'll leave the US if health care passes."    Well, what other incentive could anybody want to pass it--even if there were no other benefit?

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 08:18 AM

Now, if we could only get Rush to take the rest of the BuShite talking head morons WITH him...........

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 08:39 AM

And then the Democraps can print up money to pay for it all...

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 03:21 PM

Hey, Brucie: Lets review reality:

1. When Bush took office in 2001, he was handed a $236 billion budget surplus.

2.When he LEFT office, he handed the Obama admin a $1.3 trillion defecit, PLUS projected shortfalls of $8 trillion for the next decade.

3. The Bush admin added more debt in its eight years than ALL THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATIONS IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE U.S. COMBINED.

4. And in so doing, created the economic cesspool that the country now finds itself in.

So stop whining about the Dems.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 03:35 PM

3. The Bush admin added more debt in its eight years than ALL THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATIONS IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE U.S. COMBINED.

UNTIL THIS ONE- The projected debt from this last year is greater than what Bush left-


SO STOP WHINING about Republicans.