I hate the term "neo-con". It's so 70's.

It has no relevance now and I'm not sure why anybody uses it.

Posted at August 13, 2007 9:40 AM in response to Linda Chavez and Family: It Sure Pays To Be Rightwing Hacks!

as I've already posted, but will repeat:

All Democrats should simply say they support the Tax rate hikes signed into law by Bush and the GOP congress years ago (2001 I think).

But then say that the income increases due to higher rates on high income people (say 200K/yr +) from the law passed by the GOP Congress and signed by President Bush should be applied to keeping the tax cuts for those under 200K/yr. They should then propose that we use any extra income to address the AMT problem for those same under 200K earners.

In other words, defend the President Bush tax hikes unless they hit the middle class.

Posted at July 30, 2007 10:09 AM in response to Dumb Journalism on Edwards Tax Plan

All Democrats should simply say they support the Tax rate hikes signed into law by Bush and the GOP congress years ago (2001 I think).

But then say that the income increases due to higher rates on high income people (say 200K/yr +) from the law signed passed by the GOP Congress and signed by President Bush should be applied to keeping the tax cuts for those under 200K/yr. And use any extra income to address the AMT problem for those same under 200K earners.

In other words, defend the President Bush tax hikes unless they hit the middle class.

Posted at July 29, 2007 7:16 PM in response to Dumb Journalism on Edwards Tax Plan

Cafe Now

hey, Jed Clampent got lucky, why not Jethro?

Posted at September 7, 2006 9:04 PM in response to Big Oil Find: Who Needs an Energy Policy?

Unfortunately, HAMA will not have to follow the checks and balances of a constitutional republic.....wait.....neither does Bush and the right wing.

Posted at January 27, 2006 8:11 AM in response to Three quick thoughts about the Hamas victory

Look, the best case we have against the right wing is corruption and Bush admin miselading us on Iraq, and Alito gives us a great entre.

 He said he would recuse himself, but when his dollar values were in conflict with his stated judical values, his dollar values won. Is this any different from Jack Abramhoff et al ignroing the laws on lobbiests?

 And, Alito has admitted he told the Reagan administration what they wanted to hear to get a job, is this any different from the Bush admin saying Iraq woudl be cheap, easy, and quick in order to justiy a lame invasion of Iraq?

We have a wonderful opportunity to tie Alito to the GOP corruption and the Bush admin lies. Let's take it.

Last ngiht's (tues) Countdown said the right was hoping that the Alito hearings might distract from the Bush admin and GOP failures. Let's tie it all it.

It you are a right winger, you are probably unethical (tell them what you want to hear) and corrupt (ignore your promises if your financial well being is in doubt).

Can't we use this golden opportunity?

Duh, I forgot <- this guy should be on the USSC? 

Posted at January 10, 2006 11:38 PM in response to Alito's Prep for the Hearings

Abortion issue is old hat and seen by most as just partisan bickering.

Expansive views on executive power may be too much for a fearful populace to process.

Why don't the Dems ask about the decisions Alito made favoring a financial firm in which he had a financial stake? This could tie in nicely with the corruption and lack of ethics that has aready a head start as a new issue, is easily understood (if you sue a business, do you want your case handled by a judge with a bunch of stock in that business), and is not seen an old partisan dog fight. 

Posted at January 9, 2006 2:15 PM in response to The Case Against Alito (Part II)

oops, I meant Aug 6 2001, not August 8 2001

Posted at December 22, 2005 8:33 PM in response to Taking Terrorism Seriously

On August 8, 2001, the CIA told President Bush the following:

1) Bin Laden is determined to strike in the USA

2) Al Qaeda's people are here

3) observations conclude that these Al Quada people may be preparing for hijacking.

What do we need to know? This is 9-11 writ large.. President Bush was warned and he did not tell the CSG, he did not tell the AG.

Why did President Bush not think that a hijacking of a domestic jet by Al Qadea might be a problem?

But he will tap our phone if you call  a friend in England.

Do we really need this idiocy? Isn't the 4th ammendment clear enough?

God help my Republic. 

Posted at December 22, 2005 8:31 PM in response to Taking Terrorism Seriously

One of the reasons I know torture is evil is that I was told Saddam was an evil man because he tortured people.

Posted at December 20, 2005 2:43 PM in response to What's At Stake in the Torture Debate