JZAP

Bush did it anyhow. He has over 800 signing statements to his name. That is more than the other presidents combined and they used the privilege to define their interpretation of the law. Bush, on the other hand, uses his statements that basically say he has the right to ignore the law and do as he pleases.

Some of which have been held up by a court of law.

Many of the powers he usurped, at Cheney's command, probably cannot be rolled back! That changes things ... yes it is against the Constitution, but who is going to stop him? No one has yet!

Bush & Cheney stacked the DoJ with political operatives whose loyalty is to them not the Constitution.

They stacked the federal and district courts w/ friendly judges ...

Having installed loyalists who have their back why bother following the Constitution when ignoring any rule of law anytime they please will not be considered criminal!

Therein is the problem.

Posted at September 30, 2008 2:39 AM in response to Compare And Contrast: Obama Calls For Calm; McCain Attacks And Blames Obama

Not only Farad (sp) called for Palin to step down another very conservative columnist, one of Palin's biggest cheerleaders, did likewise today.

The sobering implications of what it means to have Palin on the ticket while the economy and Wall St. are in dire straights evidently suddenly dawned on the press that this is not a game.

Absent common sense, good judgment, reasoned logic without forethought or concern for the consequences McCain often exacerbates situations. That was apparent last week when he meddled in the negotiations and shortly thereafter collapsed. Today despite the economy teetering on the edge of a crisis and the public on the verge of panic he was more interested in scoring political points. These examples are the type of "leadership" we can expect from McCain.

Why does he even want to be president in the first place!

On the other hand Obama has been reassuring and calming. He understands the gravity of the situation. Equally or more importantly Obama shows a genuine concern for the people.

The difference between the two men are night and day.

More than ever the need for responsible reporting right now couldn't be more urgent. If only the politicians in Washington would sober up long enough to set aside partisanship perhaps the market would not have fallen 777 points today.

This is just crazy.

Posted at September 29, 2008 6:16 PM in response to Compare And Contrast: Obama Calls For Calm; McCain Attacks And Blames Obama

Y'all are so funny. LOL

Iam confused about public financing:

This may sound ignorant, but I do not understand why Palin and McCain are raising money considering they travel as a dual on Cindy's private jet at a super-discounted rate and most of McCain's ads contain her name ...

I was under the impression that after the convention McCain would be given $85 million dollars in public funding. The terms of the agreement prohibit spending money from other sources including money -- if any -- left over from his primary campaign.

So he is limited to spending only the $85 million dollars period, right ?

Therefore the fund-raising events would be solely for Palin's campaign unless she is bound under the public finance laws, too?

Iam not sure how this works.

Would somebody please explain this to me.

Posted at September 19, 2008 1:59 AM in response to PALIN Canceling MULTIPLE Fundraisers.....

Beautiful!! Great post.

Posted at September 18, 2008 6:16 AM in response to I'm Not Voting For Obama

I've been amazed at the transformation in the media as reflected in editorials, op-eds, columns et al. Mark Ambinder, Richard Cohen, Chas. Krauthammer, Frum, Ruth Marcus and a host of others are rightfully taken back by the lies coming from McCain and his campaign. Even the AP, the Wall Street Journal, NY Times, WaPo and other newspapers along with talking heads on cable TV news are challenging McCain.

Describing someone as a liar used to be the exception to the rule, but that changed. Other words I never thought would be found in the same sentence muchless used to describe McCain include: dishonourable, deceitful, etc...

An element of human decency is the intolerance of lies and the people who tell them. The media let McCain off the hook for a long, long time. But when he started unabashedly lying about his record, his opponent, his views, policies etc... and even after being called on it continued repeating them anyhow, was the moment many journalists said "Enough!"

Likewise, up to a point, voters are tolerant of candidates spinning and stretching facts, but anything over that -- such as out and out lying -- is totally unacceptable. That is why McCain and Palin will be rejected in November.

Making hasty choices without considering the consequences is characteristic of McCain. He does not 'think', instead he jumps-in head first. So succumbing to his advisors' advice to lie, lie and lie some more, McCain revealed to the nation and the world his weakness. John McCain is no leader. He does not have the credibility to lead.

Evidently McCain and Palin believe they can lie and the voters won't notice or even if they do notice, they won't care.

Well voters and the media do notice and do care.

Getting handed the keys to the WH is now nothing more than a fleeting dream for McCain and Palin because neither have the decency to be truthful.

Even the media agrees that the truth does matter, a lot.

Posted at September 18, 2008 6:10 AM in response to The Truth Matters - Thoughts on a conservative voice from Alaska

I did not intend for this to be so long.

Are you are suggesting the GOP wins in November due to the downfall of 5 (maybe more) of the longest standing and most reputable financial institutions? Am I missing something -- I cannot fathom how that possibly plays in the republicans' favour. They love deregulation and a free market, but never considered the consequences.

Although You may have a point about this being planned I have a difficult time wrapping my head around that concept.

Having said that, Naomi Klein discusses at length in her book, "The Shock Doctrine," situations that present the perfect storm per se. Basically the book's underlying theme is (her term) "capital disaster."

With nature playing havoc and manmade wars, as long as there is money to be made, profiteers have no compunction exploiting human-tragedy for a profit.

While people are too traumatized, too distracted and too encumbered with their own personal situations and perhaps survival to contend with much else, unfettered and unencumbered the powers-that-be go to work privatizing and selling nationally-owned infrastructure, state-owned businesses, natural resources, and government-run public services. Translated means huge profits.

They tried it in Iraq. Only because al-Sadr intervened it did not turn out as successfully as hoped, but that is an entire other subject.

Similarly in the aftermath of natural disasters prime real estate, long off-limits to developers, is often sold to the highest bidder. Then after it becomes a fait accompli developers quickly move in to build exclusive western-style resorts and hotels.

For example Sri Lanka's sea-side fishing villages laid to ruin by the tsunami were replaced with luxurious hotels, resorts and shops. The fishermen, whose livelihood and survival depended on living by the sea, disappeared along with their villages.

The concept of a free-market completely removes the public-good from the equation. It is all about making money at the expense of vulnerable citizens. Greed drives the machine, not social justice.

It is well-documented Bush dismissed warnings against deregulating the financial institutions. This crisis could have been avoided to begin with, but Bush refused to heed the warnings. If he had at the very least enforced the few regulations still in place it could have softened the impact. Worse even after leaving the station Bush could have derailed the imminent train wreck, but chose to ignore the warnings.

It is unimaginable The Lehman Bros., one of the oldest established financial institutions that survived two World Wars, the "Great Depression", etc... etc... went completely under with Bush 43 in command.

Five (5) of the largest financial institutions are gone. We'll know more tomorrow if one of the largest financial insurance backers will follow suit.

Manmade "perfect" storms still in the experiential stages are prone to mistakes. No one but an absolute fool would dare take such a risk. On the other hand there is 1 person who might give it a whirl: Bush 43.

Instead of a deliberate plan, a more likelier scenario: Absent reasoned logic, forethought, and/or a Plan B, yet encouraged, supported and cheered by party members and a handful of blue-dog dems, with willful ignorant incompetence, stubborn denial, self-interest, self-elevated importance, in conjunction with a flawed political ideology Bush irresponsibly led the nation into financial dire straights.

That does not constitute a recipe for winning elections.

But heaven help us all if proved otherwise !

Posted at September 16, 2008 6:30 AM in response to The Market Collapse Was The Goal, Not A Mistake

Economides I think you are missing the point.

Granted candidates' children have nothing to do with how the candidate will govern. However this is a referendum on the failure of abstinence only programmes. They simply do not work. It is not fair to teach abstinence only.

Had Sarah Palin's daughter, Bristol, been given the information beforehand how likely is it she would be pregnant today.

Population Action International reported that 44 births per 1000 occurred in females aged 15 - 19 between 2000 - 2005 in the US. Since Bush made abstinence only a cornerstone of his presidency, teenage pregnancies increased exponentially to 750,000 a year. Bristol is more than a statistic as are each of the 750,000. They are real people, teenagers, whose futures have been unexpectedly altered, but did not need to be.

The article did not say how many babies were put up for adoption or abandoned. I would venture to guess as little as 10% -- I have no idea if it could go as high as 30% or more, but it would not surprise me. Nor did it say how many of those pregnancies were due to rape or incest.

Whether we like it it or not teenagers have sex.

The only logical solution to reduce the number of (unwanted) pregnancies (abortions and sexually transmitted dis_eases) is teach abstinence-only along with preventative measures -- combined are successful.

Eliminating abortions completely will never happen. Giving teenagers options they will make better choices. Equally important women retain dominion over their own bodies.

If Sarah had been open to teaching Bristol abstinence only along with sex education it is doubtful we would even be having this conversation.

So no this is not about Sarah or Bristol personally.

Abstinence-only does not work -- Sarah and Bristol are simply the proof thereof.

Posted at September 15, 2008 9:37 PM in response to Palin's latest little secret

Personally I do not trust absentee voting because too often they end up in the trash or missing.

Posted at September 10, 2008 12:58 AM in response to Polls: Upon Closer Examination - We're Winning!!

Personally I do not trust absentee voting because too often they end up in the trash or missing.

Posted at September 10, 2008 12:57 AM in response to Polls: Upon Closer Examination - We're Winning!!

My favourite is:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

Nate is a bit more conservative in his polling methods, but he also lists all the states and adds information others do not have...I visit his site at least twice a day.

Happy hunting.

FYI: RCP slants GOP.

Posted at September 6, 2008 12:37 AM in response to Most reliable and accurate electoral maps