It is without doubt that Iran and Syria have had a major role in the recent Middle East crisis. The rockets being fired into Israel are Iranian made. Other arms and monetary support are coming directly from both Damascus and Tehran.
I doubt that it was coincidence that Hezbollah decided to instigate conflict now.
The Israeli government is new. It was an opportune time for Hezbollah (and Syria/Iran) to test the reactions of the new government. If Hezbollah strikes and Israel does nothing, the Israelis as well as the rest of the Muslim world see Israel as being weak, thus giving Hezbollah/Hamas an easier time confronting and gaining an upper hand on Israel.
If Israel responds with a proportional response, it is business as usual. No harm, no foul.
If Israel responds in the way that it did, a disproportional response, than Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah come out a winner.
First, a disproportional response puts the sympathies on Lebanon and the people killed from Israeli strikes. Even if Hezbollah is weakened militarily, it will have no problem replacing its membership, or even adding to it.
Second, even though we all know that Iran and Syria are part of this, Israel can do nothing against them. Toppling the Syrian government would leave a vacuum that will only be filled with even more extremist elements. Israel can't move against Iran because that would only give it an additional excuse to carry on its nuclear program. It would easily claim that due to the aggression of its regional neighbor, not only does it have the right to conduct peaceful nuclear operations, but the imperative to build a deterrent nuclear arsenal to protect it from Israeli attack. The U.S. would be remiss in not stopping an attack on either one of the countries because it would most certainly lead to a spill over of the conflict into Iraq.
In the mean time, the worlds attention is turned away from the Iranian nuclear crisis, and/or allows them to use their support in halting the conflict as a bargaining chip in the nuclear negotiations. Iran has announce that it will reply to the U.S. demands and incentives on July 22nd. Don't be surprised if Iran uses the conflict in Lebanon as a rationale for some part of its reply.
Syria, having suffered a recent black eye from being kicked out of Lebanon, will have the impetus to re-enter Lebanon, if not even being outright asked to re-enter.
The U.S. is bogged down in Iraq, and has spent most of its political capital around the world. What little it has left, it needs to unite the major powers against the Iranian nuclear threat. If the U.S. uses up what it has left of political capital in trying to quell the Lebanon conflict, it will have less to use against Iran, and Iran knows this. While Israel has frim support in the U.S. it does not have the same support in the rest of the world. For Bush to get Europe to back Israel in this crisis may hurt our bility to get their support in other diplomatic fronts.
Annan Calls for Immediate Halt to Israel-Hezbollah Conflict, but this is a problem without a radiant political solution. Neither Iran or Syria have it in their best interest to cut off funding and support to Hezbollah in the near future. Hezbollah has no desire to come to a political solution at all. Its only objective is to destroy Israel and kill as many Jews as possible in the process.
Iran and Syria have played this very well so far. it will take some beautiful diplomatic work on the part of the U.S. to calm tensions and retain its position on the Iran nuclear issue. Unfortunately, diplomacy is not Bush's strong suit.
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Bush's First Veto
The bills that would expand federal funding for life saving research on embryonic stem cells passed the Senate yesterday and is expected to be vetoed by the president later today.
Of all the things that the president could have vetoed in the preceding five and a half years, he chooses one that the majority of the American people support, the majority of the Senate supports, and the majority of the House of Representatives support.
Instead of vetoing any of the explosion in earmarks, he is going to veto something that has the potential to help hundreds of thousands of Americans. He claims it is for moral reasons - the sanctity of human life.
These stem cells, of course, are marked for destruction anyway. They would never develop into babies. They will be destroyed, and along with them, the chance to cure disease and disability.
What about the sanctity of life for those who could benefit from this research? What about the quantity and quality of life for those who suffer from Parkinson's disease or paralysis? Bush's anti-intellectual and anti-science policies discount the value of our lives and places more value on something that will never be.
He is willing to sacrifice the lives of our soldiers to protect the many. He says this is justified. He is willing to sacrifice the lives of innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan for a greater good, but he is not willing to do the same for research.
His policy is the betrayal of every American who suffers or will suffer from a curable disease. He betrays the families and loved ones of these people. Why are our lives less valuable than embryos that are to be destroyed regardless.
Senate Approves a Stem-Cell Bill; Veto Is Expected
Senate Passes Stem Cell Bill; Bush Vows Veto
Senate OKs Stem Cell Bill; Veto Expected
Senate defies veto threat, sends stem cell bill to Bush
Proponents celebrate after Senate passes embryonic stem cell bill
Of all the things that the president could have vetoed in the preceding five and a half years, he chooses one that the majority of the American people support, the majority of the Senate supports, and the majority of the House of Representatives support.
Instead of vetoing any of the explosion in earmarks, he is going to veto something that has the potential to help hundreds of thousands of Americans. He claims it is for moral reasons - the sanctity of human life.
These stem cells, of course, are marked for destruction anyway. They would never develop into babies. They will be destroyed, and along with them, the chance to cure disease and disability.
What about the sanctity of life for those who could benefit from this research? What about the quantity and quality of life for those who suffer from Parkinson's disease or paralysis? Bush's anti-intellectual and anti-science policies discount the value of our lives and places more value on something that will never be.
He is willing to sacrifice the lives of our soldiers to protect the many. He says this is justified. He is willing to sacrifice the lives of innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan for a greater good, but he is not willing to do the same for research.
His policy is the betrayal of every American who suffers or will suffer from a curable disease. He betrays the families and loved ones of these people. Why are our lives less valuable than embryos that are to be destroyed regardless.
Senate Approves a Stem-Cell Bill; Veto Is Expected
Senate Passes Stem Cell Bill; Bush Vows Veto
Senate OKs Stem Cell Bill; Veto Expected
Senate defies veto threat, sends stem cell bill to Bush
Proponents celebrate after Senate passes embryonic stem cell bill
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Bush Personally Blocked Eavesdropping Probe
You gotta love Bush's Orwellian double speak. If he says he will cooperate, it means he will do the opposite. If he says he is going to fire someone for leaking information, it means he gives them a pay raise and promotion. If he says he is going to protect the environment, it means that he is going to allow the largest increase of toxins emitted into the air in the past 40 years.
Alberto Gonzalez, today, testified that Bush personally blocked the U.S. Justice departments probe into the illegal NSA eavesdropping program. The group of lawyers who were probing the way that the justice department and other government agencies developed and conducted the program was personally blocked by Bush when he refused to grant them clearance to see information on the program.
But, of course, Bush granted full access to another branch of the U.S. Justice department to probe into who leaked the information to the New York Times last year. Once again, Bush pulls out the "secret" stamp when it benefits him, even when he is allowing others to do the exact same thing when it would benefit him.
Gonzales, of course does whatever the president says. It used to be the job of the AG to be independent of the president. The Republicans spent years complaining about Janet Reno and how she was not independent from Clinton
Bush claimed that he was going to run the presidency on a higher level than Clinton. He said that he was going to restore dignity and trust to the oval office. Instead, he has stripped the office of trust more than any president in the last 100 years besides Nixon.
Again, I guess that is just double speak. By "dignity and trust", he really meant "lies and deceit"
Bush Blocked Eavesdropping Program Probe
By MARK SHERMAN
The Associated Press
Tuesday, July 18, 2006; 4:37 PM
WASHINGTON -- President Bush personally blocked a Justice Department investigation of the anti-terror eavesdropping program that intercepts Americans' international calls and e-mails, administration officials said Tuesday.
Bush refused to grant security clearances for department investigators who were looking into the role Justice lawyers played in crafting the program, under which the National Security Agency listens in on telephone calls and reads e-mail without court approval, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Without access to the sensitive program, the department's Office of Professional Responsibility closed its investigation in April.
"It was highly classified, very important and many other lawyers had access. Why not OPR?" Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the committee chairman, asked Gonzales.
"The president of the United States makes the decision," Gonzales replied.
Later, at the White House, spokesman Tony Snow said the eavesdropping program is reviewed every 45 days by senior officials, including Gonzales. The president did not consider the Justice unit that functions as a legal ethics watchdog to be the "proper venue," Snow said.
"What he was saying is that in the case of a highly classified program, you need to keep the number of people exposed to it tight for reasons of national security, and that's what he did," Snow said.
Yet, according to OPR chief Marshall Jarrett, "a large team" of prosecutors and FBI agents were granted security clearances to pursue an investigation into leaks of information that resulted in the program's disclosure in December. Justice Department inspector general Glenn A. Fine and two of his aides were among other department officials who were granted clearances, Jarrett said in an April memo explaining the end of his probe. That memo was released by the Justice Department Tuesday.
(Full Story)
Bush Thwarted Probe Into NSA Wiretapping
Alberto Gonzalez, today, testified that Bush personally blocked the U.S. Justice departments probe into the illegal NSA eavesdropping program. The group of lawyers who were probing the way that the justice department and other government agencies developed and conducted the program was personally blocked by Bush when he refused to grant them clearance to see information on the program.
But, of course, Bush granted full access to another branch of the U.S. Justice department to probe into who leaked the information to the New York Times last year. Once again, Bush pulls out the "secret" stamp when it benefits him, even when he is allowing others to do the exact same thing when it would benefit him.
Gonzales, of course does whatever the president says. It used to be the job of the AG to be independent of the president. The Republicans spent years complaining about Janet Reno and how she was not independent from Clinton
PAUL GIGOT: ...if you’re a Republican, I think, to make the case that she’s [Janet Reno] not independent; that this Justice Department has not done a capable job of this investigation; you do have a politicized Justice Department, which isn’t doing the people’s business of making politicians accountable. - The News Hour, December 5, 1997
Bush claimed that he was going to run the presidency on a higher level than Clinton. He said that he was going to restore dignity and trust to the oval office. Instead, he has stripped the office of trust more than any president in the last 100 years besides Nixon.
Again, I guess that is just double speak. By "dignity and trust", he really meant "lies and deceit"
Bush Blocked Eavesdropping Program Probe
By MARK SHERMAN
The Associated Press
Tuesday, July 18, 2006; 4:37 PM
WASHINGTON -- President Bush personally blocked a Justice Department investigation of the anti-terror eavesdropping program that intercepts Americans' international calls and e-mails, administration officials said Tuesday.
Bush refused to grant security clearances for department investigators who were looking into the role Justice lawyers played in crafting the program, under which the National Security Agency listens in on telephone calls and reads e-mail without court approval, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Without access to the sensitive program, the department's Office of Professional Responsibility closed its investigation in April.
"It was highly classified, very important and many other lawyers had access. Why not OPR?" Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the committee chairman, asked Gonzales.
"The president of the United States makes the decision," Gonzales replied.
Later, at the White House, spokesman Tony Snow said the eavesdropping program is reviewed every 45 days by senior officials, including Gonzales. The president did not consider the Justice unit that functions as a legal ethics watchdog to be the "proper venue," Snow said.
"What he was saying is that in the case of a highly classified program, you need to keep the number of people exposed to it tight for reasons of national security, and that's what he did," Snow said.
Yet, according to OPR chief Marshall Jarrett, "a large team" of prosecutors and FBI agents were granted security clearances to pursue an investigation into leaks of information that resulted in the program's disclosure in December. Justice Department inspector general Glenn A. Fine and two of his aides were among other department officials who were granted clearances, Jarrett said in an April memo explaining the end of his probe. That memo was released by the Justice Department Tuesday.
(Full Story)
Bush Thwarted Probe Into NSA Wiretapping
Monday, July 17, 2006
Hypocronisinesses...
Or something like that...
So, the DNC is using the image of a flag draped casket (soldier) in one of its web ads.
The Republicans are all in a tizzy about it. I don't endorse that type of ad.
But...
Why is it wrong to use the image of soldiers who died in war when;
a) Republicans constantly use images of 9/11 in their campaign ads. Bush himself even used a picture of a flag draped coffin coming out of ground zero in the last election. DeWine, running for re-election in Ohio is using footage of smoke billowing out of the World Trade Towers. Karl Rove can't go more than 3 sentences without saying "9/11." I was not aware that the 3000 Americans who died on 9/11 did so for Republican partisanship.
b) Republicans politicized the war in Iraq a long time ago. If they are going to use the images of soldiers in the field for their own political ads, than the opposition gets to use the results of sending our soldiers overseas to fight. If "cut and run" is going to be the GOP counterpoint to opposition to leaving Iraq, than the consequences of our men and women staying there are on the table.
I would never use these images for partisan reasons, but the Republicans stepped over that line a long time ago when they used the images of 9/11 for their own political gain. Either the deaths of Americans is off limits or it is not, and the GOP made that decision long ago. What is good for the goose, is good for the gander.
So, why wasn't your stomach turning when 9/11 was used over and over again? Ah, becasue it was the GOP who was using it... that makes it ok.
How about an appology to all the 9/11 families. I am guessing a good chunk of them... Sorry, I know the vast majority of them didn't vote Republican.
I reiterate my above statement.
So, the DNC is using the image of a flag draped casket (soldier) in one of its web ads.
The Republicans are all in a tizzy about it. I don't endorse that type of ad.
But...
Why is it wrong to use the image of soldiers who died in war when;
a) Republicans constantly use images of 9/11 in their campaign ads. Bush himself even used a picture of a flag draped coffin coming out of ground zero in the last election. DeWine, running for re-election in Ohio is using footage of smoke billowing out of the World Trade Towers. Karl Rove can't go more than 3 sentences without saying "9/11." I was not aware that the 3000 Americans who died on 9/11 did so for Republican partisanship.
b) Republicans politicized the war in Iraq a long time ago. If they are going to use the images of soldiers in the field for their own political ads, than the opposition gets to use the results of sending our soldiers overseas to fight. If "cut and run" is going to be the GOP counterpoint to opposition to leaving Iraq, than the consequences of our men and women staying there are on the table.
I would never use these images for partisan reasons, but the Republicans stepped over that line a long time ago when they used the images of 9/11 for their own political gain. Either the deaths of Americans is off limits or it is not, and the GOP made that decision long ago. What is good for the goose, is good for the gander.
National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) Chairman Tom Reynolds (R-NY): "It makes my stomach turn to see national Democrats so blatantly exploit the sacrifices made by the men and women of our armed forces." (Jonathan E. Kaplan, "Reynolds Calls On Dems To Apologize For Web Ad," The Hill, 7/13/06)
So, why wasn't your stomach turning when 9/11 was used over and over again? Ah, becasue it was the GOP who was using it... that makes it ok.
Rep. Davis: "First of all I'm not surprised at all that Rahm Emanuel would do this. I believe that he, Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer owe an apology to military families who paid that ultimate sacrifice by doing this." (Fox News' "Fox And Friends," 7/13/06)
How about an appology to all the 9/11 families. I am guessing a good chunk of them... Sorry, I know the vast majority of them didn't vote Republican.
Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX): "The families of the fallen heroes of the War on Terror deserve our utmost respect and compassion. They do not deserve to see the deaths of loved ones exploited by Rep. Emanuel and the DCCC." (Robert B. Bluey, "GOP Seeks To Capitalize On Democrats' Coffin Ad," Human Events, 7/12/06)
I reiterate my above statement.
Veto Threat Again
Bush is again threatening to pull out the veto pen. He seems to only think about pulling out for really bad political moves. This time it is for embryonic stem cell research. The proposed bills would allow researches to use embryos that are going to be flushed down the toilet anyway as the result of fertility treatments. The majority of Americans endorse this type of research.
You will notice that Bush doesn't veto spending bills, just bills that have the potential to save lives and lead to a better quality of life. I will never be able to figure this guy out.
This, like immigration, is certain to split the Republican party. The social conservative vs. the somewhat intelligent.
Stem-Cell Bills Top Senate Agenda
By SARAH LUECK
July 17, 2006; Page A4
WASHINGTON -- The Senate turns Monday to the sensitive issue of stem-cell research, with political concerns driving the topic and the timing.
Expanding federal aid to researchers who use stem cells derived from embryos, a popular idea but one opposed by some antiabortion lawmakers, gives Democrats the chance to make political hay before the November elections. It also gives Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who supports expanded funding, an opportunity to raise his standing with moderates and the medical and scientific communities as he considers a 2008 White House run.
Yet the Tennessee Republican is eager to dispatch the matter before the midterm elections, to minimize damage to Sen. Jim Talent of Missouri and other antiabortion Republicans in tight races.
(Full Story)
You will notice that Bush doesn't veto spending bills, just bills that have the potential to save lives and lead to a better quality of life. I will never be able to figure this guy out.
This, like immigration, is certain to split the Republican party. The social conservative vs. the somewhat intelligent.
Stem-Cell Bills Top Senate Agenda
By SARAH LUECK
July 17, 2006; Page A4
WASHINGTON -- The Senate turns Monday to the sensitive issue of stem-cell research, with political concerns driving the topic and the timing.
Expanding federal aid to researchers who use stem cells derived from embryos, a popular idea but one opposed by some antiabortion lawmakers, gives Democrats the chance to make political hay before the November elections. It also gives Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who supports expanded funding, an opportunity to raise his standing with moderates and the medical and scientific communities as he considers a 2008 White House run.
Yet the Tennessee Republican is eager to dispatch the matter before the midterm elections, to minimize damage to Sen. Jim Talent of Missouri and other antiabortion Republicans in tight races.
(Full Story)
Friday, July 14, 2006
Things are Bad... Real Bad
Things are not looking good in the middle east right now... just incase you haven't... you know... been outside your cave in the past couple of days.
Palestinians Stream Into Gaza From Egypt after Palestinian gunmen blew a hole in the wall separating Gaza from Egypt. Not only will this allow in the Palistinians who have been stranded on the other side of the fence, but will also let in a whole host of foreign fighters waiting to take their shot at meeting Allah.
Israelis continues bombardment of Beirut after Israel Blockades, Bombs Lebanon While Hezbollah Rains Rocket Fire.
We are on he verge of something very big and very dangerous right now. If Israel is able to suppress the violence using its military, it will only give Iran additional fodder to continue its nuclear program, with will give Israel additional fodder to bomb Iranian facilities. Additionally, the fighting in Lebanon gives Syria a reason to re-enter Lebanon which could re-ignite secular tensions there. And to top it all off, it could drive the war in Iraq to new levels.
There really is no "insight" into this. It is just all screwed up. Contrary to Bush's assertions, removing Saddam has not brought stability to the Israel-Palestine conflict. We can only sit back and wait for the best because this is not going to solve itself anytime soon and Bush doesn't have any capital left to spend in foreign relations.
Palestinians Stream Into Gaza From Egypt after Palestinian gunmen blew a hole in the wall separating Gaza from Egypt. Not only will this allow in the Palistinians who have been stranded on the other side of the fence, but will also let in a whole host of foreign fighters waiting to take their shot at meeting Allah.
Israelis continues bombardment of Beirut after Israel Blockades, Bombs Lebanon While Hezbollah Rains Rocket Fire.
We are on he verge of something very big and very dangerous right now. If Israel is able to suppress the violence using its military, it will only give Iran additional fodder to continue its nuclear program, with will give Israel additional fodder to bomb Iranian facilities. Additionally, the fighting in Lebanon gives Syria a reason to re-enter Lebanon which could re-ignite secular tensions there. And to top it all off, it could drive the war in Iraq to new levels.
There really is no "insight" into this. It is just all screwed up. Contrary to Bush's assertions, removing Saddam has not brought stability to the Israel-Palestine conflict. We can only sit back and wait for the best because this is not going to solve itself anytime soon and Bush doesn't have any capital left to spend in foreign relations.
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Bill and Ann Up In a Tree...
In a spin on consrevative dating, BookLust, I think is on to something. Bill and Ann are both single... Bill and Ann both share something in common. One is a sadist, one is a masochist.
It is a match made in heaven
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Karl Rove Was One Of The Plame Leakers
No surprise here. Robert Novak disclosed today that Karl Rove was one of his sources in the White House that helped out Valerie Plame. Novak claims there were three leakers. He has named two, which there is still one more he has not told us about. Either the last one is still not releasing Novak to speak, or it is Scooter Libby, and Novak cannot comment on it because of the ongoing investigation.
But, of course, contrary to Bush's promise to fire anyone involved, Rove still holds his job at the White House. No surprise there either. So much for Bush being a straight shooter and a man of his word.
Novak: Rove was a source in outing Plame
By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer
Wed Jul 12, 5:24 AM ET
WASHINGTON - Now that Karl Rove won't be indicted, now that the president won't fire him, now that it really doesn't matter anymore, more details of the Valerie Plame leak investigation trickle out.
In his latest syndicated column released Wednesday, columnist Robert Novak revealed his side of the story in the Plame affair, saying Rove was a confirming source for Novak's story outing the CIA officer, underscoring Rove's role in a leak President Bush once promised to punish.
The columnist said he learned of Plame's CIA employment from a source he still refuses to publicly identify, and then confirmed with Rove and then-CIA spokesman Bill Harlow, whose roles in talking to Novak have been previously reported.
Novak said for the first time that prosecutors looking into the leaks already knew his sources when he agreed to disclose them.
Novak comes late to the Plame game, long after several other reporters talked publicly about the involvement of Rove and of Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, in leaking the CIA identity of the wife of Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson. Novak says he kept his mouth shut so long because prosecutors asked him to.
(Full Story)
Novak Says He Named 3 Sources in Leak Case
But, of course, contrary to Bush's promise to fire anyone involved, Rove still holds his job at the White House. No surprise there either. So much for Bush being a straight shooter and a man of his word.
Novak: Rove was a source in outing Plame
By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer
Wed Jul 12, 5:24 AM ET
WASHINGTON - Now that Karl Rove won't be indicted, now that the president won't fire him, now that it really doesn't matter anymore, more details of the Valerie Plame leak investigation trickle out.
In his latest syndicated column released Wednesday, columnist Robert Novak revealed his side of the story in the Plame affair, saying Rove was a confirming source for Novak's story outing the CIA officer, underscoring Rove's role in a leak President Bush once promised to punish.
The columnist said he learned of Plame's CIA employment from a source he still refuses to publicly identify, and then confirmed with Rove and then-CIA spokesman Bill Harlow, whose roles in talking to Novak have been previously reported.
Novak said for the first time that prosecutors looking into the leaks already knew his sources when he agreed to disclose them.
Novak comes late to the Plame game, long after several other reporters talked publicly about the involvement of Rove and of Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, in leaking the CIA identity of the wife of Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson. Novak says he kept his mouth shut so long because prosecutors asked him to.
(Full Story)
Novak Says He Named 3 Sources in Leak Case
Monday, July 10, 2006
Making the Jump
There seems to be a lot of Republicans these days who don't seem to want to stomach the GOP's lurch to the far right any longer. The Democrat running against George Allen in Virginia is a former Republican who switched parties because he felt that the GOP no longer tolerated moderates. Additionally, three Republicans in Kansas have switched parties for the same reason.
The Kansas City Star has their reasons behind the move to the Democratic party
Candidates explain why they switched
By STEVE KRASKE
The Kansas City Star
Ending lifelong allegiances to the Republican Party in Kansas was no simple matter.
“I didn’t sleep well that night,” said Kent Goyen of Pratt, who’s running for the 114th District seat.
But each of the party jumpers had a common tonic — visits with Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, either in person or by telephone.
Those talks eased the way for several new Democrats.
“She said we are all Kansans,” said Judy Leyerzapf of Abilene. “I think that’s a great answer. We’re all about the same thing, really.”
Whether the state is seeing the beginning of a trend that features a more robust Democratic Party and a Kansas GOP shorn of its moderate base remains to be seen.
In other words, some of the new Democrats have to win in November if the party jumping is to continue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Lukert, Sabetha
Age: 58
Occupation: Farmer, retired government teacher
Running for: 62nd District House seat
Switched parties because: Two reasons. He ran for the state Senate two years ago in the GOP primary and lost, but said he was disillusioned by the tactics used to defeat him. “I was put off by the meanness of the campaign within the Republican Party and the intentional misrepresentations,” Lukert said.
For example, he says he was portrayed as a baby killer even though he considers himself anti-abortion and would bar abortions except when the mother’s health is at risk.
Any regrets? Nope. “The far right tends to have a no-way-or-the-highway type of mentality. They’d rather have nothing than to have to give in at all. That’s just not my mentality.
“I see the Democrats as more willing to compromise on issues in order to come up with more sensible solutions. I think about half of the Democratic Party is very conservative.”
...
Kent Goyen, Pratt
Age: 55
Occupation: Farmer and substitute teacher
Running for: 114th District House seat
Switched parties because: “The Republican Party has gotten a little far away from where it ought to be. It’s probably just a little too far right. Philosophically, they’re trying to control too many things in people’s lives that they shouldn’t be controlling.”
...
Cindy Neighbor, Shawnee
Age: 57
Occupation: Marketing, public relations, patient care and human relations for a dental practice
Running for: 18th District House seat
Switched parties because: “Several things in the (Republican) platform were not what I thought I could agree with. They’re supporting (school) vouchers and tax credits and the teaching of creationism over evolution.
“All of that just went against what I really had grown up with, I think, as being a moderate Republican. I said I thought the Republican Party left me. I didn’t leave it.”
Any regrets? “It was actually a feeling of relief. (The reaction) has been very positive. I haven’t had any negative comments.
“When I talk to them (Democrats), they don’t say if you disagree with us you don’t count.”
H/T Kos
The Kansas City Star has their reasons behind the move to the Democratic party
Candidates explain why they switched
By STEVE KRASKE
The Kansas City Star
Ending lifelong allegiances to the Republican Party in Kansas was no simple matter.
“I didn’t sleep well that night,” said Kent Goyen of Pratt, who’s running for the 114th District seat.
But each of the party jumpers had a common tonic — visits with Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, either in person or by telephone.
Those talks eased the way for several new Democrats.
“She said we are all Kansans,” said Judy Leyerzapf of Abilene. “I think that’s a great answer. We’re all about the same thing, really.”
Whether the state is seeing the beginning of a trend that features a more robust Democratic Party and a Kansas GOP shorn of its moderate base remains to be seen.
In other words, some of the new Democrats have to win in November if the party jumping is to continue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Lukert, Sabetha
Age: 58
Occupation: Farmer, retired government teacher
Running for: 62nd District House seat
Switched parties because: Two reasons. He ran for the state Senate two years ago in the GOP primary and lost, but said he was disillusioned by the tactics used to defeat him. “I was put off by the meanness of the campaign within the Republican Party and the intentional misrepresentations,” Lukert said.
For example, he says he was portrayed as a baby killer even though he considers himself anti-abortion and would bar abortions except when the mother’s health is at risk.
Any regrets? Nope. “The far right tends to have a no-way-or-the-highway type of mentality. They’d rather have nothing than to have to give in at all. That’s just not my mentality.
“I see the Democrats as more willing to compromise on issues in order to come up with more sensible solutions. I think about half of the Democratic Party is very conservative.”
...
Kent Goyen, Pratt
Age: 55
Occupation: Farmer and substitute teacher
Running for: 114th District House seat
Switched parties because: “The Republican Party has gotten a little far away from where it ought to be. It’s probably just a little too far right. Philosophically, they’re trying to control too many things in people’s lives that they shouldn’t be controlling.”
...
Cindy Neighbor, Shawnee
Age: 57
Occupation: Marketing, public relations, patient care and human relations for a dental practice
Running for: 18th District House seat
Switched parties because: “Several things in the (Republican) platform were not what I thought I could agree with. They’re supporting (school) vouchers and tax credits and the teaching of creationism over evolution.
“All of that just went against what I really had grown up with, I think, as being a moderate Republican. I said I thought the Republican Party left me. I didn’t leave it.”
Any regrets? “It was actually a feeling of relief. (The reaction) has been very positive. I haven’t had any negative comments.
“When I talk to them (Democrats), they don’t say if you disagree with us you don’t count.”
H/T Kos
Thursday, July 06, 2006
Ann Coulter Gets Caught Plagiarizing
Yes, the dark mistress, Ann Coulter, got caught plagiarizing in her latest book, taking passages almost verbatim from other sources without giving the slightest hint of credit to the true authors.
So, not only is she a nut extraordinaire, she is an un-original nut extraordinaire.
Ironically, while I have not, nor ever will read her book, I am told that she rails against Jason Blair for plagiarizing in her book. Go figure...
Expert Finds Proof of Plagiarism in Ann Coulter's Books
H/T TMP
So, not only is she a nut extraordinaire, she is an un-original nut extraordinaire.
Ironically, while I have not, nor ever will read her book, I am told that she rails against Jason Blair for plagiarizing in her book. Go figure...
Expert Finds Proof of Plagiarism in Ann Coulter's Books
H/T TMP
Mistress of the Dark, Ann Coulter Gets Caught
Yes, the dark mistress, Ann Coulter, got caught plagiarizing in her latest book, taking passages almost verbatim from other sources without giving the slightest hint of credit to the true authors.
So, not only is she a nut extraordinaire, she is an un-original nut extraordinaire.
Ironically, while I have not, nor ever will read her book, I am told that she rails against Jason Blair for plagiarizing in her book. Go figure...
Expert Finds Proof of Plagiarism in Ann Coulter's Books
H/T TMP
So, not only is she a nut extraordinaire, she is an un-original nut extraordinaire.
Ironically, while I have not, nor ever will read her book, I am told that she rails against Jason Blair for plagiarizing in her book. Go figure...
Expert Finds Proof of Plagiarism in Ann Coulter's Books
H/T TMP
North Korea.... Again
Things are not getting any better with North Korea... obviously. I have been saying for over a year now that the approach that we are taking towards NK was not going to work... and it is not. I am wondering how the GOP is going to spin this in order to make themselves the national security hawks on NK and Iran when it is they who have been in control for the past 6 years as things have gone down hill, but I am sure they will work it somehow.
Even though it was on Bush's watch that both have become the menace that they are...
Even though it is the war in Iraq that has sapped our resources...
Even though it is Bush's foreign policy that has but us in the hole in regards to public support around the world...
Even though it was Bush's choice of Bolton to head the NK envoy for 4 years that led to complete deadlock in negotiations (or lack thereof)...
I am sure they will somehow try to pin this on democrats and claim we will all die if you vote for a change in Congress.
And, any guesses on the number of "Orange Alerts" we will have in October leading up to the mid term elections? Notice we didn't have any after the 2004 elections?
A Driven President Faces a World of Crises
Six-Party Talks -- and Half a Dozen Doughnuts
Even though it was on Bush's watch that both have become the menace that they are...
Even though it is the war in Iraq that has sapped our resources...
Even though it is Bush's foreign policy that has but us in the hole in regards to public support around the world...
Even though it was Bush's choice of Bolton to head the NK envoy for 4 years that led to complete deadlock in negotiations (or lack thereof)...
I am sure they will somehow try to pin this on democrats and claim we will all die if you vote for a change in Congress.
And, any guesses on the number of "Orange Alerts" we will have in October leading up to the mid term elections? Notice we didn't have any after the 2004 elections?
A Driven President Faces a World of Crises
Six-Party Talks -- and Half a Dozen Doughnuts
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
