Rape, Incest "All Part of God's Plan," Angle Says

Sharon Angle, the Cristo-Republican Senate candadate in Nevada, said this. Out loud.



Um... Sharon, dear. You just said out loud that child rape and incest are all parts of your god's plan.


Via the Huffington Post:

In an segment that has gone unnoticed since it first aired, the Tea Party-backed candidate told the Bill Manders show -- a favorable platform for Republican candidates -- that she opposed abortion even in cases of rape and incest. A pregnancy under those circumstances, she said, was "God's plan."

Manders: I, too, am pro life but I'm also pro choice, do you understand what I mean when I say that.

Angle: I'm pro responsible choice. There is choice to abstain choice to do contraception. There are all kind of good choices.

Manders: Is there any reason at all for an abortion?

Angle: Not in my book.
 

Manders: So, in other words, rape and incest would not be something?

Angle: You know, I'm a Christian and I believe that God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives and that he can intercede in all kinds of situations and we need to have a little faith in many things.


I'm not sure what god that would be, but in Christian tradition, degredation, the torment and exploition of the innocent, the screams and terrors of children, and being impregnated by some personification of loathomeness is the domain of the Red Guy with Horns.

You call yourself a "christian," but untold millions of Christians would disagree.

But let's set "God's Plan" aside for a moment, because clearly that god's morals aren't helping you do anything remotely ethical.

My plan is to help make YOUR words go viral, and tie you like the stinking albatross you are around the necks of the vicious, small minded evil people you so capably and honestly represent.

The Junior Senator from the Trick or Treat State.

John Ensign is apparently only capable of speaking the truth when he thinks he's lying for effect.

John Ensign Scandal: Senate Republicans Decline To Defend Colleague: "'I have a little alert to tell Washington,' Ensign said during the televised hearings. 'The people don't trust us. They don't trust us to make these decisions.'"

It is the usual tranparent appeal to the prejudices of the wingnut social conservative fringe, who can be depended upon to take the assertion as gospel. On the other hand, it's a pretty moronic idea for a Senator be flinging around - because there is no more important thing than having a government that you CAN trust to "make those decisions." That is, after all, the job.

The man often referred to as "the Hairdo" by his critic is not the sort of man that it is wise to allow to take the point on the rather critical issue of the honor, honesty and credibility of the US form of Representative Government. One would think, at any rate, for the sad truth is there is no-one able to make that statement with greater unintended irony than John Ensign of Nevada. Or so I hope.


Nevada is a place where people come to get rich or get lost. It's politicians and business people tend to be of the former sort, but in some particular cases the latter happens - because fast buck artists don't tend to be drawn from the classes of "The Best and the Brightest." It could well be called the "Trick or Treat State;" it gained statehood on Oct. 31, 1864, with the issue of slavery being a trick or a treat, depending on which side you were on. Things pretty much continued in that vein thereafter. The Hairdo Himself tends to underline the importance of a good costume in getting the biggest haul of candy. I think this explains his membership in Promise Keepers®, a conservative Christian movement with the motto, "Men of Integrety."

Central to Promise Keepers® membership is a pledge to keep the Seven Promises, among them:

PROMISE 3: A Promise Keeper is committed to practicing spiritual, moral, ethical, and sexual purity.

PROMISE 4:  A Promise Keeper is committed to building strong marriages and families through love, protection and biblical values.

Why go to all that trouble actually doing the right thing, when you can simply join an organization that says you are above reproach for a modest annual fee?

On both sides of my family tree, the sagas and tales of my axe-flinging ancestors whisper to me that there is no greater offense to Odin Skyfather than the unspilled blood of an Oathbreaker. Me, I do try to keep such intemperate reactions in check - particularly since the only thing Ensign did that would be of concern to my forebears was that he broke an oath - a bond precisely as sacred to them as a gambling debt.

Speaking of Nevada politics.

I advocate no violence; I merely find it hilarious that my ancestral collection of reprobates, raiders and remittance men would be offended by the man's offense, for, in a literary sense, it is exactly the sort of arrogance that the Gods, we are told of in the sagas, hero-tales and morality plays find remarkable enough to correct personally. So beware of doing harm to Ensign and his ilk.

It's imprudent to deprive a Ceiling Cat of it's mousie.

The New York Times published an overview of the sorry tale of presumption, adultery, deceit, deception, corruption and malfeasance that in the end led to the scuttling of John Ensign's presidential ambitions.

Mr. Ensign allowed Senator Tom Coburn, a friend and fellow conservative Christian, to serve as an intermediary with the Hamptons in May in discussing a large financial settlement, to help them rebuild their lives. “John got trapped doing something really stupid and then made a lot of other mistakes afterward,” Mr. Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, said in an interview. “Judgment gets impaired by arrogance, and that’s what’s going on here.”

No doubt that we are supposed to presume that Sen. Coburn - fellow conservative Christian and close friend - was as suprised by this behavior, this abuse of his trust as was the husband of his paramour (and campaign treasurer), close friend Douglas Hampton. Goodness, how could anyone have possibly foreseen such a thing?



But, man, he does look fine in public; the looks of a George Clooney, albiet with the eyes of an inbred Cocker Spaniel.

His capacity for looking good in public, coupled with his inability to avoid causing problems that could indebt him to those who make problems go away for a price made him the perfect candidate to place into high office, from a certain cynical perspective.

It's no wonder at all to me that he was seen as being a likely heir to Ronald Regan.

Whatever the motives of those who knew Ensign of old and supported him for office anyway, they certainly got exactly what they paid for. But like many superficially attractive investments, he depreciated rapidly. There is an axiom referred to as Hanlon's Razor which states that one should never presume malice when stupidity alone is sufficient to explain the situation - but to presume such comprehensive stupidity on the part of his backers is so insulting that I prefer to err on the side of charity.


John is a man who's character is made evident by his behavior. My primary impression comes from constituent correspondence. I wish I had copies - but I shredded them with extreme prejudice.

They revealed a breathtaking arrogance coupled with the complete absence of any thought put into the issue I had raised. Since they were form-letter responses to common questions and he has a staff who are actually paid to be smarter and better-informed than he is, there's simply no excuse for headpatting platitudes as a response to a constituent's concerns - most especially when you wish them to be reassured in their complacent presumption of your competence.

It was not difficult to find an example of the Ensign Style of Communication in the public record. Indeed, he communicated it to the Editors of the New York Times.

Published: October 8, 2007
To the Editor:

Your Sept. 27 editorial “Let the Sunshine In” left your readers in the dark on the issue of transparency in the Senate. I support electronic filing of fund-raising reports in the Senate because, as we probably agree, disclosure leads to more transparency in government. I have never had a secret hold on this bill.

In the same spirit of transparency, I requested a vote on my amendment that would require groups filing ethics complaints against senators to reveal who is financing their efforts. Light needs to shine on this increasingly abused process, but Democrats are clearly afraid of voting on my amendment.

Your editorial compared the House and the Senate, but on this issue there is a big difference. In the House, a member of Congress has to file a complaint. In the Senate, there are no requirements — anyone can do it anonymously, without even a signature. The result of the Democrats’ blocking my amendment is that people can continue to hide in the dark to lob partisan attacks against senators.
John Ensign

U.S. Senator from Nevada
Washington, Sept. 28, 2007

See how it gives the dual impression of impervious arrogance while revealing an inability to comprehend that there might actually be a principle at stake?

It's long been a GOP meme that ANY ethical question directed at a Republican is merely a "partisan attack." And they should know. They'd pioneered that style of political action with their attacks on Bill Clinton. So, we should all understand that when ethics complaints are being made, they aren't really ethics complaints. They are just attempts to replace one sumbitch with another, equally corrupt sumbitch who owes his loyalty to different backers and gets his political support by pandering to a different segment of the credulous public.

But - even if that WERE true - it is still a strange position for a Senator who comes from a state where "none of the above" is one of the options on the ballot.

But the objection to autonomous complaints - well, I do understand that completely. Those who casually cause offense, outrage and harm do like to know if those "little people" are banding together to get themselves some even. The idea that a complaint might be based in some legitimate concern for, say, national security or the rule of law can be dismissed as fantastical.  Concerns about personal safety, or other forms of retaliation? Absurd! Paranoia!

Anyone making a complaint would OF COURSE be employed by or funded by some political action group. That's how things "really work." That is the assumption made when Republicans attack ACORN and the ACLU. Whatever these groups say, or even actually achieve, their only real agenda is to make make it difficult for Republicans to hold on to political power.

As patently absurd as that statement is, I do think those people best placed to influence the Republican party and the Social Conservative Base actually believe that politics is the primary motivation of critics, that their opponents see ethics, law, justice, civil rights, gun laws, health care, global warming, church and state issues, marriage rights and every other issue as simply sharp rocks to pelt the GOP - and that there could not possibly be any larger motivation - like, say, moral indignation, or a sincere appreciation for the economic, social and environmental impact of heedless social, environmental and foreign policy.

That is not because of a fundamental difference in political philosophy. It is because that sort of blindness is required if you are a corrupt sonofabitch belonging to a club of corrupt bastards, for in order to look in the mirror, you must embrace the faith-based doctrine that all persons of your walk and station are no better than you. 

When you offend a large enough number of people over a long enough period of time with the expressed attitude of "whatcha gonna do about it," - well, sooner or later, one of those people will be in a position to do you a grave injury. Meanwhile, even those you helped - well, they probably had to pay a great deal for the help that should have come as a matter of course - so when you lose your ability to deliver the goods there is no bond of loyalty or gratitude, no debt of honor or genuine friendship to presume upon.

Now, I have no idea whether Sen. Ensign's ethics amendment passed, but regardless, it is ironic to note that if we were to trace the source of the funding for the complaint against him - well, it would come from "Ensign, Inc." Literally. But it is reasonable to question the motives and the character of people bringing complaint, as a matter of significant interest that should be independent of the facts of the complaint.

It is a sad fact of human nature that most crimes are solved with the help of other criminals. 

To put up with Ensign, and people like Ensign - you have to take him as being the very model of a modern Statesman. You have to be able to dismiss every hint that he's less than intelligent, less than prudent, less than honest and certainly FAR less than what he seems. You have to somehow continue to accept him at face value and at his word. That makes you either very stupid indeed, or very willing to look the other way in return for some personal benefit. For the latter case, we have Douglas Hampton to illustrate the matter. The Ensigns and the Hamptons were said to be very close, over a very long period of time. It's difficult to credit the idea that people who are so close are truly unaware of the essential nature of their bedfellows. 

When you choose to be friends with someone like John Ensign - well, it's kinda like inviting a loaded skunk into your home. Sooner or later, the damn thing is going to go off. It's in the nature of skunks and narcissists to do that when every little thing fails to go their way.  A narcissist may be charming - may indeed charm your pants off. But if you permit that to happen more than once - it's a consensual relationship with a very predictable story arc leading from "ohgodohgod" to "owfuckOW!"

This story will no doubt be fodder for playwrights and novelists for generations to come. It is a story that in it's improbable degrees of arrogance, theatrical details and breathtaking contempt for the standards of moral behavior may be in all seriousness be compared to great tragedies such as Antigone, Oedipus Rex and Othello. 

But I must confess that there is a distinction between the real-life clusterfuck that is Ensign and a classical morality play. Mark Twain famously observed that the difference between truth and fiction was that fiction had to make sense.

It will take a great deal of literary hagiography to transform Ensign into a plausible vehicle for an actor of stature greater Will Ferrell or Pauly Shore. Othello was not merely a jealous prick. Oedipus was not just a fool who stepped on his own dick. The tragedy of Antigone is that all involved were genuinely mistaken in their attempts to honor Family and Gods.

Ensign - well, if there is a God that would be caught dead in the C-Street church - it's the one that appears every time in the mirror when we brush our teeth. But then, to people like Ensign - no higher power exists.

Undue Dilligance: McCain's Son Resigned from Seized Silver State Ban

McCain's son served until last month on the board audit committee of a Nevada bank that was recently seized by Federal authorities amid mounting losses and regulatory scrutiny. This article dated just days before the resignation of McCain and the seizure of the bank.

read more | digg story

So, rather than be concerned that McCain Sr. is the man to deal with our current financial crisis, perhaps we should look to see how closely he actually is tied to and responsible for creating the crisis in the first place through influence and unwise advocacy for deregulation.

Oddly enough, while it may be that the younger McCain was refusing to "go along to get along," I can't say that I take that thought seriously enough to seriously check out. If you are going to bail for that reason, do it before things are circling the drain, and it looks more like following in daddy's Keating Scandal footsteps.

Breaking news makes a liar of me...

An eyewitness responds to a Reno-Gazette Journal story: Palin rallies crowd with 15-minute speech.
I'm hoping someone who does that journalistic investigatory type thing will check this out.

I was at Mills Park today, and was appalled at the brainless violence shown by the Sarah Palin supporters against a group of Obama protestors. Several times, Palin supporters threatened physical violence before police became involved. One Palin supporter even had the stupidity to poke a policeman with his finger when that policeman would not arrest the Obama supporters for protesting (he was immediately ordered to back off!) Is that what the core Republicans are reduced to now, threats of physical violence and acts of mindless brutality? Protesting is an American right, and Republicans feel free to do so at Democratic rallies. This violent behavior is un-American and against our country – an enraged 800-pound gorilla in the room that the core Republicans refuse to acknowledge.

Yep. Palin inspires all those small town values that a lot of us decided made medium to larger cities a better choice. That, or an isolated holding with plenty of barbed wire and an anti-aircraft capability.

Ron Paul Supporter Sues NV GOP

RGJ.com: Inside Nevada Politics

Wayne Terhune filed a 20 page lawsuit seeking to prevent the Nevada Republican Party from "phoning in" their appointed delegates to the National Convention during a planned conference call. Terhune is joined by 27 other plaintiffs, according to Anjeanette Damon of the Reno-Gazette Journal.

The complaint accuses the party of mismanaging the April 26 state convention and seeking to usurp the delegates' right to elect a slate to the national convention in Minneapolis. It also criticizes state Sen. Bob Beers, the original convention chair, calling him "clearly not neutral" and "clearly unqualified."

Terhune accuses the party of acting "intentionally to bring this about once they realized the results of the voting...would not go as (they) planned."

"At very least, defendants acted with reckless disregard for established law and rules," the lawsuit states.

Ah, the Republicans, too, have to deal with these sudden outbreaks of democracy. And while Ron Paul has withdrawn from the race, apparently The Revolution Continues.

Illustration : Ron Paul Revolution! by dailypaul
Design Custom T Shirts At zazzle.com

John Ensign must REALLY hate The Gleaner.

Click the image to see it in full-screen glory. Swipe it if you like it.

The Gleaner is one huge reason why I needn't bother with local politics. There is someone else out there that actually likes politics and can write a slugline like this:

Senator Sunshine gets his panties in a bunch

After expressing his "extreme disappointment" with the SEIA for having the ill-advised temerity to support of a bill that he, the Magnificent Hairdo, opposed, Sen. McWedgeshot accused the organization of being partisan, and warned the solar energy bidnesses that "following a partisan playbook is not a proven or wise track."

Yes. A Republican wrote that.

Then Ensign showed that beneath that splendidly coiffed and cute-as-a-button exterior lies a bitchy little thin-skinned primadonna:

"It is rare to have such overwhelming bipartisan support in today's partisan climate" (yes, again, that'd be a Republican complaining about a partisan climate), but the solar industry had it and your association's leadership squandered it. Decisions by the staff at SEIA caused serious harm to the same industry they are charged with representing. Instead of capitalizing on this opportunity to achieve your goals, SEIA wasted it."

"As a result of this short-sighted and blatantly partisan advice, your association alienated many of the key supporters you rely on to meet your goals..."

In other words, if it comes down to a choice between promoting renewable energies to help stimulate Nevada's economy, wean the nation from fossil fuels and help save the planet, on the one hand, or show some smallish Washington interest group that John Ensign is far, far more important than they are, on the other, rest assured that in the future, Ensign will be doing the latter.

Any constituent - and I am unfortunately one of them - who has had occasion to write to Ensign expressing concerns about tiny little matters like, oh, civil liberties or the Patriot Act is probably already aware of what a self-important asshat he is.

Every single communication from his orifice - I mean office - starts with the pronouncement that it is an official pronouncement from on high. I keep meaning to scan one, but somehow they always end up crumpled and/or shredded.

Yep. An authoritarian who is clearly unsure that without having been told that he is An Authority In All Caps By God, we would not recognize the fact that he Knows Better Than We Do.

In that view he is pathetically correct. Ain't it a shame that the ploy works as well as it does?

On the other hand, one does shudder at the thought of him returning to his former trade as a Vet and inflicting his manifest Authority upon helpless puppies and kittens. You see, according to Republican theology, the Mantle of Authority magically transforms manifest idiocy into Revealed Word.

But that ain't any sort of new idea, alas. The current crop of Republicans have, however, stampeded across the subtle, yet well-marked line that separates a cynical and affectionately patriarchal appreciation of the ease with which The Rabble may be manipulated, past the no-man's land of The Divine Right of Kings and has has sprawled into terratory formerly reserved to those who were gently confined for their Napoleon Complexes

Who knew that when Regan emptied the asylums, it was to the end of populating the House and Senate with the feeble-minded?

Ensign is utterly useless to us even by the standards of corrupt Senators. You see, here's what had the Gleaner after The Hairball's ass along with probably everyone with a pulse and a stake in the Nevada energy sector.

Earlier this week, the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) sent out apparently state-by-state-tailored press releases blasting senators, including the 'Do, for opposing legislation that would extend tax breaks for solar and other forms of renewable energy, and that would pay for the breaks by closing tax loopholes enjoyed by hedge funds and transnational conglomerates.

Hairdo "will have to choose between job-creating solar power for Nevada" or standing with the Bush administration policy "that protects the off-shore tax havens of billionaire hedge fund managers," said the SEIA in a release Monday.

In what will no doubt come as a shock to Nevadans, Ensign the next day sided against sense, sanity and his state and with Bush and the hedge funds, voting to filibuster, and effectively kill, the legislation (Grist).

I must find a way to state this so that even people who voted for Bush, Gibbons and Ensign can understand the ESSENTIAL point here.

The pork flows THIS way, dipshit!

Even Ted Stevens understands this, and he thinks the Internet is a hydraulic system.

Sir, when Sen. Ted Stevens makes one seem ineffective and incompetent by comparison, one should really consider a change of career. Perhaps something in The Green Zone, Sir. After all, you are one of the many who's efforts have earned such a reward.

Vote for the Winnemucca Underdogs!

There's a Zazzle contest underway that I think I deserve to win. I say this in all humility - but I need your vote! Remember, a vote for me is a vote for Nevada!

Winnemucca Underdogs
by
webcarve

Get this custom shirt at Zazzle

The incumbant's choice: Plomo e Plata?

In Mexico, when criminal elements wish to influence a public official, they offer them a choice; "Plomo e Plata;" "Lead or Silver." In other words, take the nice bribe or we shoot you.

I'm probably not the first to observe the probability that the highest priority for warrentless wiretapping, data mining, "sneak and peek" warrents and presumed other secret surveillance efforts have been aimed at compromising public officials of all parties who might have sudden attacks of conscience in the face of the administration's march toward the establishment of a totalitarian state.

This Can't Be Happening!: "The Democrats in this Congress are a bunch of spineless cowards and willing enablers, and they now bear the chief responsibility for establishing the elements of an American police state.

For that is clearly where this nation is headed.

There was no need to give the president new warrantless surveillance powers. Would be terrorists are already fully aware of the government's spying capabilities and certainly are being cautious in their use of phones and email to communicate. Moreover, the secret FISA court has demonstrated that it is most accommodating of spying requests, having only rejected one such request from the President and National Security Agency in the past two years. It is obvious then that what the president is seeking is expanded power to spy on Americans. And incredibly, despite his 27-percent support rating in the polls, and despite widespread public fears of this kind of government snooping, he is getting it.

Sen. Feingold has been one of the staunchest defenders of the Constitution, voting against the USA Patriot Act and against the invasion of Iraq, but he is wrong to imply that before Friday's betrayal of that document, the Senate was acting as an independent body. Both the Senate and the House ceased playing their constitutional role and became rubber stamps a long time ago."

There's no telling what interesting tid-bits might turn up in the closets of long-time legislators, but the net effect seems to be a state of sheer terror at the idea of asserting their plain constitutional duty. And frankly, this pansy-assed complacency doesn't make a heck of a lot of political sense, either. So i'm starting to presume, frankly, that key members of Congress have been confronted with the possibility of what might occur to them if they don't play ball. Consequences such as what happened to Rep. Jackson spring to mind. But the "financial death penalty" is a nice lever too - and then there's always direct threats of violence against person or family.

Most probably, simple blackmail would be enough to get things to go the President's way on critical issues such as this. Let them have their meaningless symbolic gestures; so long as they accomplish nothing substantial, such as, say, bills of impeachment or cutting off funding for the war.

There are two Democrats in particular that need to be held accountable; both Nancy Pelosi and Nevada's Harry Reid must be removed from office by the voters. Between them, they have made a satisfactory peaceful resolution of our current constitutional crisis that much more difficult. I, personally, have run out of patience with Sen. Reid and will be voting for any non-republican warm body other than him in 2008.

Presuming we have elections in 2008, a question that becomes more and more open with each passing day.

Blackmail, election 2008, corruption, bush administration, Congressional Democrats, rubber stamp, plomo e plata, lead or silver.

BREAKING: Our Harry to Republicans: Stand Up or Shut Up.

UPDATE! Harry is taking it to the mattresses!

Apparently Harry is out of patience with Republican procedural obstructionism! Yay, and it's about damn time, says almost everyone referring to the Think Progress alert.

Think Progress » BREAKING: Reid To Force All-Night Filibuster On Iraq Withdrawal: "Moments ago, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced that in response to conservative obstructionism, he plans to force war supporters to physically remain in the Senate and filibuster Iraq withdrawal legislation.

Reid accused conservatives of “protecting the President rather than protecting our troops” by “denying us an up or down vote on the most important issue our country faces.” He said that if a vote on the Reed/Levin Iraq legislation is not allowed today or tomorrow, he will keep the Senate in session “straight through the night on Tuesday” and force a filibuster."

OpenLeft, Firedoglake and others have also called for Congress to call the conservatives’ bluff and force them to filibuster the Levin-Reed Iraq bill.



Here's Reid's reasoning, which I support, for what it's worth.

So the record here is clear. The President’s decision to stubbornly cling to the current course leaves this body no choice but to enact binding language.

He has failed to lead us out of Iraq. We are ready to show him the way.

M. President, my worst fears on this bill have been realized. We have just seen the Republican leadership again resort to technical maneuver to block progress on this crucial amendment.

It would be one thing for Republicans to vote against this bill. If they honestly believe that “stay the course” is the right strategy — they have the right to vote “no.”

But now, Republicans are using a filibuster to block us from even voting on an amendment that could bring the war to a responsible end.

They are protecting the President rather than protecting our troops.

They are denying us an up or down — yes or no — vote on the most important issue our country faces.

I would like to inform the Republican leadership and all my colleagues that we have no intention of backing down.

If Republicans do not allow a vote on Levin/Reed today or tomorrow, we will work straight through the night on Tuesday.

The American people deserve an open and honest debate on this war, and they deserve an up or down vote on this amendment to end it.

Given the Republican leadership’s decision to block the amendment, we have no choice but to do everything we can in the coming days to highlight Republican obstruction.

We do this in hopes of ultimately getting a simple up or down vote on this and other important amendments that could change the direction of the war.

All Senators will be welcome to speak their mind. Those of us who are ready to end the war will make our case to the American people. Those who support the status quo are welcome to equal floor time to make their case.

Let the American people hear the arguments. Let them see their elected representatives engaging in a full, open and honest debate.

Let them hear why Republicans are obstructing us on this amendment.

Whenever Republicans are ready to allow a vote on this most crucial legislation, we stand ready to deliver the new course that has been so long in coming.

So, it's already tomorrow and if everything is going well, individual Republicans will have to be on record as "Supporting the President instead of supporting the troops." Sooner or later, one or more will break and , as detailed below, cloture will be invoked and a vote will follow, as Bob Geiger explains below.

The Reed-Levin amendment to the Department of Defense (DoD) Authorization Bill requires George W. Bush to "commence the reduction of the number of United States forces in Iraq not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act" and mandates a withdrawal of most combat forces by April 30, 2008.

The legislation, S.AMDT.2087, has bipartisan support and is cosponsored by Gordon Smith (R-OR), Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME).

In making this move (based on my understanding of Senate rules), Reid is invoking the provisions of Rule 22 (Precedence of Motions) of the Standing Rules of the Senate, which provides, at the Majority Leader's discretion, up to 30 hours of debate if a filibuster is initiated -- as the Republicans will most certainly do, knowing that Reed-Levin may very well have the 51 votes needed for passage.

Sixty votes are needed to achieve cloture (end debate) and move legislation to a full, deciding vote.

Reid will be using the provision of Rule 22 that allows for up to 30 hours of continuous debate once it's made clear -- in this case, by Republicans trying to avoid an up-or-down vote on Reed-Levin -- that there is a desire to continue debating the issue.

In other words, the Majority Leader is saying "You want to debate? We'll stay all night and debate."

Read Reid’s full speech HERE.

202-225-4965 = Pelosi’s office
202-224-3542 = Reid in D.C.
702-388-5020 = Reid in Nevada

Failing to see the forest fire for the trees.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Nevada Sens. Harry Reid and John Ensign complained Wednesday that money they've obtained for use in the Tahoe Basin is being held up by bureaucratic red tape. If more of it had been spent on brush clearing and fuel reduction, some of the devastation of last month's Tahoe fire could have been prevented, they said.

"We worked hard to get this money. ... we expected the money to be spent," Reid, D-Nev., told reporters after the senators met with U.S. Forest Service Chief Gail Kimbell in Majority Leader Reid's office.

It turns out that rules and regulations for lake preservation and habitat management got in the way of habitat management and lake preservation.

The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency that administers some of the restrictions has come in for angry criticism after a blaze destroyed 254 homes and other buildings across about 5 square miles and displaced about 3,500 people late last month. Some residents say the agency overstepped its mission of protecting the lake by imposing unwieldy rules on homeowners including even limiting where residents can rake pine needles.

Now, of course that seems absurd, but there probably are reasons that seem good to those who are trying to micromanage an ecology and human behavior within it. But then, that's the problem - the attempt to micromanage an ecology (or indeed, any somewhat chaotic system) leads to absurdity at best.

Certainly fire is a large part of the natural ecology around here. That doesn't mean we have any good reason to let fire burn down our habitats! No ethos that requires the sacrifice of the ethical will survive long enough to benefit much of anything, which is why all persistent ethical systems act to the benefit of those practicing it first.

And let's not forget that a forest fire ain't exactly great for riparian habitat. All that erosion leads to choked and polluted streams, something the micromanagement was intended to prevent!

So this is not a post about "bureaucratic mismanagement," per se. In fact, it's difficult to imagine how one could manage the habitat and preserve Lake Tahoe without some sort of bureau, and that's clearly a matter of common concern and interest to everyone living there.

Nope, my criticism focuses on the plain silly idea that you can create rules (or even computer programs) that can substitute for expert human judgment. What's needed here is an expert system that works to tell people the right thing to do in various situations rather than forbidding "bad" behavior on a microscopic level, without regard to secondary and tertiary effects.

What I would suggest would be to take a minuscule amount of those federal dollars to set up a powerful Wiki and pool the knowledge of experts and residents of the Tahoe basin and use it as a tool to hammer out a new management scheme. It's a far more powerful approach than public meetings and seminars, and a far more efficient way to preserve and present the information.

In other words, we need to start exploring Management 2.0.

Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way!

Dave Lindorff writes in The Wheels are Coming Off the Machine Friday, June 22, 2007

The wheels are coming off the Democratic machine, with angry voters starting to lose patience with the Party's chronic inability to act decisively on any of the key issues of public concern.

In a Reuters dispatch on June 18, Democratic leaders in Congress concede that voters are angry with them for not doing enough to end the Iraq War. They might have added that voters are also angry at them for not impeaching the president or even for moving on Rep. Dennis Kucinich's bill to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney (H Res. 333).

"I understand their disappointment. We raised the bar too high," bleats Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid (D-NV).

Lindorff presents an elegant, passionate rebuttal to the excuses presented for their spineless refusal to obey the people's mandate. While you should read it yourself, the sum of it is simple and our leadership deserves no more polite response than this:

BULLSHIT!

Dear Harry and Nancy: "Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way." Those are your only viable political alternatives.

I'm gonna have to Incorporate someday soon. I think I'm going with these guys...

Nevada Corporation total only $283 - Nevada Incorporation, Registered Agent (This link will lead to a page specific to your state, but you REALLY should check out the idea of incorporating in Nevada. You don't need to live here to do that, and you might want to compare costs and benefits of incorporation in a few other selected states.

Tennessee Incorporation
California Incorporation
Tennessee Incorporation
Deleware Incorporation
Illinois Incorporation
Washington Incorporation



Here's what they do for you in Nevada

THE MOST POPULAR PACKAGE

•$75 - Nevada State Initial Filing fee
•$30 - File stamped copy of Articles
•$89 - Checking name availability, preparing state-approved Articles of Incorporation, filing Articles with state, sending Articles to you.
•$89 - Registered Agent for one year.
•Free forms for bylaws, minutes of meetings of directors and shareholders, Stock Certificates
•Reminders for filing annual reports through INCCONTACT

I understand almost nothing about incorporating in Nevada, the tax advantages and disincentives or what advantages it will offer me, other than protecting me from personal liability in case of a business failure, lawsuit or other such calamity.

That "other then" is the reason why the time I will have to file for incorporation in some form is rapidly approaching. The problem isn't the money, or even finding the time.

It's the forms. It's the hassle. It's the prodigious pile of paperwork and the standing in line, the fear that I've screwed something up in such a way that I'll somehow end up in jail or bankrupted. I get palpitations just thinking about it.

That's why I've had in the back of my mind the need to find just such a resource, where I can trade money (and not actually a whole LOT of money) for peace of mind in this area.

I'll be checking back with them as soon as I have to. But, you know, not any sooner.

A really, really short and simple form is still a form.

tag: nevada incorporation, Incorporate in Nevada, incorporate in any state, online incorporation services

PSA: After Imus: What you can do

Press Release from freepress.net

The controversy over Don Imus' racist remarks goes far beyond one bigoted commentator. But getting rid of Imus won't fix the media problem.

Most of our TV and radio stations are owned by giant corporate conglomerates. They don't represent the views of most Americans -- and they make huge profits off the public airwaves.

What we need are more diverse, independent and local media owners. Yet right now less than 10% of TV and radio stations are owned by people of color or women.

But instead of addressing this national disgrace, the Federal Communications Commission is actually trying to let the largest companies buy up even more stations!

Tell the FCC: We Need More Diversity in the Media

What Imus said is just the tip of the iceberg. Scores of other TV and radio hosts regularly make racist and sexist comments. The best way to stop this race to the bottom is to change who's sitting at the top -- and making the decisions about who's behind the mic.

Today, according to one industry study, only 2.5% of radio stations have a person of color in the role of general manager, and only 4.4% have a racial or ethnic minority in the role of news director. The percentage of women in these jobs isn't much higher. No wonder shock jocks like Imus have been able to keep their jobs for so long.

Now is our chance to make a change. In 2003, we stopped the FCC from allowing more media concentration, when more than 3 million people took action to stop Big Media.

Tell Your Friends To Act

This time, we must not only stop further consolidation -- we must demand media ownership that reflects the diversity that makes our nation great.

Onward,

Robert McChesney
President
Free Press
www.freepress.net

Attn: Harry Reid. Fair elections with genuine debate are much easier when there is fair and equal media coverage. Just ask Jack Carter.

I should add that this is an important issue for real conservatives as well as liberals, because the representation of real, rational conservatism on the airwaves is even smaller than the liberal and progressive coverage, to the extent that most people think "conservatism" means being against abortion, gay rights, efforts toward energy independence (which for conservatives is a national security issue) and disbelief in climate change and it's potential impacts.

Barry Goldwater would disagree, probably in total. Nixon would differ on most if not all points. Neither would equate religious social conservatism with Republican or conservative values .

So let's get this done for everyone. It's infuriating to listen to people like Rush, Savage and Imus from a center-left perspective, but for a real conservative - and as a Lib, I share many conservative positions and views - listening to these idiots must be absolutely humiliating, realizing that such pinheads have more access to political speech than traditional economic and Constitutional Conservatives.

Or as they are referred to by Rush, "liberals."

tag: Conservatism, Conservative, Don Imus, Rush Limbaugh, Hate Speech, Liberalism, Liberty, Media, MSM, Hate Radio

In Homage to Harry Reid's Giant Testicles

I dugg this and I think you will too.
The Rude Pundit Bows down :

Each and every time Bush has tried to pathetically swing a right hook at his face, the Nevada Senator's bent back so that Bush hit only air. Reid's danced and then returned a left uppercut to Bush's chin. The Senate passes an Iraq funding bill with a timeline for troop withdrawal and benchmarks. Bush goes all batshit and says he'll veto it, doesn't wanna talk about, dadadadadamyfingersareinmyearsIcanthearyou. What does Reid do? Does he talk about compromise and "working with the White House"? Fuck no. He grabs his pendulous balls and says, "Eat shit and die," and then says he'll back Russ Feingold's bill that cuts off funds for the war except for a narrowly defined mission.

Reid's been to Iraq, been to Walter Reed - here's what he said about that visit: "To say, Mr. President, that I left Walter Reed depressed is an understatement. We've all heard the stories about Walter Reed...Go to Walter Reed. Listen to the parents. Listen to the people that are hurt." Reid describes how private contracting is destroying the hospital and the military, as well as how the lack of resources is affecting the patients there.

Yesterday, in his pissy little press conference, Bush tried to attack back, saying that Democrats are playing games and are delaying his funding request for the troops. Not missing a fuckin' beat, Reid slammed back, "Democrats will send President Bush a bill that gives our troops the resources they need and a strategy in Iraq worthy of their sacrifices. If the President vetoes this bill he will have delayed funding for troops and kept in place his strategy for failure."

Give 'em hell, Harry!

As usual, The Rude Pundit is a source of hilariously Graphic Truth.

read more | digg story

tag: Harry Ried, The Rude Pundit, Digg, , military, veterans, accountablity, George W. Bush, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, separation of powers, Congress, Emergency Spending Bill

Re: Jim Gibbons REF: We Told You So

TPMmuckraker March 30, 2007 09:51 AM

More Trouble for Gibbons
By Paul Kiel - March 30, 2007, 9:51 AM

The Wall Street Journal continues (sub. req.) to make life miserable for Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons. The paper first reported a month ago that Gibbons was under federal investigation for improper gifts (possible bribes) from a defense contractor.

Now the paper reports that Gibbons' business as a legislator was intertwined with a second defense contractor:

The wife of Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons was hired as a consultant to a defense contractor at the same time that her husband, who was then a member of Congress, helped the company get funding for a no-bid federal contract.

Dawn Gibbons got about $35,000 in consulting fees in 2004 from Sierra Nevada Corp., of Sparks, Nev., the company said. Mr. Gibbons, a five-term Republican who served on the armed services and intelligence committees, sought funding that year for Sierra Nevada for a $4 million contract to develop a helicopter radar-landing system.

I'm not sure which is worse - that Jim Gibbons can be had, or that he can be had so cheaply! Either way, it's embarrassing to be a Nevadan.

Update: The Las Vegas Sun has an article listing several donors to Jim Gibbon's Legal Defense fund. Interesting to see who they are and speculate why they would want to see Jim stay in office - and out of Club Fed.

tag: Gov. Jim Gibbons, Nevada, Corruption, Bribary, Scandal, Abramoff, Dawn Gibbons, Sierra Nevada Corp., improper gifts, Corrupt Bastards Club

Karl Rove

Ridicule can be deadly in politics. It's deadly accurate when the target is ridiculous. Karl Rove gets the treatment in this Emnem - styled music video by AndyCobbonUTube.

I found via comments at InTheDark, about this post about the WaPo story about the Libby conviction. I'd intended to talk about this anyway, so two birds, one great hook. Rove is, of course, one of very many "unindigted co-conspiritors" in this case. And as I understand, Libby was not convicted on the basis of a conspiracy to defraud the public into war, but rather lying about part of the effort to discredit Valerie Plame and her husband, who knew better.

Jury : Libby the "Fall Guy" for Cheney

The jury is in and (righties like Howie will never agree) they have found Vice President Dick Cheney and Special Assistant to the President Carl Rove guilty of leaking the name of a covert CIA agent -- Valerie Plame -- to the press.

The jurors who huddled around two pushed-together conference tables for 10 days, meticulously filling 34 pages of facts from the trial on a large flip chart, believed that Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff had been "pilloried" for a CIA leak that other top White House aides had committed along with him, according to one member of the panel.

"We're not saying that we didn't think Mr. Libby was guilty of the things we found him guilty of," said the juror, Denis Collins. "But it seemed like he was . . . the fall guy."

You don't say? Wow. What a shock that piece of news is. The fall guy, though, for whom?

During the jury's days of methodical deliberations, "it was said a number of times, 'What are we doing with this guy here?' " Collins told reporters on the steps outside the federal courthouse. "Where's Rove, where's -- you know, where are these other guys?" Collins said, referring to Karl Rove, Bush's top political adviser, and Richard L. Armitage, a former deputy chief of staff who testimony showed had been the first person to leak Plame's name.

Moreover, Collins said, jurors believed that Libby had been carrying out a directive by his immediate boss, Cheney, to "go out and talk to reporters" to tarnish Wilson's reputation. But Collins said jurors stopped short of discussing whether the vice president specifically urged Libby to tell journalists about Plame's CIA job.

In The Dark is the work of Peter K. Fallon, Ph.D. of Chicago, and Assistant Professor of Journalism at Roosevelt University. As 23 year veteran of the television industry, 18 years with NBC News' "Today" program, I think we can stipulate that he knows a news story when he sees one - even if it's one largely untold.

Of course, this "fall guy" should fall. But this must be the start, not the finish.

Let us not forget that in outing Plame, an entire intelligence network dealing directly with the proliferation of atomic weaponry and technology, reputedly with good contacts in Iran, Iraq and Pakistan was blown. The proper outcome for such a willful compromise of vital national security assets is a lifetime making little ones out of big ones at Levenworth. Not to put too fine a point on it, such an act is, quite literally, unambiguously treason; in furtherance of other acts which are in themselves frauds upon the American People, Contempt of Congress, conspiracy to defraud the American people by means of an illegal war and perhaps more. The illegal wire-tapping alone is more than sufficient grounds for George Bush to be removed from office. In defending it publicly, George Bush, in the words of former Watergate celeb, John Dean, became "the first President to publicly admit to an impeachable offense."

Indeed, there are so many reasons why impeachment should be Job One, it's difficult to comprehend why the process is not already underway.

I'm particularly baffled as to why Nancy Pelosi is saying "impeachment is off the table," especially in the light of a flood of individual petitions and now state resolutions. Perhaps it was part of her political calculation to not appear too eager to become interim President - but at this point, it's starting to look more like she is shirking her plain duty.

Impeach! Or be faced with the looming suspicion that powerful Democrats have as much to hide in these matters as powerful Republicans.

And, yes, I'm talking to you, Senator Reid.

tag: Nevada Politics, Nevada Blogs, Impeach the President, High Crimes and Misdemenors, Nevada Caucus, Sen. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney, Valerie Plame, Downing Street Memo, Karl Rove

Corruption, Cronyism and Backroom Deals?

Democracy, it seems, has never fully penetrated into Nevada; there are, of course, great shows of democracy on issues that, after careful demographic and political research - such as various anti-gay, anti-smoking and other such vital issues of public concern - are seen to be a lock. But when it comes down to important political decision making that will affect and outrage every single registered Democrat in Nevada and give Faux News a chance to appear like a legitimate, impartial news source, a decision that obviously would upset and outrage a good 75% of the membership, that decision is made in private, by one unidentified party official and a Fox Network rep. And if there weren't "other valuable considerations" involved - hell, it would hardly be Nevada.

In Nevada, democracy only occurs when it will produce the "right result."

Now, you might well ask, "Where does Harry Ried stand on this matter?" That's a damn good question. Nevada Democratic activist Matt Stoller is one of them

Tom Collins, who is the Chair of the Party, apparently does not think that Fox News's partisan agenda is enough to warrant a reexamination of the debate arrangement, or even a real conversation about how the party handles the Presidential contest. In fact, it's impossible to find out who made the decision to let Fox News host the debate. As Michael Zahara said:

Regrettably, no one is owning up to this mistake and by all appearances,it was FOX that came with their Trojan Horse to those who made this decision. We simply don't know what the truth is at this point, and likely never will.

I'm less concerned with who is responsible and more interested in immediately relieving FOXNEWS of their participation in our partisan event and protecting our candidates and Caucus...

As I said before, none of us on the Executive Board of the NSDP, or the other states were in the loop on this. The outgoing Chair may have felt that he had the authority to act unilaterally, but many of us believe he should have consulted us. Trust that this decision very likely wouldn't have passed a vote of our E-Board, and would not have garnered the support of our State Central Committee here in Nevada.

What is needed right now in Nevada is the kind of leadership shown by Democrats like Michael Zahara. Senator Reid, the most powerful official in Nevada and a key leader in the national Democratic Party, is either part of these decisions or could substantively accommodate our legitimate concerns. At this point, he's simply being silent and evasive, just like the Nevada Democratic Party (this despite Fox News's constant and baseless attacks on his patriotism and character).

Please call Reid's offices and ask him to not legitimize Fox News as a neutral news outlet. If you are not in Nevada, use this number: 202-224-3542 / Fax: 202-224-7327

If you live in Nevada, use this number, which is restricted to 775 and 702 area codes: 1-866-SEN-REID (736-7343)

It's time to let Senator Reid know that we want him to act like a good Democrat and ensure that the candidate forum in August treats the Democratic Party and our Democratic leaders vying for the Presidency with the respect that they deserve. Treating Fox News as a neutral news outlet by letting them solely host this debate does not do that.

Screw the left and the right - let's get REAL.

Coyote Angry: One Nevada Dimwit's Point of View

We (as in the democratic party) just don't get it. We're so wrapped up in party politics and being on the "right side" of every itty-bitty issue that comes up so as to remain in good standing with the cool kids that we completely forget who it was we were supposed to want to represent. Let me remind you. It was regular people. Not party hacks, not wanna-be blogging mega-stars, not just the all-important and ever snarky Las Vegas pundits and definitely not the ultra-rich and uber-cool folks in Pacific Palisades who do not give a rats ass about Nevadans even on a good day.

A big amen chorus to that - and let's send that out to the Republicans, Libertarians and Greens too. SCREW your ideology! Take those knee-jerk special interest "litmus test" issues off the table. All politics are local, so let us not beat folks up for serving their constituents first and their party second. Most importantly, let us get back to basic, bread-and-butter politics. Tell me what's in it for me, that I should vote for you.



I do care about a woman's right to choose. But that concern is overridden by MY right to choose what is important to me.

I don't happen to be a womb-bearing American, so I'm not even sure I have a right to a vote on this one, assuming one ever comes up. But I've been listening to these arguments since Roe v. Wade and they have not changed a whit on either side; which tells me one thing for sure. Whatever is being argued about, it ain't the issues either side is apparently arguing.

Since that's clearly the case, either talk about what you are really trying to achieve, or shut UP already. The way forward here is less doctrine, more positive and practical outcomes to individual Americans, WHATEVER their political beliefs.

You want universal access to family planning - good idea. YOU want (ideally) no abortions, because Abortion is Bad. I have a hard time arguing that an abortion is anything other than a "least worst" outcome, so I'm all for doing everything possible to provide superior choices to abortion and ideally, no need to consider that final choice at all.

And if the Abortion Debate were actually about abortion, instead of an argument as to who gets to commit an act of social engineering upon which class of despised persons, the debate would have ended at that point of commonality.

I think that this issue illustrates the ethic I wish to speak of better than any other. Good governments exist to expand choices, opportunities and liberties. Bad ones exist to restrict options, compel obedience and restrict liberties.

If the only options presented are to change who is oppressed every four to eight years, any actual liberty, any "right to choose" OR "right to life" is conditional and therefore a despicable illusion.

If this current government were a restaurant, it would have only one menu option - the "Family Values Meal," it would cost three hundred bucks, and it would be peanut based, because "average Americans" aren't allergic to peanuts. (The price of your meal would cover the complementary epinephrine injections to those who might request them.)

We have had far too much of our economy, our personal freedoms and our individual dignity sacrificed at the altar of ideology, despite the constant failure of that ideology to produce anything resembling the results it predicts. And we have to be very sure that we do not replace one set of ideologues with another, equally clueless set of beltway commandos.

I'm a Libertarian, but I'm a realist first. We have governments because we cannot do without them, they do things that cannot be done efficiently or fairly by any other means.

This is not to say that our current government IS efficient, fair, or does anything like what it should be doing as well as it should. It isn't. But then, that's what elections are all about.

I believe that if there is to be a government, it ought to do something useful and beneficial for the people it taxes and governs. I hardly think that to be a controversial idea, either. I've spent a lifetime putting up with being treated disrespectfully by governments, kept waiting in line, being judged on my "worthiness" for benefits, access or even consideration. I have learned - as has every other American - that the less you have to interact with government, the better off you will be.

And yet we pay for the privilege of this system of indignity.

Do you think it's reasonable that you or I have a harder time getting meaningful access to my government than, say, Paris Hilton? For that matter, do you think it reasonable that ANY elected official or functionary realistically has to give such a vapid twit priority over actual tax-payers? Does it seem to you like that's a good use of their expensive time on your dime?

But I'm not saying she should not be heard. I'm saying we all deserve the same respectful consideration as taxpayers that she, as a rich twit with the financial capacity to make some officials life hell, gets because they cannot afford to piss on her Pradas.

I passionately believe that the government that governs least governs best, but there are people and groups, cultures and subcultures, marketplaces and crossroads that need to be lightly, fairly and evenhandedly governed.

Let's not confuse that with "administered" or even "policed." Those might be the means, but they aren't the ends, and a lot of folks confuse the two.

Don't.

There are lots of ways to govern situations that do not depend on saying no and backing that up with force and compulsion. Those should be tools kept in the "sharps" drawer for special occasions.

The best way to govern is to concentrate on outcomes, and then consider the best way - here and now, in this particular community - to get there. That means increasing options, not restricting them. It means putting decision making power in the hands of the consumer of services as much as possible, and if not possible, as close to them, physically and hierarchically as possible.

As I write, I'm listening to re-runs of the Carson City Speachification on CNN and everyone I've heard has had good things to say. Of course, after years of listening to Clinton, Gore, Bush and Kerry, Tickle me Elmo would be a relief. It was nice to see some people throwing down and using words like "wrong" and "mistake" and "morality" and suchlike.

But I'm yet to be convinced that these are more than words.

Everyone there wanted out of Iraq. But few spoke about "Then what?"

But they are all on point about energy independence, universal health care, un-assing from Baghdad, at the very least and fixing education so that it prepares kids to work in the 21st century instead of the 19th.

This seems like a plan and about all I could expect in a few minutes, but I expect specifics in the next couple weeks, although Joe Biden gave us some good stuff on Iraq and education.

I missed Obama's bit, and I'm disappointed at that. I am convinced of two things; I will not be supporting Hillary Clinton or Dennis Kuchinich. One other candidate - and I misremember which - made a very serious point; the next president will have ZERO margin for error and I think both are predisposed to make some serious, ideological mistakes and diplomatic gaffes. I don't think Clinton realizes that this is not just more politics as usual - and more importantly, I think she's needed more in the Senate, and can do more there better and longer than she could as a highly controversial President.

Kucinich - well, he came across as a smug jackass; I found myself offended by his "no strings" stunting, because, well, he DOES have strings. And any politician who forgets he's beholden to them what brought him to the party ain't the sort of person who's got the judgment to be president.

Besides, it would be a waste of a perfectly good rabble-rousing ringtailed sumbitch. I want him in a position where he can kick ass, take names and not worry about being Mr. Popularity. I think he's my choice for Energy Czar, because I think he's probably not as vital to the senate as Sen. Clinton. On the other hand, he's a committee chair in the process of kicking ass and taking names, so maybe I should rethink that thought.

But it's not just the big names that are interesting. It's the small candidates that bring some of the more interesting ideas to the party. For instance, I was a little stunned when hard-line Liberal and dark horse candidate Mike Gravel came out with a proposal to eliminate the IRS and replace the IRS with a sales tax and a "prebate" covering the necessities of life.

It's not a bad idea, actually, and it's hardly original - but it's just so not socialist; it's a minarchist solution - if you grant that there is a need for social spending and non-Straussian views of poverty and welfare.

I happen to feel that's painfully obvious. But solution that just happens, with no ear-flappers or administrivia involved? No review committees? No preferences? No paperwork? Where's the socialism?

He's also an advocate of Direct Democracy. I'm not sure what I think of this yet - I need to read it instead of just skimming but while the man IS a flaming liberal and gloriously unapologetic about it, he's not a moonbat. Again, not presidential timber - too old, and we need two terms for sure. But definitely worth thinking of as cabinet material. And I'm starting to change my mind about this two year-long election cycle, because I'm sure glad I tripped over him.

Anyway, while I cringe at the idea of two years of unabated politics, THIS time, we have a LOT of thinking aloud to do as a nation and a people. I'm starting to thing that in these exceptional circumstances, two years is barely enough, and I suppose I must resign myself to doing my duty as a citizen. Indeed, so long as a single American is at risk due to the irresponsible choice of this as yet unimpeached president, I can do no less.

tag: Iraq War, universal health care, education policy, energy policy, morality, ethics, foreign policy, democratic presidential candidates, Nevada Caucus