Republican Ship Taking On Water, Could Be the Titanic in November

I have to believe when push comes to shove and the voters realize the securty of this nation and its people is astake they will pull the Republican lever , overwhelmingly!!!

Sure, Bush is doing such a GREAT JOB.

1. Iraq in undeclared civil war, the official announcement due out shortly after the election.

2. Iran on verge of having NUKES, and Bush and company seem to be incapble of doing anything about it.

3. North Korea has TESTED A NUKE.

4. Afghanistan about to fall back under Taliban Rule.

5. Our children being preyed upon by Republican Congressman while other Republicans ran cover for him.

6. America's middle class falling into poverty in record numbers because Republicans prefer CHEAP WAGES to closing our Southern Border and enforcing our laws.

Senator Jeffords has requested that his former party pull an ad they are running which implies that he supports Rainville the Republican Candidate to take the Representative Seat which is being vacated by Bernie Sanders who is seeking elevation to the Senate in running for the seat being vacated by Jeffords who is retiring. When the GOP refused, Jeffords openly endorsed Welch and Sanders. But I am afraid that much can happen in the nation at large to change the tide -- like big oil manipulating the price of gas temporarily before the election.

George....I have no doubt that BIG OIL has deliberately MANIPULATED the price of oil until after the election. Just like they approved the fence, but now odds on favorite says it is not REALLY going to be build, it was just a means to appease the voters until after the election when they will stuff AMNESTY down our throats.

I agree with Porgie all the way.

Thank you Adele

Porgie you are so right about the performance or lack thereof to date of republicans. I want to see the arrogant bastards go down so bad until I remember that If the democrats take both houses of congress they will immediately pass the amnesty and open borders bill that Bush wants. No way I can vote for any democrat until we get some meaningful legislation on securing our borders and enforcing our immigration laws especially those against employers who hire illegal aliens.

Alan....think of this...if the Republicans REALLY WANTED law enforcement and border security, they control both the house, and the Senate and the White House....WHERE IS IT?

They have been SCAMMING US.

rated 10.
alan, bush made an end run. bush has been putting together a north american union with mexico and canada where there will not be any borders. the republicans haven't done anything. bush made congress a soapbox and that's all. everything's run by executive orders and signing statements. and this is our republicans. i don't know that the democrats could have done worse.

immigration reform is a sham. another lie. we're not gonna get it. we're gonna get the north american union. and i don't know how this fits in with homeland security. i believed the republicans and hoped. the politicians sold us to the highest bidder.

yeah, a republican president sent troops to afghanistan and iraq but left us defenseless at home.

Trouble.....nail right on the HEAD. The North American Union will eliminate America as we know it....further, it will have it's own president, and smart money says Bush has already made a deal to see himself as that first President, and the NAU's laws will SUPERCEDE the United States of America's laws.

Porgie - Ya have to wonder what the Republicans will do if they get the Christian Evangelicals against them...being that's what got Bush in office in the first place...did anyone not read the article about his connection with them and his decision...I wish I could remember where I read it...but at the beginning of the run for President the first time, There was a very disturbing article written about the possiblilty of his running on the Republican ticket and why they selected him. In indicated at one part, that when Bush realized with just the number of Christian Voters he could win...he went for it...having it "in the bag" so to speak, took a lot of the sweat and strain out of campaigning..

I do hope those same Christians, take a second look at what they got for what the thought they were going to get.....

Donna...the SAD thing, is that most Christians will sell their souls if they can stop Gay Marriage, and have a shot at the Supreme Court over turning Roe vs Wade. If they ever stopped trying to legistlate their own morality and woke up to the reality of the monster they put in office, you would see the Republican Party collapse overnight.

The VALUES PARTY: Duke Cunningham, Robert Ney, Tom DeLay, Mark Foley and the list goes on.

Thanks Dangers....going to be interested to see what happens on Thursday when they open up the Ethics Committee investigations....though, have a feeling that the Republicans are going to do everything they can to have NO FINDINGS until after the elections. Meanwhile, the basic plan now seems to have Republican Congressman/women blame various members of their staff, have them resign, then a few months after it's all DIED DOWN, rehire them. The voters should not buy into this, and we can only hope that the voters have enough SENSE to send Hastert, Shimkus, Alexander, Reynolds and Boehner packing.....sorry, but you do not ASSUME someone else will take care of something when the safety of children is at stake.

Hey, here in Kansas, the reddest of the red states, Jim Ryan had to call in Cheney to make a fundraiser because even though he has a major funding advantage already, he wants to keep running his negative ads. He's nervous. I just hope he needs to be. Solid Gold Christian Right Bush toadie. Every time I write the guy about something he sends me back a letter telling me thanks for expressing my opinion, but get lost (basically). And then he signs it God Bless. I wrote him back a while back and taught him a few new words, but the end was Don't you god bless me you neocon lying bush sucking pig. Now he puts a ? after the god bless when he answers. Makes me feel much better. LOL

This sounds like 2004 all over again. What was it like to wake up on Nov 5 and still have my man Pres. Bush in power? That must have been sweet. Hey - whatever happen to Karl Rove being frog marched? Or Bush being impeached? Or Rumsfeld resigning? You guys keep wishing for things that never happen. It's fun to watch though. Get ready for a big let down in Nov.

You might be right, but then you might be wrong. If you're wrong, you'll see your memory refreshed in short order, I'd imagine, Donny boy

" I have to believe when push comes to shove and the voters realize the securty of this nation and its people is astake they will pull the Republican lever , overwhelmingly!!!"

Only if they dont' care about national security. The GOP has done NOTHING with regard to it in the five years since 9/11. It's hard to imagine them learning their lesson after November, unless they're given a pink slip and time to ponder their mistakes.





This sounds like 2004 all over again. What was it like to wake up on Nov 5 and still have my man Pres. Bush in power? That must have been sweet. Hey - whatever happen to Karl Rove being frog marched? Or Bush being impeached? Or Rumsfeld resigning? You guys keep wishing for things that never happen. It's fun to watch though. Get ready for a big let down in Nov."

Records prove that the OH vote was stolen, so let's not talk about the '04 election as being a GOP victory, ok? Let's talk about the fraud and corruption that handed yet another stolen election to the child pretendident who was NEVER elected.

As for Rove being frog marched, the Plamegate investigation is not yet completed, the civil suit hasn't even begun, and he's got yet another massive scandal bearing down on him at the moment (Abramhoff). I wouldn't hold your breath quite yet. "your boy" might be able to provide him with a pardon before his administration crumbles completely to dust.





"Or Rumsfeld resigning?"

Only in a dream. "Your boy" is literally obsessed with surrounding himself with corrupt failure. Expect to see "Your man" Rummy continue murdering US soldiers until "your boy" is finally shackled and led to jail.






"You guys keep wishing for things that never happen. "

The American public is wide awake now, and your side is looking like a cheap, fat whore through a cheap whiskey hangover.





"It's fun to watch though. "

yes, it is, isn't it? I can't help but love watching everything that I've said over the past 6 years be proven true before my eyes. Gives me a real sense of pride.






"Get ready for a big let down in Nov."

Based upon more mythical wingnut fantasies, I assume? The polls tell a quite different story than you, for some odd reason.

Ron W. ...so if you cannot defend your positions with logical debate, you resort to your primary tactic of name calling...I'm really surprised you even got a response from Ryan.

Thomas W.,
The man rejects all opposing positions, from anyone about anything. Republican, Democrat, whatever. Do you have any knowledge of Ryan? Do you have any knowledge of anything about Kansas politics and politicians? I'm a constituent, I even voted for him, there is no logical debate with this guy, he rejects your opinion out of hand, and he has brushed me off, sometimes rather rudely, about everything I have ever written to him about. And I've written to him plenty. I'll take care of my relationships with my elected representatives, thank you very much, dear Thomas, and you take care of sucking up and hero worshipping yours, OK ?

Thomas W.,
Oh, and God Bless?

Bah-bye Grand old Pedophiles!

Adieu self righteous hypocrites!

Bon debarras thieves and liars!

Sorry, just practicing for November.

Clark, the polls were telling us Kerry was going to win as well. The truth is, Bush is rising in the Polls. This is what he does before every election. He let's his opponents have their say, then he comes on strong just before the election. And you need to realize that the Republican's have more money to spend than dems. We also pretty much own the radio waves, and have an equal footing on the internet. Also, I know the NK issue is not a good thing in any way, but the truth is it will benefit Republicans - not Dems. Simply, the Dems are still not trusted on security issues (for good reason, but that's another blog).

Anywho, you can hoot and hollar all you want - but it ain't gonna change a thing. Dems have an uphill battle - at best they will get the house and America's will get a taste of Nancy Pelosi as majority leader - and that will surely not work very well for 2008.

Ron...have you ever asked him "why" he rejects you opinion out of hand? I routinely contact my representatives, usually to take issue with a position they have taken, and each and every time I have received a timely and informative response. Moreover, on complicated issues, they have even called me to discuss the pros and cons at length. I may not sway their position, but at least I get a rational answer.

Uhhh...back to Porky's article, if you don't mind.

Yes, it certainly will be a tight race. Probably tight enough for you pussies to continue crying "stolen election." You need to hire some new writers...oh yeah, I forgot...you ARE writers.

We can't really know how the elections will turn out until they turn out. Polls mean very little. Give me any result you want, and I'll get you that result. The Republicans WILL lose some seats; maybe even enough to lose control of one of the branches. Not to worry. As Keith suggested, when it gets down to "lever time," a majority of Americans will have the security of the United States in mind. Thank goodness.

Thomas W.,
Yes, he tells me why, and in each case he has almost word for word repeated the White house position on everything. Sometimes he gets rather arrogant about it, as well. I doubt there is one Bush favored bill he voted no on. A phone call from Ryan? You've got to be joking. I've never heard of him ever doing anything like that to anyone who wasn't a major contributor to his campaign. He got in for two reasons. He was a Kansas hero in his college years for his 4 minute miles, and two, he was a republican, in a republican state, and no one knew his position on much. I don't think he's pleased the Farmers, or anyone who makes less than 200,000 dollars a year here, but if I had to guess, he'll squeak in again, just because there are a lot of straight Republican ticket voters here, and he has been able to run some very negative ads and saturate the market with them, because he's gotten money from big oil, big drug, and many other corporations.

I almost look forward to Nancy Pelosi as house leader. She will have no power because she will have to get through the Senate with a veto proof majority. Ain't gonna happen, but she sure as hell will show the true colors of the progressive Dems - and American's are not going to like what they see. Trust me - she scares most people, even moderate dems.

" Clark, the polls were telling us Kerry was going to win as well."

As he did. The Ohio vote was stolen. Exit polls don't lie.





"The truth is, Bush is rising in the Polls."

The REAL truth is, he just sunk to an all-time low of 33%. Keep dreaming, though.





"This is what he does before every election."

He's sinking like a rock, bubble man. Wake up.





"He let's his opponents have their say, then he comes on strong just before the election."

Brilliant strategy to let himself get pummelled to 33%. Who would ever guess this to be his actual strategy? He's a genius.





"And you need to realize that the Republican's have more money to spend than dems."

AND, they own the companies that "count" the votes. Lucky us.





"We also pretty much own the radio waves"

Darn "liberal media," huh?





"and have an equal footing on the internet."

Not even close. Liberals clobber this shit out of wingnuts online. Peddle this trash elsewhere. It ain't flying here.




"Also, I know the NK issue is not a good thing in any way, but the truth is it will benefit Republicans - not Dems."

Because it proves that republicans are incapable of providing national security? That helps republicans how, exactly?





"Simply, the Dems are still not trusted on security issues (for good reason, but that's another blog)."

Sorry, but the polls show otherwise. Republicans are no longer trusted on national security, or any other issue. Time to wakey wakey.





"Dems have an uphill battle - at best they will get the house"

The senate is fully in play as we speak, and the longer Hastert stays in charge of the house, the more seats dems are expected to gain there. Up to 50.





"America's will get a taste of Nancy Pelosi as majority leader - and that will surely not work very well for 2008."

Somehow, I can't imagine Ms. Pelosi revolting the American public anywhere near as completely as "fit, trim, attractive, honest, worthy" Denny.






"Probably tight enough for you pussies to continue crying "stolen election." "

Nice to know that you care so deeply about the integrity of the very soul of democracy. Is it any wonder why the American public is so sick of you people?





"We can't really know how the elections will turn out until they turn out."

Especially when DIEBOLD and ES&S are "counting" the votes behind locked doors.





"Polls mean very little. "

"EXCEPT when they favor republicans." You forgot that part.





"Give me any result you want, and I'll get you that result. "

That crack don't smoke itself, do it?





The Republicans WILL lose some seats; maybe even enough to lose control of one of the branches."

I thought polls didn't mean anything?





"Not to worry. As Keith suggested, when it gets down to "lever time," a majority of Americans will have the security of the United States in mind. Thank goodness."

Ok, so polls don't matter, which means, supposedly, that the GOP will win out, but then you say that they'll enough to possibly lose a house, then you say that when it comes to "lever time," they'll win. Ok. You sound really rational AND credible. You've convinced me.

Btw, what specifically has the GOP done with regard to national security? Is it the fact that they've ignored the recommendations of the 9/11 commission that suggests to you that they're "better" at national security, or is it the recent NIE report that proves that they've actually made us LESS safe that "convinces" you that they're "better" at it? Exactly what parallel universe are you gulping Kool-Aid in, in order to actually believe that your failed GOP is "better" at doing ANYTHING, except fraud, corruption, pedophilia, and rampant cronyism?

" I almost look forward to Nancy Pelosi as house leader."

So is most of America. Her in charge of the house means that John Conyers is in charge of the house judiciary committee, where articles of impeachment will be initially drawn. Can't WAIT to see that barracuda get subpeona power!






"Ain't gonna happen, but she sure as hell will show the true colors of the progressive Dems - and American's are not going to like what they see. "

As if they like what they've seen in YOUR party of corruption and filth.





"Trust me - she scares most people, even moderate dems"

Sounds to me like you don't know jack shit about her.

Clark, you lack logic. We disagree with your take on the polls but that doesn't mean that we don't acknowledge that it is possible that we lose a branch. I said Bush is UP in the polls but I never said he is over 50%. See the logic Clark? Calm down and think clearly. Put down the bong and let the smoke clear.

And your rant on the stolen election is funny. You think we are evil because you think we 'approve' a stolen election. But you are wrong! Wake up. We think it's funny because we did NOT steal the election, rather you just think we did cuz you can't believe that your loser candidate, Kerry, was rejected. Step away from the pipe, re-read to make sure understand exactly what I said here. We conservatives get GIDDY when we hear you say that we stole the election... it's the tin foil hat syndrome (which you wear so well).

Don Hall,
Well if you like hearing it, here you go, bucko. Exit polls and actual tallys at the end of the election in Ohio, when statistically evaluated, show an impossible variance that indicates election fraud. Statisticians at one university that evaluated the data, said that the variance CONFIRMED that there WAS fraud. The elections in the Ukraine, that we asked be recounted, no, demanded be recounted, showed less variance than the vote in Ohio. If the UN had been monitoring our election they would have invalidated it for fraud, and you can check that out for yourself. Now, is my tinfoil hat on straight? Good, but he ain't my president, you can have him.

Your tin foil hat may be a little tight, but it is on straight.

Those who hold the opinion that 2004 Ohio was stolen also just happen to be left wing wackos. Coincky dink? I don't think so. It's a settled issue, Bush won. Thus, he is your President.

Go porgie! it's the truth. God is always good! and we have all seen what these people hijacking the Christian name with this insanity of saying we oppose abortion and gay marriage! Then they proceed to ignore or even go against the rest of Christ's teachings. They have two things in common!. they hijacked the name Christian as being non-denominational. If you are non-denominational, there's a good chance it's not true christian. fundamentalist wacko maybe, but propbably not Christian. and @. They have hijacked the republican party in much the smae way by fooling people into backing them by saying things "we are the culture of life, the family values people, Bam you got 80%of America behind you .While obviouly the culture of death and corruption. Then they turn the table and really do you in, leaving you betrayed, broke and decieved!

Don Hall,
No, you get the privilege of being responsible for one of the most corrupt, lying, Cheney suckling, Rumsfeld rimming presidents of all time, all to yourself, I insist. And as for left wing whacko, I'd say you rate right wing wingnut pretty well, yourself. He's YOUR president, he's MY future defendant. Give us one house, and that will be made more than abundantly clear. What happened to your picture of the retarded man, by the way? I thought it kind of you to post a picture of the handicapped. It was your only endearing trait.

nelson... you need to see a doctor about your paranoia.

Clark(the biggest asshole I've ever read) Kent-

My, you ARE intelligent.

I never had a retarded pic...you have me confused with someone else. (seriously, not lying).

I consider myself moderate. Bush's policies have little to do with a Christian coalition. Bush has had to be a 911 President, so you are wrong again.

nelson, how refreshing to hear some serious truth, I don't doubt many sleepy eyed Xtians are wondering what the hell they got into with this crowd. Abortion and homophobia may have brought them into the tent, but the show just ain't what it was cracked up to be.

Don Hall,
OK, you're not the retarded guy, you just have the same name and sound like him. The rest stands. Right wing doesn't mean right wing Christian, it means right wing- conservative- so far right you're standing in the Atlantic. How old are you, if you don't know that? And let me tell you, someone that spouts off like you do, is right wing, you never saw moderate on your best day, wingnut. 911 president? That's a laugh, he's the corporate give away president if anything. Go back and study politics enough you know what right wing means, then come back, better yet, don't.

Connecticut is very close on actually a few races. Nancy Johnson, who has been in there for 24 years, was once winning huge majorities, is now close. 2 other seats could change parties, one in the senate

I have to wonder why all the hyperbole, fabrication,exageration,innuendo and outright lies that I see spewed by those on this blog that lean to the left.
Look at Clark Kent as a good example, this cellar dwelling tidy whity wearing real life comic book man lives in his momma's cellar and spouts crazy vitriol evertime someone puts up a coherant sane response to a post.
Oh did I name call:>) Just poking some at someone who needs to one get a sense of humor along with a life, my God anybody who rants incoherantly like a lunatic like he does is one step away from going postal. Oops, maybe he is a postman, that would explain a lot.

*chortle chortle guffaw guffaw* We'd be lost without Porgie, the master of the stick, eternally stirring the pot. Where oh where would all of us crazy right wing bush lovers go if we didn't have Porgie posts to spew our anger and hatred???

No matter how the elections in 06 turn out, very little will change. Bush hasn't had to veto any legislation for a reason, and that reason could be gone in November.

So what?

Does anyone really believe the democrats will have a majority in both houses? Does anyone really believe the democrats will be successful in impeaching the president? Does anyone really believe the nation will prosper with the repeal (and retroactive enforcement) of the Bush's tax cuts? Does anyone really believe we'll all be safer when the democrats repeal the Patriot Act, and end the NSA wiretapping program?

I couldn't care less if the electorate becomes "angry" or "frustrated" with the republicans and votes them out of office, because I understand it will pass and the democrats being democrats will soon lose favor and the republicans will be right back in power.

Having said that, I do believe the prognosticators of the world would be well served to put a better shine on their crystal balls.

Kieth Kalish,
When you said "coherent sane response" who were you speaking of? Certainly you weren't trying to say your responses resemble any of the three words presented there, were you? Look at your very first sentence, you ask why, but then seem to turn it into a declaration, with no ?, and I have to wonder how you learned what type of underwear Clark wears, have you been lurking outside his cellar window, peeking, again? And the rest of the post is just incoherent. One usually denotes you have a two, but you don't. So by my math, one + zero = a real zero, you.

Whacko jJacko is back and passing out turbs disquised as Godiva Chocolates.....

NEWSFLASH.....if the Democrats get elected, they are not going to waste time impeaching President Bush...instead, we will spend the time between November and the Presidential Election actually DOING SOMETHING for the people, and showing we are deserving of their trust. We'll spend our time bringing HONOR back to a disgraced and dishonest Congress that fell into a fetid swamp under De Lay and Hastert's nefarious leadership.

The Democrats have NEVER wanted to end the NSA spying, they have wanted it done LEGALLY, suggested for over a year that President Bush could ask that the law be rewritten to give the administration what it was they needed...Bush did not want to do this. The Patriot Act....they want the act to work, while at the same time PRESERVING our rights and freedoms...what a RADICAL CONCEPT.

As to a majority in BOTH houses....right now, smart money says the House goes to the Democrats, and that the Senate is a coin flip, though Democrats are supposed to win seats, which in turn will take away almost all chances of Cheney again getting to cast the deciding vote, something he has done seven times on crucial votes that went the WRONG WAY.

Is that Mark Pholey, or Phooey? *G*

if the Democrats get elected, they are not going to waste time impeaching President Bush

Oh really??? I think you'd better check again, who's on the record on this subject and who isn't, and what they've said.

The Democrats have NEVER wanted to end the NSA spying, they have wanted it done LEGALLY

It is being done legally, and the democrat members of the Intelligence Committee knows it because they have been brief on it's activities since the day the program was started. It is also absurd to suggest the Patriot act in any way diminishes our civil liberties.

Porgie often believes he has the "smart" money, or the "smart" this or the "smart" that, because Porgie believes he is so "smart" to begin with I suppose. Apparently he's able to tell the future too, he's just so darned amazing.

jJack....who has or does not have the smart money will tell in November. Myself...I already have my ticket for a Democratic Celbration Party here in New York.

jJack Midknight,
Your assessment of the NSA wiretap being legal goes against almost all legal expert judgements. FISA was set up for just this reason, and he chose to go around the FISA courts. The reason it hasn't been investigated is one man, Roberts, head of the intelligence committee in the Senate. In addition to stonewalling this issue, he has stonewalled the second half of the intelligence report on the Iraq war, and what lead up to it, for over two years now. Should the unthinkable happen, and the Senate go to the Dems, just how illegal it is will not be an issue. A lot of things won't be an issue anymore. Impeachment, I don't know, but a lot more information on the intricate hidden issues will be made available, I'm in no doubt of that. If you want more info on Roberts and his stonewalling tendencies, here's a link

link: http://thinkprogress.org/roberts-coverup/

Of course you probably think secrecy is a good thing........

jJack Midknight.,
As far as the patriot act, no it takes away none of your freedoms, unless you value privacy as one of them. Other than that, a regular law enforcement smorgasbord of your freedoms can be taken away, just by accusing you of supporting terror. They can arrest and take away your rights, without proving it, mind you, just calling you a terrorist does that. It has, since the day it was passed, been used for non terrorist related criminal cases, by the way, something it was never supposed to extend to. Give a cop a law, and he'll distort it to his advantage. That's OK, unless it's you he has the advantage over, isn't it?

The immigration issue is not necessarily a partisan issue. I don't anticipate that either party will do much of anything regarding the problem. Reason is: the Republicans are beholden to big business and industrial agriculture such as Tyson Foods, etc. Democrats are beholden to hispanic minorities. So the problem will not get resolved on a bi-partisan basis.

I see this all the time from liberals: Impeach Bush. This just proves how stupid you have to be to repeat that mantra. Think you crazy libs. Who would be president if you impeach Bush? Who succeeds Bush as President? Can anyone here say President Cheney? Hello. So go ahead, make my day. Impeach Bush and we'll can have his backup.

Don....stop showing your stupidity....

A) It is doubtful the Democrats would persue impeachment.

B) IF they did persue impeachment, it would not be JUST BUSH they'd go after.

Yes, it would be like a double barrel wedding, Cheney and Bush being shotgun wedded with the truth, at last. that's a picture. Neither could wear white though. I don't necessarily want to see either impeached, but I want all the sleazy secret dealings and sweet heart deals exposed, so people can see what we've seen for the last six years. That and to get the morally vacant torture and Geneva convention infractions abolished, and the constitutional protections made whole again.

Let me say something about all this. If Monica Lewinski said that Bill Clinton used a cigar as a sexual aide with her in the oval office area would she be lying?

Woooo.. blast from the past. Sorry about that. I don't see any reason to impeach Bush, let alone Bush and Cheney. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Don Hall,
There are many things that having control of both houses have made it possible to hide from the public, unless you pay very good attention. It has also been a fact that for some reason, maybe misplaced patriotism, the media has swept a lot under the rug. I am aware that most in our country have no idea of what I speak, but if a house is won in November, prepare to be amazed at what has been going on under your nose. Beyond that I don't have the time or inclination to explain it point by point, just remember it. Now, otherwise, I have never understood that. Wouldn't tobacco burn on the tender part of anatomy we are talking about here? It burns in your cheek until you get used to it. I can't imagine Monica liking that. Maybe he left it in the tube, you think?

Absolutely in the tube....

Cigar prophylactics. ROFL

I am probably a left of center independent who has voted for people from both parties in the past, but I can't imagine voting for any Republican in the near future.

Bush/Cheney and their lemmings in Congress have shown such abysmal judgement over the last six years, in Iraq and in foreign affairs in general, and such unbelievable arrogance in everything else, I have no confidence in any decisions they make.

Well stated Jock.

Golly gee wilikers Porgie And Jock, you've convinced me... to vote Republican.

New York, District 24
Open Seat: Democrats are taking a unique approach in this GOP-leaning district.

I prediict Raymond Meier (R) will win this. He's a much stronger, consistent candidate.

So Philip...are you saying if the Republicans bugger you long enough, you start to like it? Hmmmm.....maybe that explains why Republicans don't seem bothered by the Foley Scandal.

Perhaps a few of you could start a new group called the Ad Hominem Attack group.

The original article at the head of this thread (remember it?) was a informative and fascinating list of close races around the country. If you took the time to follow even a few of the links, you would have found that many of these races are too close to call at this time. Election night should be riveting like no mid-term election in recent memory.

It's hilarious how figures like Nancy Pelosi emerge as "boogeymen" in the thoughts of some. I recall, in a time prior to the Republicans taking the Senate, receiving mail from the Democratic Party that promoted as unthinkable the eventuality of Trent Lott becoming Senate Leader. Somehow we survived that particular result.

I sense a restlessness in the electorate. I don't know how it's going to come out. I just hope the darn voting machines work this time around.

Porkie go for BIG laugh...no get...

...now grab your shine-box and hit the bricks....

Republican's are upset over the Foley issue because he behaved inappropriately with a minor. We are satisfied to the extent that he resigned.

Dems are happy about the incident because they could care less about the young kids who were victims of Foleys actions, they are just so giddy that they have political ammo weeks before an election.

Why? Dems are naturally pervs, so this doesn't phase them, and they hunger power above all else. They will sink to the lowest levels to win. Republican's just want to win on merit.

Thank you.

Win on merit....yeah right.

OK, Don Hall, here is something else to be concerned about. Are OTHER pages at risk for sexual harrassment, by--as yet unidentified--pedophile members of Congress, or is there sufficient monitoring, and acceptance of responsibility, that reports--even incomplete or unconfirmed reports--will be followed up doggedly. Or will the first judgment go to keeping up appearances. This is not a partisan issue. No amount of convoluted reasoning or name-calling can make the issue go away. It's an embarrassment, and it's sad. There's no reason for anyone to rejoice over the damage to young lives.

We can all ABSOLUTELY agree that Foley is disgusting, puke-making, pathetic, etc....
QUESTION: Aren't liberals the ones who support homosexuality and all that comes with it? Ya know, pedophelia, bondage,gender-bending, gay marriage, etc.?

HHHHHHHmmmmmmmmmmmmm, seems okay for THEM........

Actually Mark, if you do some research, the Republicans are the party of choice for most homosexuals. It creates a problem for Republicans, as they bash them publically, and embrace them privately...at some point, the Republican Party will have to either A) change it's platform, or B) perge the party of their homosexual members.

No further research needed, Porkie. Lies like that won't fly, not on my show...

NO Philip, I just don't were Republican tinted lens like you do.

FISA was set up for just this reason

Hardly, and even if it was, Congress cannot legislate away INHERENT PRESIDENTIAL POWERS with a silly law. It was the same with the War Powers act, and no president every took that silly law seriously either.

In 1967, the Court decided Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347. Katz involved the warrantless interception of a conversation held by a criminal defendant in a phone booth. The Court held that the Fourth Amendment applies to such conversations, and that in an ordinary criminal prosecution (subject to many exceptions, as noted above) a warrant is required for wiretap information to be admissible in court. The Court specifically noted, however, that its decision did not apply to situations involving national security:

Whether safeguards other than prior authorization by a magistrate would satisfy the Fourth Amendment in a situation involving the national security is a question not presented by this case.
Five years later, the Court decided United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972). This case arose out of a criminal prosecution for conspiracy to destroy government property. (One of the defendants was charged with dynamiting a Michigan office of the C.I.A.) The Court's majority opinion framed the issue as follows:

[This case] involves the delicate question of the President's power, acting through the Attorney General, to authorize electronic surveillance in internal security matters without prior judicial approval.
[Emphasis added.] While acknowledging that American governments had conducted warrantless surveillance in internal security cases "for more than one-quarter of a century," the Court held such surveillance unconstitutional under the circumstances presented.

For the present purpose, the relevant portions of the opinion are those that distinguish the case before the Court from cases involving foreign intelligence gathering:

[T]he instant case requires no judgment on the scope of the President's surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country.
And again:

We emphasize, before concluding this opinion, the scope of our decision. As stated at the outset, this case involves only the domestic aspects of national security. We have not addressed, and express no opinion as to, the issues which may be involved with respect to activities of foreign powers or their agents.
It should be noted, too, that the Court did not hold that in domestic security cases, warrants are always required; it merely rejected the government's assertion of a blanket exemption for all such surveillance.

The third relevant Supreme Court case is Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004). Hamdi was an American citizen who was captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan and sued the Defense Department, claiming that his indefinite detention as an enemy combatant was unconstitutional. The Court upheld Hamdi's detention, while also ruling that he was entitled to a limited hearing regarding the facts of his detention. The government offered alternative theories in support of Hamdi's detention; the Court's plurality opinion describes them as follows:

The Government maintains that no explicit congressional authorization is required, because the Executive possesses plenary authority to detain pursuant to Article II of the Constitution. We do not reach the question whether Article II provides such authority, however, because we agree with the Government's alternative position, that Congress has in fact authorized Hamdi's detention through the AUMF [the post-September 11 Authorization for the Use of Military Force].
The Court noted that apprehending military combatants is a necessary incident of the use of military force:

We conclude that detention of individuals falling into the limited category we are considering, for the duration of the particular conflict in which they were captured, is so fundamental and accepted an incident to war as to be an exercise of the "necessary and appropriate force" Congress has authorized the President to use.
Thus, neither the language of the Constitution nor the Supreme Court's jurisprudence can justify a claim that the NSA program is illegal. While the Court has never specifically ruled on the issue, its decisions are entirely consistent with the administration's view that the President has the inherent constitutional authority to obtain foreign intelligence information through warrantless searches. We turn now to the decisions of the federal Courts of Appeal.



There's ample more CLICK HERE if you're interested, but I seriously doubt if you'd care to question your own assumptions too closely.

And please don't tell me the source is a blog, I know it's a blog, so what? The facts are the facts, and if you think you can refute the FACTS found on this blog, by all means, give it your best shot.

Alot of Democrats would love to impeach Bush and their grounds would be directly related to violation of the law and completely related to the oath he took with respect to the Constitution -- not his sex life (only the Republicans would decide that was an impeachable offense). But the truth is, the Democrats would not commence impeachment -- but if they did, I am sure that Cheney would go the way of Spiro Agnew a long time before Bush hit the mat.

George....Democrats could simply go after both Rumsfeld and Cheney and effectively neuter the President...once Cheney's hand was out of his ass, Bush's lip would not move.

Thanks, Philip!

jJack- 'nuff said!!!

I have to believe that a party that wants Homosexuals to have the right to lead Boy Scouts and chruch groups as a privilidge or constitutional right is, if not morally bankrupt, as close as you can get. Pelosi marched with the founder of NAMBLA (Harry Hay) in 91 with no promblem. Partial birth abortion is not an acceptable medical procedure in most peoples eyes. Taking children accross state lines for abortions or not notifying parents is not "looking out for the children". The dems liberal agenda is far from anything a Christian can in good consious will ever support. The redistribution of wealth is the long-term and rejected policy of the Dems.

The gays in Congress are being blackmailed by gay activists, not for being gay, but for not voting the gay-marriage agendas. Surprisingly, many gays find the Republican agenda much more palatable than the Dems. It is not about being gay.

Most get that.

Interesting Grateful. I have three sons who are Eagle Scouts, and one Life Scout. Have served on a Council Board, been trained in Cubscout and Varsity Scout Woodbadge, and have attended National Camp School to be certified as a Cubscout Day Camp Program Director and have served as such. I am, however, very concerned about the continued viability of the Scouting movement. Let me explain a few facts for you. When you are dealing with a Boy Scout Troop the sponsoring organization owns the Troop Charter -- because of that the sponsoring organization picks who is on the various committees who run the Troop, Pack, Post or Team. It also picks the Scoutmaster. The two most important entities with regards to Boy Scouts of America are the Roman Catholic Church which has the greatest number of registered Scouts, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormon Church) which has the greatest number of sponsored Scouting Units (Packs, Troops, etc.) There is no way that either of these organizations are going to ever knowingly appoint a Gay Scout leader -- just not going to happen. So what is all the fuss about with respect to Gay leaders and Scouts? The fuss is about attempts of those wielding power on the National Board to force sponsoring organizations not controlled by the above to adopt their position regarding Gay leaders. And the National Board won the battle in the Supreme Court. The problem is they won the battle, but they very well may lose the war that they started. Scouting as a result has lost key supporters such as Stephen Spielberrg. The Council were kind of doinng somersaults in exultation right up to the point when the various United Way committees started looking at their own Charters and realized that they at their donors insistence had provisions in them which prohibited the United Way from funding discriminatory organizations -- and so they could not provide funding to Council camps in Councils which had discriminatory policies. Given that a huge portion of the funding which keeps Scout Camps owned by Councils open, the demise of Scout Camps was almost certain. So a lot of Councils decided -- nuts to this and repealed the Supreme Court decision in their Councils. That saved the camps, but it was not the end of the matter. Judges both in State and Federal Courts are subject to a variety of ethical tenets -- one is that Judges are not allowed to be members of organizations which overtly engage in discrimination -- as a result in many states which take this kind of thing serious, Judges have been resigning from Scout troop leadership, Council Committees, etc. A significant loss to the Scouting movement not just of leadership, but as important role models. But that is not the end of the matter, Americas public schools play an important role in the Scouting movement by sponsoring Scouting units and providing a place for Packs and Troops to hold their meetings. Guess what? The schools now had the same problem as the United Way and the Judges -- so how do you solve that problem. The quick fix -- you adopt the misnamed "Patriot Act" and provide in it a Federal mandate, "Thou shalt not refuse to disallow Scouting units the right to meet in your facilities upon the pain of losing all of your federal funding." Now all of this would I suppose be fine and dandy, if this was about preserving the right of the owner of a Troop, Pack, Post, or Team from picking what type of role model they wanted in their Troop, Pack, Post or Team -- but it isn't, what it is, is about certain religious organizations trying to force their religious beliefs upon the owners of those Troops, Packs, Posts, or Teams who do not believe the same as they do. So Grateful -- think before you give voice to your bigotry.

oops, sorry sentence should have said "Thous shalt not refuse to allow Scouting Units the right to meet in your facilities upon the pan of losing all of your federal funding." Double negatives screw things up all the time.

jJack, the "inherent authority" argument won't hold water. The cases you cite are either obsolete or refer to overseas wiretaps. I've responded more fully in a different thread, in which I point out that you might take a look at Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, which discusses the "inherent authority" argument and presidential war powers at some length.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=343&invol=579

Philip P., when I referenced "overseas wiretaps," I meant wiretaps where both ends of the conversation were outside the US.

There is no question that the law has been broken. The administration has admitted that. The only question remaining is "Is it ok for the President to break the law if he, in his own opinion, decides that he "really needs" to break the law.

I happen to think the answer to that question is "no." The President is not above the law. It's really that simple.

Here's my rebuttal to jJack's "legal case," with apologies to those who saw it in the other thread.

1. The pre-1978 cases you cite are all obsolete. Funny that those cases found the referenced wiretaps ILLEGAL (although they are irrelevant to your case anyway).
2. Hamdi is irrelevant. I guess you just threw it in there so that you could mention Article II of the constitution, huh?
3. Truong Dinh Hung is no help to you either. The wiretaps referenced were pre-FISA. The cases cited in that brief refer to surveillance conducted entirely overseas, where no party is in the US.
4. The "inherent authority" defense was thrown out in court in August.

[M]y previous post... cit[ed] the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer case. ...[Here are a] couple of more quotes from Justice Jackson:

"No doctrine that the Court could promulgate would seem to me more sinister and alarming than that a President whose conduct of foreign affairs is so largely uncontrolled, and often even is unknown, can vastly enlarge his mastery over the internal affairs of the country by his own commitment of the Nation's armed forces to some foreign venture.... [T]he Constitution did not contemplate that the title Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy will constitute him also Commander in Chief of the country... and its inhabitants. He has no monopoly of 'war powers,' whatever they are.... [Congress] empowered to make rules for the 'Government and Regulation of land and naval Forces,' by which it may to some unknown extent impinge upon even command functions."

Here's the URL to the entire opinion. It's a good read:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=343&invol=579

Philip P. - It has to do with the separation of powers, and especially the limits of presidential power in wartime. The "fig leaf" that the administration wants to hide behind is that the exigencies of the War on Terrorism required it to ignore FISA. That the "go it alone" approach was ok, in their view, because the President's "inherent power" as Commander in Chief gave him that authority. If you take a look, especially at Justice Jackson's concurring opinion, you'll see that it clearly addresses this question.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 laid down procedures to be followed when wiretapping US persons. The government would request a SECRET warrant, which be obtained either before the tap, or even for a number of days AFTER tapping began. The FISA Court historically has granted virtually every warrant requested.

The criminal activity began the day the Bush administration began decided to ignore the requirements of FISA and tap whenever it was approved by--uh, themselves. Were they tapping you, me--who knows. We are asked to trust the Bush administration that it's just the "bad guys" whose 4th amendment rights are being violated. Frankly, as an American I'm appalled at this behavior. I don't accept that FISA requirements couldn't have been observed, that the legal route would be "helping terrorists," or that suggesting the President is not above the law is a "liberal plot" or that it "tears up America." Maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree on these issues.

Guess I win the argument. No reply signifies agreement. THanks.

A belated thanks for your comments, Philip P. Attention after the election will shift to new bills being introduced to reauthorize the NSA program. Stay tuned!