[Ninong]

The Republicans in charge in Florida are trying to get her to drop out. They didn't want her to run in the first place. The Bush Brothers seem to have forgotten how she helped select Dubya for the presidency in 2000 by purging 94,000 "felons" from the voter registration roles. She was aided by the fact that race was listed next to each name -- how convenient. More than 20,000 of those 94,000 names were not felons and their only crime was voting while black. She purged people with the same name as a listed felon as long as they were of the appropriate race. Considering that Bush carried the state by only 537 votes, one can see just how important a role she played in the process BEFORE getting into the hanging chad and butterfly ballot mess.

And that's the thanks she gets! She's like Rodney Dangerfield, she gets no respect.

I'm glad to see she was well received at that Orlando gun show. That means the hardcore base still loves her, which makes matters difficult for the GOP leadership. How to get her to ride off into the sunset without screaming bloody murder. If they could get her to drop out and find a relatively sane, moderate Republican to run against Nelson they might have a good shot at the seat. Katherine Harris has little or no chance of winning in the general election no matter how much of her own money she's willing to burn.

[schrocat]

Originally Posted by The Grim Reefer

There is a technical term for Harris, Canon Fodder. The Reublicans just want to make sure Nelson has to run a campaign so he can't raise money for other candidates.

D00d!
Ship that lemon squeezer over to Newt post haste!!!!
He could a use a glass of whatever that is...

Fresh out the grease for your reading pleasure:

"Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who masterminded the 1994 elections that brought Republicans to power on promises of revolutionizing the way Washington is run, told TIME that his party has so bungled the job of governing that the best campaign slogan for Democrats today could be boiled down to just two words: 'Had enough?' "

[Ninong]

This ain't my first time at the rodeo, ya know!

[schrocat]

2 points for not holding the saddle horn.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Ninong

"They want to do just as they please, for as long as they can get away with it," Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I think what is going on now without congressional intervention or judicial intervention is just plain wrong."

FISA Court Judges Oppose Warrantless Eavesdropping:


Judges Harold A. Baker, from left, Allan Kornblum and Stanley S. Brotman spoke with one another Tuesday before a hearing on Capitol Hill.

By Eric Lichtblau
Published: March 29, 2006

WASHINGTON, March 28 — Five former judges on the nation's most secretive court, including one who resigned in apparent protest over President Bush's domestic eavesdropping, urged Congress on Tuesday to give the court a formal role overseeing the surveillance program.

Read the rest here.

[schrocat]

What a nice bunch of guys!

It's most unusual to see a group of jurists asking for someone to please stop breaking the law in such a hat in hand manner.

[The Grim Reefer]

Originally Posted by schrocat

D00d!
Ship that lemon squeezer over to Newt post haste!!!!
He could a use a glass of whatever that is...


Fresh out the grease for your reading pleasure:

"Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who masterminded the 1994 elections that brought Republicans to power on promises of revolutionizing the way Washington is run, told TIME that his party has so bungled the job of governing that the best campaign slogan for Democrats today could be boiled down to just two words: 'Had enough?' "

But the Republicans will come back with "It could be worse!"

I like Gingrich, he doesn't just spout off the party line.

[schrocat]

Originally Posted by The Grim Reefer

But the Republicans will come back with "It could be worse!"

I like Gingrich, he doesn't just spout off the party line.

They could.
But nobody in their right mind would agree with that statement except for sycophants, people who have a real rough time admitting they were both fooled and wrong and people who can't add.
...and they would be making this "snappy comeback" towards a comment not made by the Democrats, but by a previous leader of their own party!!

Newt said this because he wishes more than anything for the Republican party to take as big a hit as possible in November. This would allow him to swap his swan song for some Phoenix plummage.

People who get thrown out on their keisters tend to "not spout the party line".
Like my boy McCain did...for a bit...but he's circling back on bended knee as we speak.

[Ninong]

Testimony of John W. Dean before the Senate Judiciary Committee Regarding Senator Feingold’s Proposed Senate Resolution 398 Relating To the Censure of George W. Bush, March 31, 2006:

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I have set forth a brief overview of the testimonial subject where I feel I might be of assistance to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s consideration of Senate Resolution 398 relating to the censure of President George W. Bush, for (1) unlawful electronic surveillance of Americans contrary to the provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, as amended; (2) the failure of the President to inform the respective congressional committees of his actions as required by that law; and (3) the president's conspicuously misleading statements to the American people about the nature of his actions along with his dubious legal arguments claimed as justification for his actions.

I assume it is stipulated that no one disagrees with the Administration’s desire to deal aggressively with terrorism. Rather the question is about ways and means not about desired results or hopeful outcomes. (I'm glad to see he threw that in there because the administration constantly accuses anyone who criticizes their illegal warrantless eavesdropping of being soft on terrorism.)

Qualifications To Testify:

My qualifications for addressing the committee are more expertise than anyone might wish to have based on personal experience in how presidents can get themselves on the wrong side of the law. Obviously, I refer to my experiences at the Nixon White House during Watergate. That, as it happens, was the last time I testified before the Senate. As with my testimony today, that testimony was voluntarily given. I appear today because I believe, with good reason, that the situation is even more serious. In addition to my first-hand witnessing a president push his powers beyond the limits of the Constitution during my years as White House counsel from, 1970 to 1973, I have spent the past three plus decades studying presidents past and present.

No presidency that I can find in history has adopted a policy of expanding presidential powers merely for the sake of expanding presidential powers. Presidents in the past who have expanded their powers have done so when pursuing policy objectives. It has been the announced policy of the Bush/Cheney presidency, however, from its outset, to expand presidential power for its own sake, and it continually searched for avenues to do just that, while constantly testing to see how far it can push the limits. I must add that never before have I felt the slightest reason to fear our government. Nor do I frighten easily. But I do fear the Bush/Cheney government (and the precedents they are creating) because this administration is caught up in the rectitude of its own self- righteousness, and for all practical purposes this presidency has remained largely unchecked by its constitutional coequals.

Must Censure Be A Purely Political Condemnation?

Members of this committee are quite familiar with the debate that arose during the Clinton impeachment proceedings regarding the propriety of censuring a president. That thirteen month debate involved members of the House and Senate, as well as political commentators and constitutional scholars. Some members thought it a viable alternative to impeachment or conviction of a president; other members believed it a threat to the separation of powers. For example, Senator John D. Rockefeller of West Virginia thought it an effective way "to say to myself and my people” that President Clinton had done something wrong. (Washington Post, Feb. 9, 1999, at A17.) Senator Larry Craig of Idaho viewed it as "a raw political cover” and “nothing more than a slap on the wrist." (Time , Feb. 15, 1999). Senator Phil Gramm of Texas thought it was too easy a way out of a difficult political decision that could “corrode” the constitutional structure of the separation of powers. (Washington Post, Feb. 13, 1999, at A32.) Legal scholars fell on both sides of the question of whether it was a constitutionally permissible action, although the weight of the arguments clearly fell on the side of its constitutionality. Michael Gerhardt, whose work is very familiar to this committee, observed that there are several provisions in the Constitution, including the First Amendment, that authorize both the House and the Senate to take appropriate action. As Gerhardt summed it up, “One may plainly infer from these various textual provisions the authority of the House, the Senate, or both to pass a non-binding resolution expressing an opinion - pro or con - on some public matter, such as that a president's conduct has been reprehensible or worthy of condemnation." (Michael J. Gerhardt, “The Constitutionality of Censure,” University of Richmond Law Review, vol. 34 (1999) at 34.)

One thing was clear from this protracted debate during the Clinton impeachment, and the same can be said of the debate so far that has been provoked by Senator Feingold’s proposed resolution, censure has long been viewed as a purely political action. That has been true historically as well. Historian Richard Shenkman assembled the precedents for censure during the Clinton proceeding, which he recently republished. * This entire debate is fully reviewed in the transcript prepared by Thomas R Lee of a 1999 panel on impeachment, published in the Brigham Young University Law Review (1999). (http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/22843.html). Shenkman found, “All four censures [John Adams, Andrew Jackson, John Tyler, and James Buchanan], however, have more in common than that they simply have been largely forgotten. All were the work of highly partisan politicians eager to score political points.” He concluded, “censures must be bipartisan to carry weight with the American people. History suggests that a resolution passed along party lines would be a source of palpable political divisiveness.”

I am hopeful that Congress for institutional reasons, not partisan gamesmanship, will act on Senator Feingold’s resolution. If the term “censure” carries too much historical baggage, then the resolution should be amended, not defeated, because the president needs to be reminded that separation of powers does not mean an isolation of powers; he needs to be told he cannot simply ignore a law with no consequences.

Institutional Reason for Censure: Preventing Waiver

Justice Felix Frankfurter’s concurrence in Youngstown recognized the power of "executive construction of the Constitution," citing United States v. Midwest Oil Co., 236 U.S. 459 (1915), as the basis for that authority, but finding it to exist only when there is a showing of "a systematic, unbroken, executive practice, long pursued to the knowledge of the Congress and never before questioned." (Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 610-11). Midwest Oil – the leading case on Congressional acquiesce -- is pretty old and times have changed. Nor is this a very precise body of law. What does it take for Congress to question presidential action? Does it mean a member of Congress, a committee, a single chamber, or both houses? And what if the president deliberately and knowingly ignores Congress, relying on his own construction of the Constitution, when both houses have questioned presidential conduct and a law has been signed by a predecessor president? Is it a “political question” that the courts today will not touch? What if Congress does nothing about it? At some point will not a waiver occur when we are talking about constitutional co-equals? These, I suggest, are issues this committee must address. There are two ways to address them: legislation or a resolution expressing the sense of the Congress. Or, of course, doing nothing, and permitting the President to break the laws adopted by Congress.

Bush’s on-going action with his NSA wiretapping (if not secrecy, torture, etc.) and Congressional inaction (or acquiescence) must, sooner or later, intersect, and a point will be reached and crossed when the Congress has all but sanctioned the conduct and the president can violate the law with utter abandonment. No one can say that the Congress has not been put on notice. While there is vague law that says Congressional inaction is not a license for executive action, Congress is now confronted with executive branch attorneys who take the most aggressive reading possible in all situations that favor executive power. It is only necessary to look at the Administration’s interpretation of the September 18, 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541) which it reads as authorization for the NSA program, to appreciate how far it will push.

And that is what I believe will happen if Chairman Specter’s proposal to involve the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court should become law. If past is prologue, President Bush will not bother to veto the bill, rather he will quietly issue a signing statement saying as Commander in Chief he disagrees with the bill, and he does not care what the FISA court says, and he will just keep doing what he has been doing. In short, should Congress pass Chairman Specter’s bill, the Chairman should recall what happened to Senator John McCain’s torture amendment before he attends the photo op at the White House while Vice President Cheney is off somewhere approving the signing statement – and gutting the law. If this committee does not believe this Administration is hell bent on expanding its powers with such in-your-face actions, you have been looking the other way for some five years of this presidency.

That is why censure might be the only way for the Senate to avoid acquiescing in what is clearly a blatant violation of the 1978 FISA stature, not to mention the Fourth Amendment. If “censure” is politically too strong for the Senate, then an appropriately worded Sense of the Senate resolution not acquiescing in the president’s defiance of the law might be a fall back position to prevent a waiver, and preserve Congress’s prerogatives.

In short, I implore the Senate to undertake not a partisan action, but a strong institutional action. I recall a morning – and it was just about this time in the morning and it was exactly this time of the year – March 21, 1973 – that I tried to warn a president of the consequences of staying his course. I failed to convince President Nixon that morning, and the rest, as they say, is history. I certainly do not claim to be prescient. Then or now. But actions have consequences, and to ignore them is merely denial. Today, it is very obvious that history is repeating itself. It is for that reason I have crossed the country to visit with you, and that I hope that the collective wisdom of this committee will prevail, and you will not place the president above the law by inaction. As I was gathering my thoughts yesterday to respond to the hasty invitation, it occurred to me that had the Senate or House, or both, censured or somehow warned Richard Nixon, the tragedy of Watergate might have been prevented. Hopefully the Senate will not sit by while even more serious abuses unfold before it.

I have attached a number of articles that I have published on this and related topics and I ask that they be included in the record. The full text of these articles can also be found at http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I would be happy to answer your questions.

[schrocat]

Of course not. Look at John Dean. Just because he was White House Counsel to Richard Nixon doesn't mean he was a sleazeball, too. He was a patriot who helped expose one two of the most corrupt administrations in the history of this country.

[Ninong]

That will be the headline in tomorrow morning's Florida newspapers after all of her campaign staff quits later today. She gave the remaining staffers an ultimatum and it expires at 5 p.m. today (Sunday). You're either with her or you're with the terrorists. She's doing God's work.


Katherine Harris doing God's work at a restaurant in Kissimmee last week.

I think it's a conspiracy by the Florida GOP to get her to quit the race so that they can find someone relatively sane to take on Nelson. I hope she stays in and spends as much of her daddy's money as she can get her hands on.

Keep on truckin', Kate! You're doing a heckuva job!




_________________________________________________

"Let me answer what the President has said. I speak for the President and I'll talk to you about what he wants . . .If someone leaked classified information, the President wants to know. If someone in this administration leaked classified information, they will no longer be a part of this administration, because that's not the way this White House operates, that's not the way this President expects people in his administration to conduct their business." -- White House Press Secretary, 10/7/03

[Ninong]

...What's up with crazy woman Mean Jean Schmidt lately?



Seems like some left-wing liberal group is accusing her of claiming a college degree that she doesn't actually have. Picky, picky, picky! Bunch of liberals who hate our freedom!

"She has an astounding pattern of dishonesty," COAST chairman Jim Urling said.

This complaint was filed by the same bunch of losers who complained that she falsely claimed an endorsement by Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH) and others. That was just a technical error. So many people were endorsing her that it was logical for her to assume everyone had endorsed her.

The fact that Ms. Schmidt does not have this claimed degree can be confirmed by calling Dr. Douglas Burgess, University of Cincinnati Registrar at (513) 556-9900.

Jean Schmidt has had a consistent gap between her statements and the truth. in addition to the three false endorsements and the false claim of a college degree, she also has these notable prevarications:

1) Claiming that Danny Bubp asked her to "convey a message to Congressman Murtha," which Mr. Bubp denies: http://www.wkrc.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=775E7920-7E8A-4147-A748-3E818D63D815

2) Claiming she was not the source for a quote calling young Republican activists "little Hitlers." She said her twin sister was the source of the quote: http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/030906/schmidt.html


P.S. -- I love it when the wingnuts fight among themselves!


________________________________________________

"The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration." -- White House Press Secretary, 9/29/03

[Ninong]

"We are stronger as a campaign today than we were yesterday," Harris said in a press release.*

That's the spirit, Kate! Keep on truckin'. Just sprinkle some of that magic holy water on the new hires.

Katherine Harris' U.S. Senate campaign lost what was left of its core team when a top adviser, campaign manager and communications director resigned this weekend.



*Out of touch with reality or out of this world? "We report. You decide."



Katherine Harris, still ridin' high in the saddle.


_________________________________________________

"If someone committed crime, they will no longer work in my administration." -- George W. Bush, 7/18/05 Issue of USA Today

[Ninong]

Please enter your information below and scroll down to send a personal message to Katherine Harris on her birthday!

There's only one little bitty catch. It's called *Required Information



Notice that after you provide the usual name, address, phone number and email address, you will be asked to provide
CREDIT CARD INFORMATION
*Card Type
*Credit Card #
*Expiration Date

Only after you fill in all of that information and select the amount of your "gift," will you be allowed to "enter your birthday wishes for Katherine."




__________________________________________________ _____

"I want to know the truth. ... I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is, partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers." -- George W. Bush, 10/28/03

[Ninong]

In an effort to salvage her U.S. Senate campaign, U.S. Rep. Katherine "Calamity Kate" Harris unveiled a new team of senior advisers Tuesday, saying that "we have made changes that make us stronger."

But while Harris touted the new members of her team, staffers who resigned in recent weeks were privately describing a campaign that had descended into chaos and a candidate who had stopped taking advice.

Read the rest here.

P.S. -- Be sure to vote in the poll.


_________________________________________

"I'd like to know if somebody in my White House did leak sensitive information." -- George W. Bush, 10/28/03

[Ninong]

Fox News released their latest poll today and it shows Bush at 36% approval. That matches his previous low in their poll from November 2005. His approval among Democrats dropped to 8% (from 10%) and his approval among Republicans dropped to 74% (from 80%).

He can't drop too much lower among Democrats but there's lots of room for his numbers to come down among Republicans. Of course, there's a Catch 22 here and that is that many of the Republicans who are now experiencing buyer's remorse don't identify themselves as Republicans when asked. They're now either Independents or Democrats.


__________________________________________________

"If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of. . . . I have told our administration, people in my administration to be fully cooperative. I want to know the truth. If anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the business." -- George W. Bush, 9/30/03

[schrocat]

Good morning!
Beautiful day here!
I found an eeeeeexcellent parking spot!
The sun is out, the birds are singing, spring is in full swing...
The breeze is blowing away the dead leaves.

Anyway, I hope your day starts off as well as mine.

[Ninong]

Schrocat,

All of those polls were conducted before the latest revelations from the Special Counsel that Scooter Libby has identified Bush as the Leaker-in-Chief. We will probably see another two or three percentage points, or more, fall off those approval ratings in the next series of polls.

I would like to see the biased liberal media do it's job and get John McCain on record early and often with statements of support for Dear Leader. We need some more sound bites of McCain telling us what a heckuva job Dubya is doing and how he deserves our unwavering support. Sen. McCain should be able to find time for a few more photo ops in between gutting the campaign finance reform bill he once cherished. After all, the fiddle is gone and he's never getting it back, so why hold back.


_________________________________________

"I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action." -- George W. Bush, 9/30/03

[schrocat]

You really do seem to be enjoying my McMisery.




P.S.

Leaker-in-Chief.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by schrocat

You really do seem to be enjoying my McMisery.

Sen. McCain doing a press conference with former agents of intolerance Janet LaRue and Tony Perkins.

I understand the next stop for the Straight Talk Express is Topeka, Kansas to pay a courtesy call on Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church. Gotta cover all the bases.

P.S. -- His fiddle is gone and he'll never get it back.


__________________________________________________

"If someone committed crime, they will no longer work in my administration." -- George W. Bush, 7/18/05 Issue of USA Today