Like a fine dream you suspect isn't real but remain ever-hopeful, comes news Newt Gingrich has clear intentions to enter the race.
From the article:
MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (Reuters) - Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, on a book publicity tour in states that play early roles in the U.S. presidential race, said on Monday he would likely wait until November 6, a year before the 2008 election, to announce any campaign for the White House.
He said he would hold community meetings in New Hampshire in September. "Then we will start looking whether we will establish an exploratory committee, and we will probably spend all of October looking," he said.
The book-signing was to be followed by a similar event in Iowa, which holds the first nominating contest in the presidential race.
Please fell free to use this diary to share your favorite Gingrich hypocrisies.
My opinion: even in the VP slot he sinks the GOP ticket.
Personally, I'm waiting for James Dobson to explain Newt's twice leaving ill wives for younger women as the wives failing in their wifely duties by getting cancer and MS.
The latest news on continued funding of the war in Iraq is more of the same. Bush is "negotiating" so long as there are no compromises whatsoever being asked of him. The Democrats sent him a funding bill which he vetoed, and the newly emboldened Republicans have blocked even weaker bills than the one already vetoed.
I have a simple question, in the form of a poll.
Should Harry Reid first address the nation during prime time, stating Bush's veto of funding of the war and unwillingness to work with Congress, and then table funding the war? "The President has refused to fund the war further, and we respect his decision."
I voted "Yes." I believe the Democrats need to be self-confident. Yes, it's a battle, waged against the media as well as the Republicans. But, the media could not refuse to cover a prime-time address by Reid. I believe Reid can be very persuasive here.
And, I believe there is other business of the nation to be taken care of. We're in the majority in Congress and in the polls, and, by golly, WE set the agenda now.
I'm not afraid of the wingnut talking points, and Democrats should not be either. Our Emperor Bush has no clothes on this war.
In the context of kos banning those who stubbornly post more than three or so paragraphs of copyrighted material, ...
I'm reading Howard Kurtz' latest donation of column space to those who would criticize us, today Jonathan Chait from The New Republic referring to us as "nastier" and "less principled" than our liberal forefathers. Kurtz inserts roughly 6 paragraphs of Chait's piece into his column.
It's my recent understanding that newspaper reporters are now legally indistinguishable from bloggers. In terms of commercial use, Kurtz is being paid more than the bloggers in here and WaPo is a larger commercial entity than the blogs here.
So, a simple question: What gives here?
I've thought the decision to be very strict here in terms of "fair use" was far beyond legal necessity, despite the claims it is only about lawsuit protection. But, I'm willing to be proven wrong.
A: When you're a neocon architect of a war the NYT, and the corporate world, supports.
I've just read the latest NYT article over the Paul Wolfowitz nepotism scandal at the World Bank. This article continues a pattern of willful deception and obfuscation pervading not just the Times but the AP and Reuters as well. Wolfowitz' mistress is referred to as his "companion" (AP uses the sweet term "girlfriend"). And, not once does the Times feel the need to inform readers Wolfowitz is not only still married but is a serial adulterer, facts the rest of the world knows well.
In fact, Wolfowitz' philandering caused his wife, Mrs. Clare Wolfowitz, to write a letter to President Bush suggesting her husband was a national security risk due to his womanizing.
The same US media once preoccupied with Monica Lewinsky is now intent on covering for Wolfowitz.
This diary is an interjection of a news item:
Virginia Governor Tim Kaine has issued an Executive Order expanding the database of persons prohibited from buying a gun to include those deemed a "danger to others."
There have been concern trolls in here bemoaning how we "lost" the gun control debate after the Virgnia Tech shootings. Well, we "lost" no such thing, in no small part becaiuse we did not lose the Virginia governorship.
Virginia is apparently being very aggressive here. Under this policy, Mr. Cho could not have purchased his guns even though the psychiatrist did not ultimately recommend he be treated involuntarily. The new policy would consider his evaluation and counseling to be sufficient cause.
I expect legal challenges to this. But, I expect the Democrats to win on this issue by staying cool and letting the Republicans hang themsevles here.
There is a simple litmus for anyone who claims to support background checks for firearm purchases: do not support the so-called "gun show loophole." If you support it, then you are a charlatain in terms of background checks.
For those who agree we need more gun control, we have a talking point.
We know the Virginia Tech shooter was found by a District Court Judge in Virginia in 2005 to be a "threat to self or others." (CNN is trying to obfusctae the salient "others" finding, though, by deleting mtention of it.)
We know Mr. Cho twice passed background checks to buy a firearm in the past month.
So, between the Federal and Virginia governments, there was no mechanism to prevent individuals who were found by the court to to be a danger to others from buying handguns. No laws, no databases, no resources and no will.
No amount of spin by the N.R.A. can obfuscate this fact.
The N.R.A. must answer the following question "yes" or "no"- no equivocation:
"Should a court-held 'threat to others' be able to buy a gun legally?"
The N.R.A.'s answer is "yes" and the American people deserve to hear this.
Our police state is a farce: Cat Stevens can't fly but Mr. Cho can buy a gun.
With the tragedy in Blacksburg yesterday, calls for stricter gun control laws are being heard across the American political center-left. The NYT featured gun control in its lead editorial on the shootings.
According to reliable statistics, there are over 200 million privately owned functioning firearms in the U.S., and 40% of American households own at least one such gun.
Please ponder these facts: 200 million guns, 40% of households.
Now, it is my claim there will never be the political consensus and judicial acquiescence to a large-scale confiscation of guns in this country.
Please come to accept this as a fact.
We have arrived at a bad equilibrium in this country in terms of guns, and, candidly, there is no credible way out. Other nations began at different starting points, had different (and superior) collective consciences, and arrived at different (and superior) outcomes.
This diary is about accepting reality.
And, this diary is about moving.
[UPDATE: The diary posted right below this one makes the same observation. Please skip to that one.]
Can someone following the Virginia Tech rampage on television please refute the suggestion made by the AP article I just read, that Bush's near-first words on the VT rampage were an unprovoked defense of the NRA's stance with regards the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
Here is the passage in question:
A White House spokesman said President Bush was horrified by the rampage and offered his prayers to the victims and the people of Virginia.
"The president believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed," spokeswoman Dana Perino said
Please tell me he was asked about gun control- I mean, there are limits here. Right?
This "diary" is really a comment thrown into the weekend, adding more fuel to the inferno that is the notion neither FoxNews nor the conjoined twins Drudge/Politico have any interest in maintaining their standards of "news" or "entertainment" when such reflects poorly on the Republican Party.
Yesterday, Fife Symington III, the corrupt Republican ex-Governor of Arizona, stated he had a somewhat close encounter with a UFO while he was in office.
This is not Fox or Drudge/Politico front-page material???
Yeah, right. The first UFO story Drudge ever missed is this one.
Each day, the Associated Press becomes more brazen in its concerted campaign to provide a GOP-friendly frame in its "news" stories.
The AP's revised "style manual" appears to be a GOP-framed lead paragraph, a second paragraph emphasizing those facts friendly to the GOP, more paragraphs quoting Republicans spinning the story, then the Democratic response bringing up the rear.
We're "bottoms" to their legion of Jeff Gannons.
Today, the AP took the story of proof AbuGonzo lied and was intimately involved in firing the eight US Attorneys to a level not even FoxNews would script.
Please understand this is not a sidebar story- this is the AP's lead story on the memos.
I'm claiming "Fair Use" here- there is a point at-hand requiring an extended clip of the story be related, so one can count paragraphs. Every paragraph is faithfully noted below until a Democrat appears...
... in the 20th paragraph!
Shit you can't make up.
Most of you are familiar with the fact Microsoft was ordered to stop "bundling," the tying of Microsoft's de facto monopoly operating system Windows with other products Microsoft might face competition in, leveraging Microsoft an unfair advantage across the entire software industry.
Today's story at hand is being soft-pedalled by the MSM. My eye was caught by the teaser:
"Microsoft Offering Businesses Perks for Using Its Search Engine"
and the story's actual headline was even more banal:
"Microsoft Promises Rewards for Search Engine Use."
My infallible Bill Gates Theft-O-Meter pegged hard-right. The not-subtle scam below.
I'm frustrated the Republicans and their lackeys in the media are controlling the frame and spin of the U.S. Attorney scandal. I'm even a bit frustrated with the wonderful Kagro X, who suggests in a FP diary that the illegality of the firings of the U.S. attorneys is somehow esoteric in nature.
While it is generally legal to fire a U.S. Attorney, it is illegal to fire a U.S. Attorney if you are doing so to manipulate a current or pending investigation. It's Obstruction of Justice, and it is a felony.
We have Harriet Miers dead-to-rights linking the firing of John McKay to an ongoing investigation. Miers was obstructing justice.
Here is an analogy I would like to offer the Democrats for this Sunday's talk shows:
It is generally legal to shred a document or delete a computer file. It is illegal to shred a document or delete a computer file to impede a current or pending investigation. It's Obstruction of Justice. And there's nothing esoteric about it (example below the fold).
And, of course, Republicans who claim Gonzalez and Libby committed no crimes because they lied about something that wasn't a crime must be asked if sex between consenting adults is a crime, since lying about it was, at least when Clinton did it.