Thanks to Glenn Greenwald for alerting this non-Paulite to an embarrassingly well written, and profoundly sane statement put out by the Texas Republican on the FISA abortion bill.

The operative quote that Barack might want to read himself is, "Mr. Speaker, we should understand that decimating the protections that our Constitution provides us against the government is far more dangerous to the future of this country than whatever external threats may exist. We can protect this country without violating the Constitution and I urge my colleagues to reconsider their support for this measure."

I would urge Barack to "reconsider" his support for this measure.  To have Ron Paul out ahead of the Democratic Presidential nominee on such a bedrock issue of Constitutional democracy is just... wrong. (Paul even provides another coherent legal argument against the bill, if you can stand it, below.)

I'd been successfully "ignoring" Barack stuff "I don't agree with" this week.  I'm the one always arguing with my "purity" friends NOT to vote for Nader or the Greens.  I'm a pragmatist.  One of the people who KNOWS it's a long march to real democracy.  

In fact, I was about to post a diary warning people to prepare for Obama's obligatory "tack to the center," by symbolically pissing off "the base" (in the always dubious effort to attract racists and wingnuts to "go Democratic") and that people should try not to lose sight of the goal.  Winning the Presidency.

But yesterday's decision by Barack to side with Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito, AND throw the GOOD group of Supreme Court Justices under the bus, by GRATUITOUSLY announcing support for "state's rights" to decide who they get to kill, went way beyond mere "triangulation."  Scalia country is hardly "center."  And if the Justices who decided this fundamental question of who we are as a civilized nation are "wrong," in Barack's view, maybe I need to re-think this Obama stuff.  Ugh.

I have to admit one of the first things that crossed my mind after hearing the shockingly sad news about Tim Russert, was wondering if it would cause any of the "timmeh" bashers on DKos to actually pause, and reflect.  Whether there would be a single positive diary about a brother.

I wondered if some folks would finally "get" the truth about Russert.  That he rose up out of working class America, romantically in love with the idea of making this country a better place, and who actually DID something about it by joining liberal Democratic politics.  That he hustled for years to defend Democrats and get them elected, working tirelessly in his own way, to make this country live up to it's founding ideals.  

I wondered if some of the young ones would ever know.  Tim Russert was one of us.  

If Obama's "tribal garb" vacation photo wasn't so grainy, perhaps it would look as sinister as THIS.  The photo that proves what some people suspected all along.  President Bush is a Communist!  

Personally, I'm not that into "dressing up."  Halloween hasn't been my thing since I stopped getting free candy.  And as we've seen this week, it can get you into trouble.  I got a couple of those Arab "man dresses" from the wife last fall as souvenirs from a trip to Egypt, but I haven't worn them outside yet.  They look comfy and all, but it's been freezing this winter in CA, and well, if some people are right, it would prove I hated America, no???

Er, no.  What this silly dustup over the "tribal" photo of Barack "proves," is that "some people" are insanely stupid.  And, as we see below, completely ignorant of our long tradition of Presidential Fashion Challenges.  

With all the talk about "Superdelegates," their potential role at the convention, and the implications for who the next Democratic Party nominee for President is, it is gratifying to see the CT Democratic Party has stripped Mr. Lieberman (of the Lieberman for Lieberman Party) of his "Superdelegate" status.  He will not be replaced.

According to the Hartford Courant blog Capitol Watch, via TPM's wire:

"Thanks to Zell Miller, there is a rule to deal with Joe Lieberman.

Lieberman's endorsement of Republican John McCain disqualifies him as a super-delegate to the Democratic National Convention under what is informally known as the Zell Miller rule, according to Democratic State Chairwoman Nancy DiNardo."

Hooray for small favors.

Lieberman was in Florida yesterday, using his "star power" there to campaign for John McCain and the Republican Party because, "The Democratic Party, I believe, respectfully, has left the strongest roots of its foreign policy and national security."  While John McCain believes, "Israel is our natural ally, from the beginning of its modern existence to this day in the war against Islamic extremists and terrorists."

Democrats apparently don't support Israel, because they have whined about occupying Iraq, and opposed bombing Iran.

Via TPM read this depressing and eye opening piece in the Miami Herald about Lieberman stumping for McCain, and the rising numbers of Jewish Republicans in Florida, and according to polls cited, nationally.  

Is there a growing "Liebercrat" phenomena?  And is it going to be enough to throw Florida, and the Presidential election, John McCain's way in November?  (Lieberman arguably was the reason Florida narrowly went Gore in 2000.)  What are the implications nationally of this "movement," and why is there no response from the Democratic Party to Lieberman's ultimate betrayal?

Just as I predicted, John Edwards, the ONLY Progressive in the race (if you don't count Kucinich, Gravel, Dodd, Obama, or Clinton) TROUNCED Kucinich and Gravel in NH.  (We won't mention Obama and Clinton, because they merely get in the way of this argument.)  We've now forced Richardson to admit he'll NEVER pass us!    

Those of us DETERMINED to back a third place candidate, one who has been continually rejected by the majority of Democrats, and has no chance of being the Democratic Nominee (unless aliens land and abduct Clinton and Obama) (the scumbag corporate media darlings!) believe the fact that Edwards has CAMPAIGNED NON-STOP FOR FIVE YEARS and still can't get traction with Democrats only proves his/our purity and virtue!  (And the CORPORATE MEDIA TWO CANDIDATE NARRATIVE!)

We are PROUD to pronounce the other Democratic candidates (and the ignorant lackeys who support them) as corporate whores, fake democrats, and scumbags in general!  It's not about YOU, and the legions of riffraff Democrats who've been voting for other people, it's about US and JOHN EDWARDS!  John Edward's momentum is building, and now he's forced Richardson to acknowledge that third place is John Edward's House!

 

We could throw out some arcane demographics or "bias against Southerners," or blame the "corporate media" for unfair coverage, or point out his "lack of money," but even though all these things may be related, and even true to an extent, the reason why Edwards will come in "third" in New Hampshire (out of three) is the same reason he finished behind Wes Clark four years ago.  

People in New Hampshire, like most Americans, are looking past Edwards as presidential material.  Fairly or not, his "sell by" date expired in 2004.  And he didn't sell well then.

Why this simple truth has apparently escaped so many here at kos is an amazing phenomena.  It is also a bit mysterious, in a presumably "reality based" community of sophisticated political junkies, why pointing this out seems to upset so many people.  The fact is Edwards couldn't make the sale when he was "fresh" four years ago, and he was NEVER going to be a seriously viable candidate this election cycle.  After tonight, it will be official.

Not that this stupid "poll" matters much, but that bastion of ignorance, the Wall Street Journal, is running a poll allowing it's reader's to "vote" on whether Al Gore was the correct choice for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Needless to say, he's running a little behind there right now.  

Sorry if this diary duplicates any earlier efforts.  But might we possibly rain some more on this loser parade?  WSJ's Gore Poll

The story in today's NY Times is as depressing and horrifying and maddening as any to come out of our murderous Iraqi adventure yet.  Everyone needs to read it, and remind people that the common calculus of one "protected" American in Iraq being worth the lives of "XXX number" of innocent Iraqis, is unjustifiable, inhuman, and as criminal as it would be if Iraqis ran around today and machine gunned 50 people in Central Park.  

Foreigners (us) who somehow imagine they have the "right" to drive around a sovereign nation, thousands of miles from their own country, and fire automatic weapons and grenades into scores of innocent people in a busy city square in the middle of a work day, murdering 17 humans just trying to go about their daily lives, because they "felt threatened," are not American "heroes."  

They certainly don't resemble what my retired Air Force Captain father taught me about being American.  Or more importantly, about being a hero.

According to a report in the San Francisco Chronicle Speaker Pelosi promises that contempt charges will be filed against Harriet Miers by the Judiciary Committee this week, for blowing off US law.  

The Bush administration has, "disregarded the call of Congress for information about their politicizing the Department of Justice," she says.  Avoiding the more cautious phrase, "possible politicizing," she doesn't mince words.  "These are actual facts, and we will bring the contempt of Congress forth."  

She also further explains her lack of enthusiasm about bringing Impeachment proceedings, saying quite succinctly (and quite accurately, in my opinion re the votes they actually have on their side) "Look, it's hard enough for us to end the war. I don't know how we would be successful in impeaching the president."  

UPDATE II:  TPM is now reporting on contempt charges, and NoMoJoe in comments below, points to comments there saying a Judiciary source claims it will be INHERENT CONTEMPT.
 

JetBlue "rocks" because it gave "10 free tickets" to YearlyKos???  And then "stood up" to Fox?  Wtf??? How cheap ARE your punkasses???

Selling out principles to save bucks, while understandable, is hardly the foundation of a better society.  But ok, let's say you're REALLY poor.  You're strapped for cash.  And for the moment couldn't care less about living wages, or "worker rights," or unions, or any of those old fashioned notions.  And you really gotta go party in Chicago.  Or visit your sick mom.  Or show up at that college friend's wedding...  Just as I've shopped at Walmart, on slacker road trips in the middle of Redstate Nowhere, when I needed every dollar for gas.  

But Walmart doesn't "ROCK!" because I picked up propane for three bucks less than the sporting goods place back on the main drag.  What is up with pimping JetBlue because its corporate logo is stamped on YearlyKos???  

   

After the June, 2004 G8 Summit, President Bush reiterated the following:

"Q...do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?
THE PRESIDENT: That's up to --
Q And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes."

Now that we all KNOW Cheney told Libby to leak Valerie Plame's CIA identity to the press, let's go to Bush question number ONE:  Did you know VP Cheney was responsible for the leak when you said you'd fire anyone who leaked Valerie Plame's CIA status?

Leave it to Mr. Soros to tell the unvarnished truth at a staid international forum like Davos.  George shook up the recent conference, by noting that America, like Germany post WWII, needs to reckon with it's immediate past.  

I'm presuming this "immediate past" might include our invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation under the barbarian construct of "pre-emptive War," along with mass murder, international kidnappings, torture, un-lawful imprisonment, and the bombing of civilians in several countries we are not legally at war with, for starters.  But I should not "put words" in George's mouth.  What exactly DID he say?

"We have to go through a certain de-Nazification process."

Hagel has been getting a lot of attention for being a Republican who is actually saying the truth about the Republican War in the Middle East.  A lot of people here are celebrating his comments on Iraq, and for eviscerating Joe Lieberman the other day on MTP.  Others are not budging in their disdain for him because he "sucks on every other issue."  (Truth is, like even many elected Democrats, he does suck on many issues.)  

But I am sufficiently grateful to hear him buck the sound bites and immoral posturing of his party-mates who justify the continued murder in Iraq (AND for the absoulute Death Ray of Truth he directed at Lieberman) that I thought I would research some "Hagelisms" on Iraq, and the Republican Party, for DKos dissemination.  

Here are my Top 10 so far.  

Huffington is posting this now.  Check it out.

It shouldn't be suprising.  But it's always nice to have evidence of Fox's systematic bias, and profound LACK OF BALANCE (i.e. "truth") in their "reporting."

Nice to see Huffington has spies in low places.

Posted today on that paragon of conservative blogging, Townhall.com, is a frontpage editorial by William F. Buckley on why he is voting for Joe Lieberman.  

"Why?" (as if you really need to ask?)

Because he wants to SAVE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY FOR AMERICA!  More "conservative concern" on the flip...

Let me start out with a simple humble statement:  HAROLD FORD IS THE BEST POLITICIAN WE HAVE IN THE MFing DEMOCRATIC PARTY RIGHT NOW, SO SHUT THE F UP!

Dems committed to changing this nation for the better, should be down on their knees giving thanks that Ford is in our party, running in a hopelessly Confederate Red State, and actually putting us in a position to WIN.  He is a f-ing GIFT FROM THE POLITICAL GODS!  He is the Way Out of the Wilderness for the Democratic Party.  The path we HAVE to walk BEFORE regaining relevance as a national party.    

IF HE LOSES BY 20 MFing POINTS, WE SHOULD STILL BE THANKING OUR LUCKY STARS FOR THIS DUDE.  And begging him to forgive some of our excesses.