I'm simply amazed and befuddled at the same time over the latest Rush Limbaugh "brawl" brewing in D.C. We have "champions" of free speech taking to the House floor on no uncertain terms calling for CENSORSHIP of conservative talk show hosts. My, My, My...and the libs here defend them to the end. What a bunch of absolutely worthless flesh and waste of perfectly good oxygen the liberal leaders in Washington are proving themselves to be!

With casualties in Iraq down the libs needed a diversion.

rush wins again............

Sometimes I tune in just for the list. The only thing funnier is when he refers to himself as a journalist.

He obviously wouldn't like either of us much Art! Good company to keep methinks!

A first class idiot............that olbermann

I'd relegate him to 3rd of 4th class...definitely doesn't rate a 1st class anything...he's a low-life turd!

Report Says FCC Talks Too Much

By JOHN DUNBAR – 3 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Federal Communications Commission is doing a swell job communicating with lobbyists, but with the public? Not so good, according to a government report.

The Government Accountability Office says the agency tips off some people with business before the commission in advance about what items are coming up for a vote, usually before the public is notified.

"Situations where some, but not all, stakeholders know what FCC is considering for an upcoming vote undermine the fairness and transparency of the process and constitute a violation of FCC's rules," the GAO said.

Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce telecommunications and the Internet subcommittee, requested the GAO report more than a year ago. It was to be made available Wednesday.

"The public deserves to know that these decisions are made on the up and up with no unfair advantages to one side," he said of the report's findings.

The FCC is an independent agency created by Congress in 1934 to oversee the nation's airwaves and regulate telecommunications services. Information on its upcoming actions can move stock prices and, at times, affect entire markets.

The report says some people at the agency warn lobbyists when a particular issue is about to come up for a vote. The commission chairman usually circulates an item for vote three weeks before a meeting. One week before the meeting, the agenda is published, and lobbying is banned.

That allows a window of opportunity for lobbyists who "time their lobbying efforts to maximize their impact."

"It's like a 3-point shot at the buzzer," Markey said.

The report says "this imbalance of information is not the intended result of the Communications Act and it runs contrary to the principles of transparency and equal opportunity for participation established by law and to FCC's own rules that govern rulemaking."

David Fiske, director of media relations at the agency, said in an interview that FCC Chairman Kevin Martin "has always been very open and transparent" about what issues are coming to a vote and that the commission is "exploring ways in which we can make our processes even more open and transparent."

Investigators reviewed a period from 2002 to 2006 and focused on four proceedings in particular. They concluded that the FCC "generally followed its rulemaking process" except for how it handled confidential information.

One representative of "a large organization that is involved in numerous rulemakings" said FCC staff will tell him what items are scheduled for a vote several days before the agenda is released. The report did not identify the person.

Not everyone benefits from the heads up, however.

Some advocates, the report said, "who generally represent consumer and public interest groups, told us they do not know when FCC is about to vote on a rulemaking or when it would be best to meet with FCC staff to make their arguments."

Fiske disputed the characterization, saying the commission "actively reaches out and works with consumer and public interest groups, not only industry."

The GAO recommends that the agency develop procedures to make sure confidential information stays confidential and to make sure when leaks do happen, that "a series of actions will occur" such as a referral to the agency's inspector general.

The agency did not comment on a draft version of the report itself and "took no position on our recommendation," the GAO said. Markey said the FCC should take "immediate steps to protect the integrity of the rule-making process."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iMi936e...MSBXxgD8S1LPGO1

I think Rush should be re-broadcast for free by all available media. The more he talks, the better. He's the best possible advertisement against being a Republican.

A liberal's lament: The NRA might be right after all

By Jonathan Turley

This term, the Supreme Court may finally take up the Voldemort Amendment, the part of the Bill of Rights that shall not be named by liberals. For more than 200 years, progressives and polite people have avoided acknowledging that following the rights of free speech, free exercise of religion and free assembly, there is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Of course, the very idea of finding a new individual right after more than two centuries is like discovering an eighth continent in constitutional law, but it is hardly the cause of celebration among civil liberties groups.

Like many academics, I was happy to blissfully ignore the Second Amendment. It did not fit neatly into my socially liberal agenda. Yet, two related cases could now force liberals into a crisis of conscience. The Supreme Court is expected to accept review of District of Columbia v. Heller and Parker v. District of Columbia, involving constitutional challenges to the gun-control laws in Washington.

The D.C. law effectively bars the ownership of handguns for most citizens and places restrictions on other firearms. The District's decision to file these appeals after losing in the D.C. appellate court was driven more by political than legal priorities. By taking the appeal, D.C. politicians have put gun-control laws across the country at risk with a court more likely to uphold the rulings than to reverse them. It has also put the rest of us in the uncomfortable position of giving the right to gun ownership the same fair reading as more favored rights of free press or free speech.

The Framers' intent

Principle is a terrible thing, because it demands not what is convenient but what is right. It is hard to read the Second Amendment and not honestly conclude that the Framers intended gun ownership to be an individual right. It is true that the amendment begins with a reference to militias: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Accordingly, it is argued, this amendment protects the right of the militia to bear arms, not the individual.

Yet, if true, the Second Amendment would be effectively declared a defunct provision. The National Guard is not a true militia in the sense of the Second Amendment and, since the District and others believe governments can ban guns entirely, the Second Amendment would be read out of existence.

Another individual right

More important, the mere reference to a purpose of the Second Amendment does not alter the fact that an individual right is created. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is stated in the same way as the right to free speech or free press. The statement of a purpose was intended to reaffirm the power of the states and the people against the central government. At the time, many feared the federal government and its national army. Gun ownership was viewed as a deterrent against abuse by the government, which would be less likely to mess with a well-armed populace.

Considering the Framers and their own traditions of hunting and self-defense, it is clear that they would have viewed such ownership as an individual right — consistent with the plain meaning of the amendment.

None of this is easy for someone raised to believe that the Second Amendment was the dividing line between the enlightenment and the dark ages of American culture. Yet, it is time to honestly reconsider this amendment and admit that ... here's the really hard part ... the NRA may have been right. This does not mean that Charlton Heston is the new Rosa Parks or that no restrictions can be placed on gun ownership. But it does appear that gun ownership was made a protected right by the Framers and, while we might not celebrate it, it is time that we recognize it.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.

That will be a great case in which to see the arguments in front of the Supreme Court.

Bring it on!

Good find, LP.

The D.C. "effective ban" on all handguns is one thing that can easily be struck down without thereby invalidating ALL gun laws. Completely rendering inoperable a right is a far cry from 'regulation' of the exercise of that right on the part of the State, i.e. the plenipotentiary in re police powers of the People of each State.

"Congress shall make no law [...] abridging [...] the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

No, by what construction of the English language (especially of the time) can an individual be said to be physically capable and thereby be capable of exercizing the individual right "peaceably to assemble"?

People have a right to assemble, not each individual.

To the best of my knowledge there's no intransitive version of the verb to "assemble" that can be used with the 1st person singular in front of it. "I assembled yesterday" is nonsense. Assembled what or with whom?

That could have worked.

I told you this one could be fun.

I'd rather listen to him than Matthews...or virtually any other "mainstream media" mouth. And I don't even like him!

Try this:

You're standing on a street corner and a person comes up and tries to assemble with you. He gets arrested. His individual right to assembly has been violated.

I don't have a right to "assemble" with anyone, peacably or otherwise, who do not also wish to assemble. One cannot assemble by oneself. One can assemble things, one can invite others to assemble, etc.

But the guy came up to assemble with you and you agreed. That's an assembly. He gets arrested. What are his rights?

I have to agree. WE assemble. He by himself does not assemble. I by myself do not assemble.

Individuals, ehm, individually (severally) do not assemble.

I assembled yesterday? I kept and bore arms? Yes, to the second, no to the first.

You assembled with him. He assembled with you. Each has assembled as an individual with another individual. That results in assembly.

Good grief.

I can speak, I can worship, I can petition the government, I can own a home, etc. I can't assemble, peaceably or otherwise, on my own.

Find a use of the verb "to assemble" in the intransitive form with an "I" in front of it.

The right of the people to peacably assemble is, by definition, a collective right.

I actually think that the Constitution prohibits the complete prohibition by Congress of individuals keeping and bearing arms. Regulation of the exercize of that right is kosher, in my reading. And, under no circumstances is there a constitutionally guaranteed individual right to USE arms according to one's own individual judgement and will.

It's called the right of the people. But you have to have a person to assemble with another person before you have people.

But yer like twins.

This about sums it up on the phoney soldier story...........

People of Deceit
By Michael Reagan
Friday, October 5, 2007

Nothing frightens those who peddle lies than the cold hard light of truth. They react to exposure of their deceits the way vampires react to a having a crucifix held up in front of them.

Ever since the birth of conservative talk radio and the Internet ended the liberals’ total monopoly over the news, the left has been simmering with impotence -- over the loss of their absolute control over what the Americans are allowed to see and hear, and their inability to do anything about it.

Time and again liberal attempts to sell the nation their shoddy goods have been frustrated when talk-radio hosts have taken to the airwaves and warned their millions of listeners that they were about to be taken to the cleaners.

It was not until the administration’s fatally flawed immigration reform bill that seemed destined for passage was derailed by army of angry voters recruited by talk radio hosts and conservative Internet Web sites that the left understood both the incredible power of the new media and their utter helplessness in the face of it.

Clearly something had do be done, they thought. So the left, led by the slimy Media Matters organization, began a counterattack using the liberals’ favorite weapon – the lie.

An innocuous remark by Fox’s Bill O’Reilly praising a famous Harlem restaurant was taken out of context by the liberal mainstream media which tried to ignite a firestorm, but the public wasn’t buying.

Then, when Rush Limbaugh spoke about men falsely claiming to be veterans of the Iraq war such as one, Jesse MacBeth, who told a pack of lies about his non-existent service in Iraq and whose deception had already been exposed days earlier by ABC's Charlie Gibson and Brian Ross, the left jumped on Rush falsely claiming that his attack on such phony soldiers was an attack on all Iraq war vets who criticize the war.

As Fox’s John Gibson said: “When MoveOn stepped on its own toes sliming Gen. Petraeus, [David] Brock of Media Matters swung into action looking for a conservative who would say something that could take the focus off MoveOn.

“Enter Rush Limbaugh and the ‘phony soldier’ discussion.” As Gibson noted, Media Matters was so anxious to get the stink off MoveOn they made up the Rush controversy.

It was a patently obvious lie – few Americans have been more supportive of the U.S. military than Rush Limbaugh – and, shamefully, Democrats such as Sen. Harry Reid who had to know how false the charge was, quickly bought into it.

The whole incident shows just how desperate the liberals have become. Without the new media to keep an eye on them, their failure to accomplish their stated goals since winning control of the Congress would have been covered up by the subservient mainstream media.

Those of us in talk radio and the Internet are the left’s worst nightmare – our monitoring of their activities had been shining the light of truth on their attempts to deceive the nation, and their current assault on the new media is failing as a result.

Like all Marxists, the liberals won’t stop trying to lie their way into power. As a result, they won’t stop trying to destroy the new media. First it was Bill O’Reilly, then it was Rush Limbaugh and who knows who’ll be next – Laura Ingraham, Mike Savage, me?

You can be certain they’ll find a new target, and just as certain that they’ll keep pushing for a new “fairness doctrine” or some other way to silence the opposition. And you can be certain that whatever target they pick they’ll be lying through their teeth when they attack.

They can’t help themselves. The truth is not in them.

Michael Reagan, the eldest son of Ronald Reagan, is heard daily by over 5 million listeners via his nationally syndicated talk radio program, “The Michael Reagan Show.”

Well, there are worse folks to be compared to than Rush...and coming from a leftie, I'll take THAT as an outright compliment!

But it wasn't coming from a leftie.

so funny.

The "media bias" thread where the bushlovers cry and whine about getting caught and as evidence they post hitlerian diatribes
disseminated by limpbag and fux news.

Anyone else notice that that crazy fark in Iran used the same defense when he appeared at Colombia? He said the media did it.

Hmmmmm...

Unless individuals assemble, you can't have an assembly. The group doesn't go around pre-assembled.

That's about right.

Though individuals don't technically assemble, I think the courts have taken a broad view of this clause. An individual demonstrator outside an abortion clinic with a sign would also be protected, for example.

But your assembly doesn't just show up as an assembly. Like your model comes as parts you assemble.

the opposite of our Constitution:

come with parts you disassemble

Hannity named ‘radio personality’ of the year.

The National Association of Broadcasters announced today that right-wing talker Sean Hannity, who also hosts two shows on Fox News, has “won his second Marconi award, as best syndicated national radio personality.” Phil Boyce, the program director of WABC, Hannity’s home station, said “Sean wakes up every morning with a show screaming to get off his chest.” October 4,

http://thinkprogress.org/

Geez looks like every time a republican sneezes think progress is all over the dirt in the snot.

I heard hannity stpooed walking the other day and the long nose of think progress almost went right up his butt. The good news was the Gays responded well to the article.

The Press Is Broken
By Oliver Willis on October 6, 2007 1:12 PM

The NY Times does a photo investigation of which candidates do and don't wear flag lapel pins. Seriously.

Why does the press do this? What compels them to be so stupid as an institution? We've got important issues - issues of life and death, issues of importance to every man, woman, and child on this planet.

And they're covering lapel pins.

Seriously.


http://www.oliverwillis.com/

Maybe "Oliver" needs to keep up with the news.



Obama made lapel pins a controversial subject. If "Oliver" has a problem with the New York Times following up on Obama's comments, he should just say he had a problem with Obama's comments.

What, is "Oliver's" solid gold, ruby, diamond, and sapphire encrusted flag pin not generating enough awe and respect? Well, good. Seriously.

I hate sneaky sideways commentary. It's dishonest at best and frankly, it's for those that have neither the wit or wherewithal to hit an argument straight on.

Huh? Perhaps you should read a couple of his articles before you talk about his solid gold, ruby, diamond, and sapphire encrusted flag pin.

What's his beef, then

Seriously

Read trash like that? I'm afraid I am a bit more discriminating. The above bit was tripe. Pure and simple.

What's his beef? He's sick and tired of the meaningless bs that is covered by the mainstream media. The flag lapel issue was brought up by rightwankers and he was criticizing it. Do any of these stories make you think he's a rightwinger or a defender of such?




Conservative Derangement Syndrome: The Greatest Generation Ain't So Great
By Oliver Willis on October 6, 2007 1:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The one unifying aspect of the right is that it must do whatever is necessary to defend the perverted beliefs of its leaders, especially in regard to the Republican failure to fight terror and provide a good strategy for Iraq.

Today's example is a Washington Post article about a secret interrogation unit during WWII.

The group of World War II veterans kept a military code and the decorum of their generation, telling virtually no one of their top-secret work interrogating Nazi prisoners of war at Fort Hunt.

When about two dozen veterans got together yesterday for the first time since the 1940s, many of the proud men lamented the chasm between the way they conducted interrogations during the war and the harsh measures used today in questioning terrorism suspects.

Back then, they and their commanders wrestled with the morality of bugging prisoners' cells with listening devices. They felt bad about censoring letters. They took prisoners out for steak dinners to soften them up. They played games with them.

"We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture," said Henry Kolm, 90, an MIT physicist who had been assigned to play chess in Germany with Hitler's deputy, Rudolf Hess.

Blunt criticism of modern enemy interrogations was a common refrain at the ceremonies held beside the Potomac River near Alexandria. Across the river, President Bush defended his administration's methods of detaining and questioning terrorism suspects during an Oval Office appearance.

Several of the veterans, all men in their 80s and 90s, denounced the controversial techniques. And when the time came for them to accept honors from the Army's Freedom Team Salute, one veteran refused, citing his opposition to the war in Iraq and procedures that have been used at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

These guys, of course, are being attacked as pansies by blogs like Captain's Quarters:

It must be said, however, that they faced a different enemy in a different war. The Germans fought to expand territory through traditional warfare, at least as arrayed against the US and the West. While they conducted sabotage missions in the US through espionage, they did not use terrorist infiltrators to attempt to kill thousands of American civilians. They also did not face religious extremists who believed that death brought them to Allah and 72 waiting virgins for taking out women and children. One can make a case that the civilized techniques of PO Box 1142 worked because their detainees also believed themselves civilized and members of the Western culture.

You get that, kids? It's okay to torture people willy nilly (or in the case of the Bush administration, redefine what's torture and say you don't torture) because the Nazi threat was nothing compared to the jihadist threat. Yes, folks, the attempted empire that took over much of Europe, caused a global war and killed millions is nothing compared to some guys in a cave who make Republicans wet their beds every time they release a video. So we should be able to torture people now, no matter what guys who faced down Nazis with interrogation happen to say about how fruitless it is.

This continues to explain the "phony soldiers" smear the right is now so invested in.





They Support The Troops As They Knife Them In The Back
By Oliver Willis on October 5, 2007 3:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Check out the comments on this thread about an ad for Barack Obama by former Air Force chief of staff Merrill McPeak, and see how quickly cons are to attack a military person because he isn't a lockstep Republican (McPeak supported Dole and Bush). You'll understand quickly where the "phony soldiers" mindset comes from.





Conservatives Want You To Curl Up And Die When You're Winning
By Oliver Willis on October 5, 2007 2:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

When I see conservatives plaintively wailing about those big mean Democrats, I can only roll my eyes. The right has debased and lowered American discourse, and I don't see any elevation coming soon, so I say give as good as you get. When that happens, cons always suddenly discover "civility", then at the same time you've got a conservative talk show host going on the conservative Fox News channel calling Sen. Barack Obama a jihadist terrorist.





The Pretty Scott McClellan
By Oliver Willis on October 4, 2007 6:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Dana Perino is out of her depth defending the indefensible. You need a professional liar like Tony Snow or Ari Fleischer to spin this one professionally. Poor Perino is a toddler playing an adult's game.

She is pretty though.





George Bush, Alberto Gonzales, And Torture In America
By Oliver Willis on October 4, 2007 3:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Your government, on Conservative Republicans.

When the Justice Department publicly declared torture “abhorrent” in a legal opinion in December 2004, the Bush administration appeared to have abandoned its assertion of nearly unlimited presidential authority to order brutal interrogations.

But soon after Alberto R. Gonzales’s arrival as attorney general in February 2005, the Justice Department issued another opinion, this one in secret. It was a very different document, according to officials briefed on it, an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency.

The new opinion, the officials said, for the first time provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures.

Mr. Gonzales approved the legal memorandum on “combined effects” over the objections of James B. Comey, the deputy attorney general, who was leaving his job after bruising clashes with the White House. Disagreeing with what he viewed as the opinion’s overreaching legal reasoning, Mr. Comey told colleagues at the department that they would all be “ashamed” when the world eventually learned of it.

Later that year, as Congress moved toward outlawing “cruel, inhuman and degrading” treatment, the Justice Department issued another secret opinion, one most lawmakers did not know existed, current and former officials said. The Justice Department document declared that none of the C.I.A. interrogation methods violated that standard.

The classified opinions, never previously disclosed, are a hidden legacy of President Bush’s second term and Mr. Gonzales’s tenure at the Justice Department, where he moved quickly to align it with the White House after a 2004 rebellion by staff lawyers that had thrown policies on surveillance and detention into turmoil.

It's too bad the Republican-run congress and the mainstream media fiddled while these scoundrels used the constitution as toilet paper, but bit by bit, element by element we're going to find out the true story of the government under George W. Bush. The most corrupt and morally bankrupt government in U.S. history. Direct from hell, Richard Nixon has got to be looking on with a broad grin and an "attaboy!"


http://www.oliverwillis.com/

Speaking of phoney story;s Hillary's laugh has gotten a couple of segments on Hardball and one of the Fox shows as well.

No, it wasn't.

I just showed you Obama "brought it up." Is he a right-winger?

Geez.

I'm not interested. Too many worthwhile things to read, sorry. He's not one of them.

I read the Obama piece in the NYT and he was right. So was Willis when it came to the issue itself. He's not a rightwinger and he's not attacking Obama.



OK then. Scroll on by.

From the State Department, All the News for Inquiring Minds

By Al Kamen
Wednesday, October 3, 2007; Page A21

Fox News, launched with such high hopes 11 years ago as the "fair and balanced" network, apparently hasn't lived up to its billing. CNN never had a chance. The other networks? Please. No citizen could dare trust the agenda-driven print media -- The Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times -- to figure out, let alone accurately tell, the "real" story.

But now the State Department is in the blogosphere, and says it "offers the public an alternative source to mainstream media for U.S. foreign policy information." The blog, launched last week and called "Dipnote," is "taking you behind the scenes."



This is what we've all been waiting for! No more media filters and distortions. Unbiased news directly from the federal government, a news source long noted for truthful, unbiased reporting. The Clinton administration and most all its predecessors vowed to end-run the media, and they finally have the new electronic media to help them to do it.

One of the first diplo-bloggers last week was the assistant secretary for international organizations, Kristen Silverberg, who blogged from the United Nations.

"Another busy day in New York!" she gushed Tuesday. ("I'm exhausted!" she wrote in a later dispatch that day.) "First thing this morning, President Bush met with President Karzai" to discuss progress in Afghanistan.

"We have a lot of hope," she wrote, "for the future of Afghanistan," where child mortality has declined 20 percent in the past five years and 80 percent of the public has access to basic health care and "primary school enrollment for both boys and girls has increased by five hundred percent over the past five years."

But that's not all! "Later in the morning," Silverberg reported, "Secretary Rice attended a meeting" and "issued a joint statement calling on the government of Burma to end violence against the peaceful demonstrators."

"The Security Council this afternoon issued a statement of concern about the events in Burma, which were also discussed at today's G8 Foreign Ministers lunch," Silverberg reported, and Rice "raised the issue of Burma when she met this afternoon" with India's foreign minister. She also met with the Korean foreign minister about North Korea's nukes.

"While Secretary Rice will be back in Washington, D.C., for part of the day tomorrow to open the President's meeting of major economies on energy security and climate, I'll still be in New York and will keep you updated!" Thank goodness.

Public diplomacy czarina Karen Hughes's blog from the United Nations yesterday gave us a real insider's view of diplomacy in action.

"This morning I spoke live with hundreds of thousands of people in the Arab world by appearing on Al Arabiya," she wrote, "one of the leading television networks in the Middle East. Whenever I visit a country, and I've been to about 40 during the last two years, I usually do television and radio interviews (I've even appeared on what was described as the Indonesian version of 'Oprah')."

Would the conservative or liberal media give you that insight? Hardly.


Meanwhile, the blog appears to be getting a tremendous response worldwide and -- with the exception of people complaining that the type is too small and that the white print on a black background makes it hard to read -- readers have been overwhelmingly positive.

The first comment to one of Silverberg's blogs was refreshing. "Wong in China writes: 'Hello, I come from China. I hate such countries: North Korea, Iran, Burma, Cuba and Iraq (before liberated by US army).' " Well, thank you, Wong, for your informed perspective. Please report immediately to the embassy in Beijing for your free visa and green card.

Once More Around the Blog


State Department folks may be feeling good about their official blog, but the Pentagon, as is usually the case, has been working that venue for a while. In fact it has, within the New Media Directorate, an office that's being called "Blogosphere Initiatives," and one of the truly unsung heroes of the Bush Florida recount machine has been tapped to help out.

He's Michael Allan Leach, who, "it could be argued, played a more direct role" than most anyone else in George W. Bush's victory in Florida in 2000, the St. Petersburg Times reported at the time. Leach, an Air Force veteran, then-recent Florida State graduate and state GOP field worker, "used a laptop computer to salvage hundreds of Republican absentee votes which were in danger of not being counted because they didn't have voter identification numbers."

The Times reported that Leach blamed President Clinton and media liberals for a decline in morals, and wrote in a 1998 Internet posting: "I can no longer sit idly by while liberals in Washington with seven brain cells drag this country into the muck and mire of stupidity."

So, after the election, Leach spent six years as a political appointee as special assistant to the administrator of the Agriculture Department's rural development office, minus time out to handle press duties for the CPA in Iraq. He also picked up a master's degree in international affairs from Georgetown and worked most recently in public affairs at the Department of Homeland Security.

Let's Do Lunch, and a Farm Bill Discussion

Free lunch today! We got an invite yesterday from Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas ®, former South Carolina governor Jim Hodges ® and some contractors who are inviting all the state governors' Washington office directors to a fine meal at tony Johnny's Half Shell, where they'll hear why it is important to strip from the farm bill a provision that bans some outsourcing of the food stamp program.

The companies and their supporters perhaps could have held this briefing at a National Governors Association committee meeting, but food stamp matters obviously are better discussed over oysters.

Be there by noon!


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7100202033.html

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...HOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHO...HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEE!!!

Bee is a leftie, a liberal. ... but I am most certainly not.

And I'm certain on some level you actually believe that bullsheit! The conservatives here, I can guarantee, won't let someone like yerself piss down their back and try to tell them it's raining however!

I am a proud Liberal.

Liberal is not a dirty word to me. It just just doesn't describe my positions. I do believe in many liberal positions.

Biggestmouthofall is just using it as an insult and failing.

By the way, the liberals I know are much, much more compassionate, honest, and decent than ANY of you so-called conservatives, faith-based or not. You are some bloodthirsty, cold-hearted motherforkers. Although the meaning of the word "conservative" has changed considerably, like everything else touched by the cult of Bush.

I wouldn't call you a liberal, either.

It's just a way to marginalize and dismiss you, just like the wankers are trying to do with Valdron by calling him Fast Eddie. That way, they have an excuse not to deal with any issues you bring up or truths you tell that contradict ther narrow worldview. Lazy and cowardly of them for sure, but what do you expect from lazy cowards?

Their charge is so ridiculous, I wouldn't even bother answering it anymore. They only repeat it because they think it bothers you. I don't think any reasonable person on the board thinks of you as a lefty.

You're davis, and you have your own viewpoints. If they don't like it, Fark 'em.