I got tired of reading Myke's title. At least get the name right.


Criticize at will.

Well done, davis.

Criticisms?

No prob. In a word (name) hillary.


I mean, really. Why? Why in the f----- would you people want to do it? Yeah sure, I think the repuslickans need to be punished, and who better since bubba cant be prez again?

Running hillary would be just like the hated repuslickans running that worthless piece of sh_t AWOL this last time. Why jethro bush isnt running I will never know. Maybe AWOL the idiot ruined it for them. But its the same kind of thing. Jethro probably isnt running because he knows a hell of a lot of people hate his family right now. Just like the name "clinton". Its as if hillary and the democrat mucky mucks are looking to play gotcha and have a laundry list of vendettas to take care of.

Screw hillary and not just because she voted for this dumbass Iraq bullshiz.

GOP in House call Dems heavy-handed
After majority rams through 'Six for '06' bills, Republicans are exasperated and angry

Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau

Thursday, January 25, 2007



(01-25) 04:00 PST Washington -- Rep. Nancy Pelosi publicly and repeatedly pledged before November's election that if Democrats won a House majority and she became speaker they would treat Republicans with respect and comity and would foster bipartisanship.

Instead, three weeks into a session in which the strong-willed Pelosi has rammed through important legislation and major rule changes, increasingly exasperated and angry Republicans are asking when the new Democratic speaker and her leadership team will keep their pledge to create a less-partisan, more-open atmosphere.

Democrats counter that their much ballyhooed "Six for '06" legislative package, which included items such as raising the minimum wage and fostering embryonic stem cell research, was a hurried exception to the deliberative, inclusive fashion in which they expect to run the House over the next two years. They also say that the same Republicans guilty of heavy-handed behavior when they ran the House shouldn't be so quick to criticize the new majority just getting its feet wet.

"Whine me a river,'' one senior Democratic House aide said, referring to Republican gripes.

Republicans remain skeptical. "Yeah, the check is in the mail,'' joked Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri, the House's No. 2 Republican, when asked if he expects Democrats to start acting in the respectful manner they said the GOP should act during the 12 years Pelosi and her colleagues spent chafing in the minority.

F uck you Roy, you god damned tyrant. I'll tell you what, these little whiney SOBs who crushed their political opposition, treated them like sheit and even tried to have Democrats arrested should just tuck their tails between their legs and take their medicine. What pack of whiney complainers. Act like bullies for YEARS then whine when they aren't treated FAIRLY and call for teacher's help. How many times did you pigs shut Democrats out completely? How the hell can these Republicans even say anything? Unfragginbelievable.

Pelosi made restoration of civility in the often-stridently partisan House a keystone of her campaign. She sent then-Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., a letter last fall laying out how she would treat the minority if her party took power. And she made congressional manners a separate section in the "New Direction for America,'' her campaign manifesto.

She promised that bills "should be developed following full hearings'' in committees and "open, full and fair debate'' with a full amendment process.

Pelosi's stand for better behavior came after years in the minority in which Democrats said Republicans pulled all kind of stunts designed to marginalize them -- barring them from offering amendments on the floor, rewriting bills without the minority's participation, giving members little or no time to study or even read bills before voting, holding votes open for lengthy periods to twist arms and blocking Democrats from participating in the all-important conference committees that reconcile House and Senate versions of legislation.

But in the early rush to adopt new rules for the 110th Congress and push through the initial legislative agenda, Pelosi's pledge of good government standards have gone by the wayside at least temporarily, providing fodder for the Republicans.

"I've done everything I can to reach out to the speaker and the majority leader,'' Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said on the House floor Wednesday just before the final vote on the latest bill that the GOP cried was being pushed through without committee hearings. "But it seems that over the last three weeks, every time we offer the hand of bipartisanship it is slapped way.''

Shoulda jabbed you right in your god damned eye, you two-faced scumbag. I could come up with allll kinds of nasty sheit from these idiots.

Wednesday's bill, which drew heated Republican opposition, gave partial voting rights on the House floor to the elected delegates from the four U.S. territories of American Samoa, Guam, The Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico as well as the District of Columbia. It passed 226-191 on a mostly party-line vote.

Democrats had enacted a similar bill, the first time a congressional vote was given to representatives other than those from the 50 states, when they held the majority in 1993-94. But when Republicans took over in 1995 they rescinded the territories' vote.

Democrats say giving the five representatives the right to vote when the House sits as "a committee of the whole House on the state of the union'' is an extension of voting rights and an issue of basic fairness.

They also pointed out that the delegates' votes are partly symbolic because, to satisfy the Constitution, the bill provides that if any vote falls within the five-vote margin created by adding the new members, the House would immediately vote again without the five delegates to make a final decision.

Republicans say giving the four delegates from the territories a vote is "representation without taxation'' because residents of the territories don't pay federal income taxes. Washington, D.C., residents do.

But again their main objections were procedural.

"My plea to the majority is to simply let us go through the process of deliberations. Let us go through committee hearings. Let us hear from thoughtful scholars on issues,'' said Rep. David Dreier, R-San Dimas (Los Angeles County), GOP Rules Committee chairman until this year.



This was too much for the Democrats. "I could stand here all day, all year, listing occasion after occasion on which the then-majority broke the rules of this House,'' said Rules Committee member Rep. James McGovern, D-Mass.

House committees are still getting organized and have just started to debate and vote on bills that will be sent to the House.

An early test of Pelosi's promise will come Wednesday when Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said the House will consider a sweeping continuing resolution. The legislation will pay for much of the federal government's operations for the rest of the fiscal year through Sept. 30, because the old Congress failed to complete work on most appropriations bills.

Hoyer said the bipartisan leaders of the Appropriations Committee are working together on the bill and seemed to pledge there wouldn't be any surprises for the minority when the debate occurs.

Pelosi and Hoyer said their initial legislative push was handled under constricted rules because many of the issues had been voted on in past sessions of the House and because they had promised voters to speedily pass the bills in the House's first 100 legislative hours.

Referring to a popular drive-in in his district around Hartford, Conn., Democratic Rep. John Larson said, "Nobody at Augie and Ray's asks, 'When are you going to return to regular order?' They ask, 'When are we going to get a price break on prescription drugs and when is the minimum wage going to be raised?' ''

He and other Democrats also point out that an average of 62 Republicans voted with Democrats to pass the "Six for '06'' bills.

Hoyer repeated the pledge of greater respect for the minority's rights and said the early going shows Democrats will continue to work to get GOP votes.

With Republicans leaving Wednesday for their annual legislative retreat at a resort on Maryland's Eastern Shore, Blunt seemed to soften his criticism.

"We hope we will get the opportunity to make our case'' during floor debates. "We hope we get to the point where all members get to participate. I am prepared to look forward,'' he said.



They should just tell you to "f uck off." I hate these rightwing weasels. They are just too much. I wonder what happened to the "winner takes all" attitude they've had for years?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNGI6NOCOO1.DTL





HA ha!

Once again Hillary's opposition research team out to dig up dirt.

http://www.insightmag.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?s...FE7451111C6C4EC

Hillary's team has questions about Obama's Muslim background

Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage?



This is the question Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s camp is asking about Sen. Barack Obama.



An investigation of Mr. Obama by political opponents within the Democratic Party has discovered that Mr. Obama was raised as a Muslim by his stepfather in Indonesia. Sources close to the background check, which has not yet been released, said Mr. Obama, 45, spent at least four years in a so-called Madrassa, or Muslim seminary, in Indonesia.



"He was a Muslim, but he concealed it," the source said. "His opponents within the Democrats hope this will become a major issue in the campaign."



When contacted by Insight, Mr. Obama’s press secretary said he would consult with “his boss” and call back. He did not.



Sources said the background check, conducted by researchers connected to Senator Clinton, disclosed details of Mr. Obama's Muslim past. The sources said the Clinton camp concluded the Illinois Democrat concealed his prior Muslim faith and education.



"The background investigation will provide major ammunition to his opponents," the source said. "The idea is to show Obama as deceptive."



In two best-selling autobiographies—"The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream" and "Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance"—Mr. Obama, born in Honolulu where his parents met, mentions but does not expand on his Muslim background, alluding only to his attendance at a "predominantly Muslim school."



The sources said the young Obama was given the name Hussein by his Muslim father, which the Illinois Democrat rarely uses in public.



His father was black and came from Kenya. Mr. Obama’s mother, the daughter of a farmer, came from Wichita, Kansas. Mr. Obama's parents divorced when he was two years old. His father returned to Kenya.



Later, Mr. Obama's mother married an Indonesian student and the family moved to Jakarta. Mr. Obama returned to Hawaii when he was 10 to live with his maternal grandparents.



The sources said the background check concerned Mr. Obama's years in Jakarta. In Indonesia, the young Obama was enrolled in a Madrassa and was raised and educated as a Muslim. Although Indonesia is regarded as a moderate Muslim state, the U.S. intelligence community has determined that today most of these schools are financed by the Saudi Arabian government and they teach a Wahhabi doctrine that denies the rights of non-Muslims.



Although the background check has not confirmed that the specific Madrassa Mr. Obama attended was espousing Wahhabism, the sources said his Democratic opponents believe this to be the case—and are seeking to prove it. The sources said the opponents are searching for evidence that Mr. Obama is still a Muslim or has ties to Islam.



Mr. Obama attends services at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago’s South Side. However, he is not known to be a regular parishioner.



"Obama's education began a life-long relationship with Islam as a faith and Muslims as a community," the source said. "This has been a relationship that contains numerous question marks."



The sources said Mr. Obama spent at least four years in a Muslim school in Indonesia. They said when Mr. Obama was 10, his mother and her second husband separated. She and her son returned to Hawaii.



"Then the official biography begins," the source said. "Obama never returned to Kenya to see relatives or family until it became politically expedient."



In both of his autobiographies, Mr. Obama characterizes himself as a Christian—although he describes his upbringing as mostly secular.



In “The Audacity of Hope,” Mr. Obama says, "I was not raised in a religious household." He describes his mother as secular, but says she had copies of the Bible, the Koran and the Bhagavad Gita in their home.



Mr. Obama says his father was "raised a Muslim, but by the time he met my mother he was a confirmed atheist...." Mr. Obama also describes his father as largely absent from his life. He says his Indonesian stepfather was "skeptical" about religion and "saw religion as not particularly useful in the practical business of making one's way in the world ...."



In the book, Mr. Obama briefly addresses his education in Indonesia. "During the five years that we would live with my stepfather in Indonesia, I was sent first to a neighborhood Catholic school and then to a predominantly Muslim school; in both cases, my mother was less concerned with me learning the catechism or puzzling out the meaning of the muezzin's call to evening prayer than she was with whether I was properly learning my multiplication tables."

Mr. Obama graduated from Columbia University and Harvard Law School; he became the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review. He later settled in Chicago, joined a law firm and began attending and helping local churches.

Mr. Obama is married to Michelle Robinson and they have two daughters, Malia and Sasha. In 1996, he was elected to the Illinois state Senate. Eight years later, he became a U.S. senator from Illinois.

The sources said Ms. Clinton regards Mr. Obama as her most formidable opponent and the biggest obstacle to the Democratic Party’s 2008 presidential nomination. They said Ms. Clinton has been angered by Mr. Obama's efforts to tap her supporters for donations.



In late 2006, when the Illinois senator demonstrated his intention to run for president, the Clinton campaign ordered a background check on Mr. Obama, the sources said. Earlier this week, Mr. Obama established an exploratory committee, the first step toward a formal race.

Let us know why we should believe the lying weasels at Insight.

For them it’s a twofer- they slime both Hillary and Obama.

They got it from Hillary's people, reported by stringers that also work for liberal news orgs.

Not that I care what you think of Insight, but it is nice to see you taking a firm position on something.

They say they got it from Hillary's people and it makes them look bad.

Makes who look bad for what?

Hillary is known for hardball politics and smear campaigns. I listened to an interview with the Insight editor and they said Obama's people were almost literally wetting themselves over this. Hillary wanted to wait until the last minute and go after Obama for covering up that his education and upbringing was more Muslim than he let on. They know Hillary and Obama just isn't in her political league yet. A naive kid with visions of doing good works, instead of getting elected to power at all costs as a birthright. Hillary's view of Bill and herself.

lies and the lying liars who tell them.

To listen to the moronic bushlovers usual speil the democrats dont believe in terrorists so why would they care if Obama was actually a card carrying member of al queda? Lets see... which party is on crusade?

Good point, he should run on it.

It is a good point. Of course it was the repuslickan slime machine up to its usual tricks.

The problem is it wasn't Republicans.

Says a Republican.

Says some asswipe "expert" like dick morris.

Face it. The repuslickans and their muzzie mania is plainly apparent in this slime job.

And space was right about it. They slimed 'em both with the same pile.

Oh and eff hillary, too.

Just because he got her into the WH is no reason to think he knows anything about her. Of course he had nothing to do with this, but that's beside the point, since as usual you have no idea what you're talking about.





It's a dirty job, but somebody ought to do it. You know Bill won't.

Its an anonymous source. What, do y'all have insider information?

Y'all have been railing on about hillary as much as you have muzzies and now obama scares ya so why not slime all three with the same story? A repuslickan wet dream if only it had any shred of truth.

So strange that fux news was the only tabloid slime slingers to run with the ball. Even more odd is that the clinton news network (CNN) went against their matron and rallied to the defense of Obama (if not the truth) and did fux news' job for them in vetting the story. Do insight magazine articles have lots of footnotes like coulters pulp fiction does?

I think Hillary and Obama are perfect for the party. Enjoy.

Giving up so soon?

Both committed themselves to UHC today, so we'll see how it plays.

Theri competition might actually be Webb. Go figure.

It's the DEMOCRATIC party, LP. At least get the name right.

The Insight Story was BS from start to finish. What is amazing is anyone that claims slopping reporting like this constitutes any type of "news."

It's partisan spin. Nothing factual about it.



It stretches anyones credibility to believe that a democrat "planted" this story. It's a slime job by cowardly RW zealots who don't have the balls to take "credit" for their own depravity.

I find it incredible anyone with two brain cells would buy it for a moment.

Why would they care? Like JT said a loooong time ago, he'd lie if it made his opponent look bad. Even if it's slander, liabel, untrue, exagerrated, whatever.

Thank Jesus for Karl Rove and George Bush.

Comedian Al Franken to Run for Senate

By FREDERIC J. FROMMER
The Associated Press
Wednesday, January 31, 2007; 6:29 PM

WASHINGTON -- Comedian Al Franken has decided to run for U.S. Senate in Minnesota in 2008, challenging incumbent Republican Norm Coleman, a senior Democratic official told The Associated Press on Wednesday.

The official, who requested anonymity because Franken has not made an announcement, said that the comedian and former star of NBC's "Saturday Night Live" told her of his decision recently.



Andy Barr, the political director of Franken's Midwest Values Political Action Committee, declined to comment.

The news was not unexpected. Franken has been calling members of the Minnesota congressional delegation to get their input on a run, and he announced this week that he would be leaving his show on Air America Radio on Feb. 14. He told listeners he would be making a decision on a race soon.

Should he win the Democratic primary in Minnesota, Franken would take on Coleman, a first-term senator who is among the Democrats' top targets.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7013101692.html

Discipline debate: Spanking gets a time-out

Proposed Calif. law reignites battle over best way to deal with unruly tots



Of all the controversial issues in parenting perhaps none is more heated than spanking. Most of us probably can recount seeing an out-of-control parent in a parking lot or supermarket (if not in a home) smack a child. And if you’ve seen it once, it likely left an indelible impression.

On the recieving end.


In California, one lawmaker says she's had enough. Democratic assemblywoman Sally Lieber has introduced a bill that would outlaw this behavior with children ages 4 and under. If the bill becomes law, that parent in the parking lot could be charged with a misdemeanor punishable by a year in jail or a fine of up to $1,000, making California the first state with such a law. The use of physical punishment to discipline children is already illegal in Austria, Finland, Germany and Sweden.

But should spanking be banned? Is it wrong or even effective? What's really the best way to discipline unruly tots?

“Education, not legislation, is the method of choice to improve parenting practices, with the exception of clearly abusive practices,” says Diana Baumrind, a research psychologist at the University of California at Berkeley. Baumrind is one of the few experts who has been dubbed “pro-spanking” in the media. “In my view, spanking … is no more or less harmful than a mild scolding, time-out or other developmentally appropriate level and kind of punishment.”

However, Baumrind also says that any form of punishment by definition is aversive, and so, whether physical or non-physical, punishment should be reserved for times when milder methods such as persuasion or distraction have failed.

The majority of psychologists, however, come down decidedly on the anti-spanking side. And the American Academy of Pediatrics is firmly against spanking and hitting, saying in a policy statement that “corporal punishment is of limited effectiveness and has potentially deleterious side effects.”

Researcher Paul Frick of the University of New Orleans in Louisiana warns spanking and hitting can lead to later emotional and behavioral problems. Even children who are only smacked occasionally are more likely to show signs of depression or lower self-esteem, he says.

Frick and his team, who studied the impact of corporal punishment on 98 children and published their results last month in the Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, said they couldn't find any positive effects for spanking. Children on the receiving end of a slap can learn that when they are upset and angry they hit, he says, rather than understanding their behavior was wrong and that they need to do better.

“This is a small but significant sample,” says Frick. “We don’t want to overstate the implications, though. The vast majority of kids who are subject to mild corporal punishment will not suffer severe negative effects. Our point, though, is that spanking and hitting are not effective and may be dangerous.”

Parents at the end of their ropes
Jane Tucker, a parenting coach and mother of a 4-year-old son in Santa Monica, Calif., agrees. “I think parents only use it because they get to the end of their ropes," she says. "Usually, the problem is that they haven’t set up boundaries and clear limits. If there aren’t limits, kids will just push and push parents as far as they can.”

For example, kids often have meltdowns in the grocery store. Tucker says she conditioned her son early on to know that when they go to the market he gets to select one of several items she allows. “I look for ways to make win-win situations so we’re both happy and there’s little need for discipline — physical or otherwise.”

Even when discipline can’t be avoided, most parents have found ways to circumvent the need to make it physical.

“We’ve started using time-outs on our 3-year-old son," says Robin Cook, a marketing director and mother of 4-month-old and 3-year-old sons in Fayetteville, Ark. "First we give him a warning and a choice, though. So we say, ‘Either you can listen to what mommy or daddy say or you can have a time-out. What would you like to do?’ He had a few time-outs in the beginning but after that it’s really worked well. He now usually makes the right choice.”


Taking a cue from Super Nanny, Kimberly Powell, a stay-at-home mom in Dallas, uses the “stop chair” (a.k.a. The Naughty Chair) for her 3-year-old daughter. “I started using it since when my oldest daughter was 2 years old and it has worked well,” she says.

Jodi Torres, a sales representative and mom of a 2-year-old son and newborn daughter in Irvine, Calif., also says prevention is the best discipline. “We’ve found that if we remove our son from the situation/room where he is misbehaving, calm him down and sit down at his level and discuss the situation, he gets it and things get better. Most importantly, though, I feel getting enough sleep and food keeps little ones from acting up too much. We try not to skip naps if we can help it.”

Smack him in the ass and maybe he'd learn some manners and shut the hell up.

Still, some parents do spank. Julie Lawrence-Edsell, an actress and mother of 17-month-old and 5-year-old boys in Montclair, N.J., has mixed feelings about the practice. “I was spanked when I was young and it certainly made an impression,” says Lawrence-Edsell. "I don’t know if it should be outlawed but I do know we prefer to talk instead of resorting to physical punishment with our kids.”

Lawrence-Edsell admits her older son has been spanked “maybe once” but she and her husband tend to take privileges away instead to discipline. “When he was younger we would take away his favorite stuffed animal if he wasn’t listening. Nowadays we take away treats, desserts or play dates. It seems to work pretty well,” she says.

10 push-ups for smart-mouthing
So is all physical punishment necessarily wrong? Some parents have developed other inventive ways to make discipline a physical experience as their children got older.

“I tried time-outs, taking away privileges, groundings from TV, computer, games, etc...nothing seemed to bother my sons too terribly much,” says Jackie Joens, a family therapist and mother of two grown boys in Des Moines, Iowa. Joens says she finally discovered a punishment her kids wanted to avoid at all costs: cleaning.

Joens made up a "discipline cleaning list." On the list were jobs that no one ever had enough time to get to: washing the garden furniture, cleaning out drawers, closets, cupboards, polishing silver and scrubbing the deck. “As the boys grew older, the discipline chores advanced with age appropriateness. It worked wonders.”

I had to do my chores without it being a punishment.



Deborah and Terry Pope of Richardson, Texas, picked up tricks from their 7-year-old daughter’s martial arts class. “We're always looking for new ways to discipline our daughter, as not much seems to have an effect,” says Deborah. “Lately, we're taking the military route! Since she's enrolled in a martial arts class, we're linking class to home and giving her push-ups — 10 for smart-mouthing or 20 for lying.”

Frick says that whatever you do, consistency is more the point with discipline. But he doesn’t mean that if you hit your kids once you should always hit.

“Usually hitting is done when parents...have lost it and often the punishment doesn’t even fit the final crime,” says Frick. He notes that there are many other discipline options — from time-outs to taking away privileges or any of the ideas above — that can be done calmly and consistently.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16929303/







What are your views on spanking? * 7414 responses
Hitting a child only teaches violence and doesn't solve the problem.
11%
There's nothing wrong with an occasional spank on the butt.
89%

This is just wrong. I have no idea how they can defend this. I wish my representative was a Democrat. I'd give him a piece of my mind. The representatives from out of state don't usually accept emails from outside their districts. grrrrrrr.

Rep. Jefferson Gets Seat on Homeland Security

Rep. William Jefferson, the Louisiana Democrat who's facing an ongoing federal corruption probe, is being granted a spot on the Homeland Security Committee, according to Democratic aides.

The appointment will be announced Friday, according to one aide who requested anonymity because the decision isn't yet official.

Jefferson was removed from his seat on the Ways and Means Committee, one of the most important panels in Congress, by Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) last summer in an attempt to show how seriously Democrats viewed the allegations of corruption.

But the move by Pelosi, who was still minority leader at the time, infuriated members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who said Jefferson shouldn't be punished unless he is indicted; federal prosecutors have yet to bring an indictment, despite an FBI raid 18 months ago on his home that yielded $90,000 in cash in his freezer.

Other lawmakers were angling for the seat on Homeland Security, which was the last slot available on the panel, according to another Democratic aide.

The committee oversees the Homeland Security Department and its web of agencies designed to protect against terrorism on U.S. soil.

The committee has oversight of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which was widely panned for its response to Hurricane Katrina in Jefferson's hometown of New Orleans.

As a member of the committee, Jefferson will not have direct oversight of the FBI or the Justice Department.

A former Jefferson aide has already pleaded guilty to corruption in the ongoing investigation, as has a businessman who alleged in his plea agreement that he bribed Jefferson in order to win contracts with African nations.

When most committee assignments were given out two months ago, Jefferson was assigned a spot on the Small Business Committee, generally considered one of the least sought after panels.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/

Can't have the black caucus angry now, can we? Who do the think they are, the Christian Coalition.

Just about. That is probably the reason.

Just couldnt muster any name calling or profanity on this one...........

No. What of it?

Now we are talking about real comedy here...............

Al trying to hold his temper should be quite a chore. They'll probably have to duct tape his head to keep him from exploding.

Staring Adversity In The Face

Not that Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) was out for revenge or anything. But he sure did seem to enjoy at least a wee measure of satisfaction in making mega GOP donor Sam Fox squirm during Tuesday's Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing to consider Fox's nomination to be ambassador to Belgium.

Fox, a Bush "Ranger" whose generosity has likely helped him on his way to the Land of Beer and Chocolate, contributed $50,000 to help fund the infamous 2004 Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a "527" group that ran ads aimed at smearing Kerry's Vietnam record. So it was no surprise that Kerry, of all the senators on the committee, had a particularly keen interest in questioning the nominee about his participation in American civics.

Kerry walked in at the tail end of the hearing, which was being chaired by 2008 contender Sen. Barack Obama(D-Ill.). Kerry explained that he didn't intend "to play some kind of 'gotcha' game," but he wanted to know as he looked into the eyes of a man who helped sink his presidential quest: How did the nominee feel about the level of "personal destruction" in politics these days?

Fox replied that he was "very concerned" that politics have become too "mean and destructive," especially with the participation of independent 527 groups. He subtly alluded to the Swift Boat campaign against Kerry and not-so-subtly tried to redirect Kerry's line of questioning by saying (with a straight face) to Kerry, "Senator, you're a hero," adding that no 527 group "can take that away from you."

Why then, given Fox's dim views of 527s, did he give such a large chunk of money to help Swift Boat Kerry? Kerry asked.

Fox explained that he and his wife both donate generously to GOP political causes. "When we're asked, we generally give," he said. He further said he felt it was important to give to a 527 working on behalf of Republicans since a 527 "on the other side" was stooping to such low levels as comparing George W. Bush to Adolph Hitler.

"So two wrongs make a right?" Kerry asked.

Obama, who has just embarked on the journey Kerry has already taken as a presidential candidate, remained quiet.

Kerry wanted to know who exactly recruited Fox to give money to the group. Fox couldn't remember. "You have no recollection of why you gave away $50,000?," Kerry asked.

"I can't tell you specifically who asked me, no," Fox answered.

The volley continued with Kerry asking more pointed questions such as "Why would you give away $50,000 to a group that you have no sense of accountability for?" and "You believe that anything goes in a political campaign?" And, finally, "Is truth important or isn't it?"

Fox seemed to squirm more as the inquiry went on, and Kerry sank his teeth in more. A partial transcript follows:

KERRY: And you don't know who asked you.

FOX: No, sir, I really don't. I do not know who asked me.
If you were to take our 1,000 contributions and go right down the list, I
bet you I couldn't give you five percent of them, of who asked me.

KERRY: Do you recall whether it was somebody in Missouri or
was it in person? Was it is by telephone?

FOX: I have no recollection.

KERRY: No recollection of how that came about.

FOX: No, sir.

KERRY: Do you recall thinking about it at all?

FOX: No more than that somebody must have asked and I gave.

KERRY: Boy, no wonder so many people are here to embrace your
-- what about now?

How do you feel about it now, knowing what you know today?

FOX: Mr. Senator, let me say this. Be it 527 or anything
else, if I thought what they were printing was not true, I would not
contribute to it.

But I personally have no way if knowing generally when I give.


Kerry quoted Republicans, including Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who derided the Swift Boat campaign and asked Fox if he regretted giving money to the group. He asked Fox, "Do you think this should matter to me?" And, with perhaps a slight nod toward Obama, Kerry asked if Fox thought it should matter to "everyone here, as a senator?"

"Absolutely," Fox answered, adding that he thinks the role of 527s in presidential politics is "disgraceful" and "terrible," but "that's the world we live in, that's what it's come to -- it's unfortunate."

Kerry remained conspicuously -- almost incredibly -- calm, explaining his demeanor at one point to the audience in this way: "Sometimes you go to these hearings and senators rant and rave and scream and I'm not a screamer."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/

HAAAAAWWW HAW HAW HAW!!!

I'm not all that discouraged with what I'm seeing 'added on' to this funding bill.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17397776/

You got an avacado farm we don't know about?

I think this guy is going to take an extended leave of abscence.



All Muck Is Local: North Carolina
By Paul Kiel - July 1, 2007, 9:37 AM

What is a politician to do when the other politicians won’t play with him?

Rep. Thomas Wright is an eight-term Democrat in the North Carolina House legislature. This past May 15th, the State Board of Elections looked into Wright’s finances, and were disturbed by what they found: like evidence suggesting that Wright had used over $200,000 of campaign funds for personal use, fraudulently obtained a mortgage, solicited money from a charity with a fake federal tax number, failed to report hundreds of thousands in campaign contributions and forged his campaign treasurer’s signature on checks. The Election Board was so worried that it sent reports to both the House leadership and the local District Attorney.



Now Wright is stuck between two probes: one from state prosecutors and one from the Joint Legislative Ethics Committee. But Wright, as he has been quick to remind his detractors, is innocent until proven guilty, and has remained steadfast in his commitment to serve his constituents, despite the fact that the governor, lieutenant governor and Speaker of the House have all called for his resignation (all three are fellow Democrats). Wright says of his situation, “I was elected by the people of my district and I'm here to serve them.... I'm voting and doing what I'm supposed to do.”



Which is true, to an extent. Last week it came to light that Wright has been absent 17 times this congress, meaning he has missed nearly one fifth of the sessions. Six of those days have come since the Election Board investigation. In addition, Wright has missed more votes than any other representative (excluding the Speaker, who traditionally abstains from voting). Of course, that hasn’t stopped Wright from collecting his paycheck; Wright has still been paid his $104 daily remuneration from the House.

Now to be fair, it is getting harder and harder for Wright to be in government. After all, his own party is trying to keep him at a distance. This year, he is the only Democrat not invited to join the conference committee for budget negotiations with the Senate. Still, while the investigations march on, Thomas Wright is working hard –or at least, working- for his constituents.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003573.php#more

I wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't serving his constituents. Trafficant was quite the populist when it came to not foreclosing on the poor and being generous with public funds. He just took a little bit extra for himself.

So was Daley of Chicago. You see this one?

Only a Daley could go into a small Chicago airport, take a bulldozer, scar the runways beyond repair so they'd have to give up and get away with it.





It Starts: Fear And Loathing In Chicago

It was a slap in the face to all of general aviation -- the stealth destruction of the runway at Chicago's venerable Meigs Field. It happened in the early hours of March 31st.

Chicago's rabidly anti-GA Mayor, Richard M Daley held a brief news conference Monday afternoon, to explain why he apparently sent heavy equipment to Meigs Field late Sunday night. The Chicago Tribune's Casey Bukro said in its morning edition, "Meigs Field, the city's lakefront airport, was closed early today after construction vehicles showed up overnight and dug up large portions of the runway. At dawn, the view from the top of the Adler Planetarium showed a series of large, X-shaped portions of concrete carved out of the runway's center. Large, illuminated 'X' signs marked either end of the runway. Sixteen aircraft appeared stranded, parked along a taxiway and unable to take off."

The destruction of Meigs ignited a fire storm among GA enthusiasts. At first, Daley said he was concerned about the terror threat a GA aircraft in the pattern at Meigs might pose to downtown Chicago. But it wasn't long before Chicago's general media caught on to the real purpose of his midnight bulldozer raid:

The Sun-Times points out the brazen nature of Chicago's ruler: "On Tuesday, the mayor changed his tune. Daley dropped all pretenses about fears of a private plane flying into a Chicago skyscraper and acknowledged his real motive was to create more open space as envisioned by planner Daniel Burnham and others some 100 years ago. [The Sun-Times doesn't mention the consideration Burnham may have given aviation, a hundred years ago... --ed.] 'That's what makes Chicago unique from the rest of the world: that we have protected this wonderful lakefront. That's the greatest asset we have here,' Daley said.

Nobody is safe from rapacious appetite:

Daley continued in the Sun-Times piece, "'From the Calumet River on the south to the Evanston border on the north, 'we want to eventually fill in all the way ... for parks and open space,' the mayor said." ...And he'll do anything, including sneak around at night, break contracts and his word, steal public assets, break laws, or endanger aviators, to do it.
Reality: The Trib Wakes Up

In a story also filed in Washington, Chicago Tribune reporter Frank James, aided by Chicago staffer John McCormick, noted, "Ridge `disappointed' at Daley's closing of Meigs Field."

"The World's Greatest Newspaper" said, "In a meeting with reporters, Ridge refused to be drawn into the issue of whether the closing constituted a security issue for the city, but he pointedly added that he always enjoyed flying into the airport... As [Pennsylvania] governor I occasionally used it. It's a beautiful short runway along the lake," he explained, to anyone reading the Tribune, who might not know.

Always a politician first, Ridge told reports who asked if Chicagoans were 'safer' because of the destruction of the airport, he said, "From the mayor's point of view, they are."

There were court appeals in Illinois and Washington (DC), but it seems for the moment, Daley has prevailed. An organization created to save the GA airport was forced by finances to give up the fight:
Ultimately: Friends of Meigs Can't Afford Their Rights

The Friends of Meigs Field tell us that they have decided not to proceed with an appeal to the Illinois State Supreme Court of their case to reopen Meigs Field.

They wrote, "Many people responded to our call for pledges toward the effort, but the total raised in the short amount of time available fell short of the significant sum required (over $100,000) to cover expected legal expenses in the event of a positive ruling by the Court."

But if Meigs is indeed gone forever, its legacy might just save other airports in similar circumstances. As ANN reported in October, the FAA included in its reauthorization bill a clause that would prevent local governments from sneaking in under cover of darkness and closing down airports:

Under the "Meigs Provision," that sort of thing wouldn't be permitted without a stringent FAA review. "The closing of Meigs is one of those things that has really been a terrific problem from all of our standpoint," FAA Administrator Marion Blakey said. "The legislation would prevent an airport like that from being converted without other considerations being made."

Under the proposed legislation, local governments would have to give the FAA at least 30 days' notice before shutting down an airport. Failure to comply would cost local governments $10,000 a day for each day the facility remained closed.

http://www.aero-news.net/SpecialContent.cf...670a0&cat=9

large X's on the runway is the way you mark an unused field.

Chicago is known for crooked politicians. Daley is probably a piker in the field. Lots of people are against general aviation. Since mostly rich folks can afford it they think it's the populist thing to do to get rid of it.

In this case it was the location of the land. Did you see downtown Chicago in the background? That property is worth a buttload of money divided up and resold. The late night bulldozing was brazen even for Chicago.

The little airport I started flying out of suffered the same fate. Land value is a valid concern. Sometimes smaller airports just can't support themselves. It's the same in my dad's town. Volunteers can run the tower or pay to keep the surface up, but they can't pay a huge tax bill on property the city could use for something more profitable.

He pulled an Evel Knievel . He jumped the court system with a bulldozer.

Well "areonews" is likely to have a bias of it's own. Not that I'm a Daley fan.

That airport was "open space".

I'll bet we see the property sold for development to a Daily crony within a few years.

Could well be. Or the land just end up with a higher tax value and he'll be happy to have the extra revenue. I don't attribute every sleazy act to personal gain.

That was 4 years ago. This is from wikipedia.


Northerly Island
Charter One Pavilion Sign, photo taken January 10, 2007


By August 2003, construction crews had finished the demolition of Meigs Field. Northerly Island is now a park that features prairie grasses and strolling paths. In 2005, the 7,500 seat Charter One Pavilion opened on the site, which hosts music concerts in the summer. In February 2006, the city announced plans to open a heliport on the island.[9] The island also has a modest beach, named 12th Street Beach (beach house pictured).

On January 23, 2007, the Chicago 2016 Olympics bid committee revealed that Northerly Island would play a major role in the 2016 Olympics should Chicago be selected to host the event. In addition to venues on Northerly Island, the plans would call for rowing events to take place in Monroe Harbor, just north of Northerly Island.

Other Chicagoans have a different vision for the lakefront acreage. After the 2003 closure, the Friends of Meigs Field introduced a new plan, "Parks and Planes," which promotes an aviation museum, small operating runway, and park land on the property. This plan recognizes that Chicago could qualify for federal funds earmarked for airport property acquisition, to purchase many more acres of parkland in Chicago's neighborhoods and to improve the cash-strapped Chicago Park District's maintenance budget. In the 2007 mayoral election, Daley's unsuccessful opponent, William "Dock" Walls III, promised that his first act as mayor would be to reopen Meigs Field.

The FAA maintains a Remote Communications Outlet (RCO) on the property, for two-way radio communications between the Kankakee Flight Service Station and nearby aircraft. This transmission facility (122.15 MHz) provides unique coverage for the busy lakefront flight corridor. The air traffic control tower is no longer staffed, which is a safety concern to pilots since Meigs's controllers provided air traffic advisories. The Chicago lakefront flight corridor has a history of near-misses and mid-air collisions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meigs_Field