Mood:
spaceyTopic: Lib Loser Stories
Howard Dean Again Ratchets up Anti-Bush Rhetoric
Source: Cybercast News Service
Despite being scolded in June by members of his own party for inflammatory remarks targeting Republicans, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean Friday showed no willingness to back off.
At one point, he characterized the Republican version of campaign finance reform as "screwing working people and making sure that the fat cats are giving more money."
Back in June, Dean accused Republicans of operating with a "dark, difficult and dishonest vision" of America. Dean labeled President Bush the "most ineffective" president in his lifetime.
And in referring to the long voting lines during the last presidential election, Dean speculated that Republican voters didn't mind the lines as much. "Republicans, I guess, can do that (stand in line) because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives," Dean said on June 2.
Several Democratic governors and members of Congress denounced Dean's comments, but on Friday, the Democratic Party chairman was back to hurling insults.
President Bush "only likes to hear from people who agree with him," Dean told the College Democrats of America, and Republicans, he said, "are all about voter suppression."
After asking the students to donate money to the Democratic National Committee, Dean said "one of the biggest problems in this culture of corruption that the Republicans brought to Washington, is they sold our government to the highest bidder.
"If we want it back, we'll have to buy it back," Dean said.
He also said the president was partly responsible for a recent Supreme Court decision involving eminent domain.
"The president and his right-wing Supreme Court think it is 'okay' to have the government take your house if they feel like putting a hotel where your house is," Dean said, not mentioning that until he nominated John Roberts to the Supreme Court this week, Bush had not appointed anyone to the high court.
Dean's reference to the "right-wing" court was also erroneous. The four justices who dissented in the Kelo vs. New London case included the three most conservative members of the court - Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Associate Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was the fourth dissenter.
The court's liberal coalition of Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer combined with Justice Anthony Kennedy to form the majority opinion, allowing the city of New London, Conn., to use eminent domain to seize private properties for commercial development.
"We think that eminent domain does not belong in the private sector. It is for public use only," Dean said.
The former Vermont governor cited moral values as the stamp of the Democratic Party.
"We are Democrats because we have moral values," Dean said. "We think it's a moral value to stop stealing money out of the Social Security trust fund." The Democratic Party's moral values, according to Dean, also include an obligation "to balance the budget," and have a "strong public education system."
The Democratic Party chairman suggested that Bush should be "reaching out and putting a collar and a mouthpiece on some of these people in his own party that are encouraging bigotry against immigrants in order to win the 2006 election.
"I am sick of being divided!" Dean shouted over the applause.
Regarding his support for Bob Casey, the pro-life Democrat running for the U.S. Senate from Pennsylvania, Dean said that "we ought to respect people's positions of conscience."
"A pro-life Democrat, unlike a pro-life Republican, cares about kids after they're born, not just before," Dean said.
He closed by encouraging the College Democrats to "fight for what you believe in ... We don't need two Republican parties," Dean said.
Townhall.com ~ CNSNews.com ** Howard Dean Again Ratchets up Anti-Bush Rhetoric
chatty
silly
Clinton to Direct Creation of Democrats' Agenda
COLUMBUS, Ohio - The Democratic Leadership Council, an organization of influential party moderates, named Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton today to direct a new initiative to define a party agenda for the 2006 and 2008 elections.
The appointment solidified the identification of Clinton, once considered a champion of the party's left, with the centrist movement that helped propel her husband to the White House in 1992. It also continued her effort, which has accelerated in recent months, to present herself as a moderate on issues such as national security, immigration and abortion.
In her new role, the New York Democrat immediately called for a truce between the DLC and liberal elements of the party, which have engaged in a ferocious war of words over the Democrats' direction since President Bush won reelection in November.
"Now, I know the DLC has taken some shots from some within our party and that it has returned fire too," she told a gathering of the group here. "Well, I think it's high time for a cease-fire, time for all Democrats to work together based on the fundamental values we all share."
Clinton assumed her role as head of the DLC's "American Dream Initiative" at a meeting that drew three other centrist Democrats widely considered possible 2008 contenders and highlighted the maneuvering already underway for the next presidential race.
Besides Clinton, roughly 500 elected officials and DLC supporters who convened at a downtown hotel also heard from Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), the DLC's outgoing chairman; Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, who replaced Bayh this month; and outgoing Virginia Gov. Mark Warner.
The session amounted to one of the first multi-candidate "cattle calls" for the potential 2008 contenders.
"I thought I was at a New Hampshire J-J dinner," joked Warner, in a reference to the Jefferson-Jackson party dinners that are frequent platforms for presidential contenders.
Each potential candidate delivered a campaign-style speech that blended criticism of the Bush administration with calls for Democrats to pursue centrist policies on such issues as national defense, energy and the federal budget.
Clinton's speech was built around an elaborate metaphor of what the country might look like on issues from healthcare to homeland security to a similar gathering that assembled in Ohio in 15 years.
Vilsack focused on restoring a greater sense of community and "shared sacrifice," Bayh emphasized the need to persuade Americans that Democrats could effectively safeguard national security, and Warner stressed the economic competition with rising nations such as China and India.
"The race is on for the future," Warner declared.
Those in the audience generally liked what they heard.
"We are going to be able to field an A-team in 2008," said Louis Magazzu, a local official in Cumberland County, N.J., after listening to the speeches.
Despite the calls for unity from Clinton, Bayh and other speakers, the day underscored continuing divisions among Democrats about how to rebuild at a time when Republicans control the White House and both chambers of Congress.
While many liberal activists insist the party's highest priority must be to block Bush's initiatives, DLC officials universally argued that Democrats would not recover until they fill in their own agenda.
"I think the nation fully understands what we are against," Vilsack said in an interview. "I think it is incumbent now to show what we are for."
The proceedings also highlighted a fissure among centrist "New Democrats." While the DLC recently endorsed the Central American Free Trade Agreement, Clinton voted against it in the Senate. Almost all House "New Democrats" are expected to oppose it when the lower chamber votes on the agreement this week. Several of the speakers sounded more skeptical notes toward free trade than were common among moderate Democrats in the 1990s.
The meeting comes at a time when the DLC is struggling to maintain the influence in the party it wielded when Bill Clinton held the White House.
Leading party centrists formed the DLC after Ronald Reagan's landslide reelection victory in 1984 over Walter F. Mondale, who was allied with the most liberal Democratic interest groups.
Urging Democrats to seize the political center, the DLC helped formulate key "New Democrat" ideas for Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign, such as welfare reform and national service. Clinton chaired the group from 1990 through 1991 and brought many figures involved with it into his two administrations.
Since Clinton left office, though, a broad array of liberal activists, many of them clustered around left-leaning websites like the Daily Kos, have accused the DLC of weakening the party by advocating positions, such as support for free trade or the Iraq war, that they say have blurred distinctions with the GOP.
David Sirota, a Democratic consultant who posts indefatigably on his own liberal web log, responded to the news of the "American Dream Initiative" Clinton is leading by warning that Democrats would be doomed to "permanent minority status" if they followed the DLC direction.
"The fact is, the Democratic Party has to make a choice: is it going to continue to follow the DLC, be a wholly-owned subsidiary of Corporate America, and lose elections for the infinite future," he wrote in an e-mail. "Or is it going to go back to its roots of really representing the middle class and standing up for ordinary people's economic rights?"
Clinton said that she would reach out not only to centrists but "progressive people from all perspectives" to prepare her blueprint, which is due in one year.
But the fierce remarks from Sirota — and only somewhat more muted criticism of liberal groups like MoveOn.org — show the challenge of devising a program that attracts broad support across the party.
Indeed, Al From, the DLC founder, said in an interview that the plan was not intended to "be a lowest common denominator agenda" assembled by compromising among all elements of the party.
All this suggests that strains could develop between Clinton's desire to write a plan popular with as wide an array of Democrats as possible and the DLC's hope of crafting a sharply focused centrist road map — even if that means continued conflict with liberals that Clinton may be reluctant to antagonize.
irritated
The libtards claim that Republicans are "Nazis"... but the leftist nanny state shows who the fascists really are.
No butts: Bill to stop drivers from lighting up behind the wheel
TRENTON, N.J. - Ashtrays have been disappearing in cars like fins on Cadillacs, and so could smoking while driving in New Jersey, under a measure introduced in the Legislature.
Although the measure faces long odds, it still has smokers incensed and tearing into the idea as a Big Brother intrusion that threatens to take away one of the few places they can enjoy their habit.
"The day a politician wants to tell me I can't smoke in my car, that's the day he takes over my lease payments," said John Cito, a financial planner from Hackensack with a taste for $20 cigars.
Those cigars, pipes and cigarettes would become no-nos for drivers. Offenders would be stung with a fine of up to $250, under the measure, whose sponsor said it's designed more to improve highway safety than protect health.
Assemblyman John McKeon, a tobacco opponent whose father died of emphysema, sponsored the legislation. He cites a AAA-sponsored study on driver distractions in which the automobile association found that of 32,000 accidents linked to distraction, one percent were related to smoking.
In the past, McKeon has also sponsored legislation to prohibit smoking in college dormitory rooms.
His latest measure, co-sponsored by fellow Democrat, Assemblywoman Lorretta Weinberg, comes on the heels of a proposal to ban smoking in bars, restaurants and the state's casinos. The smoking while driving ban shifts the smoking debate to private property.
The measure, introduced last month just before lawmakers' summer break, faces some improbable odds for passing.
Some lawmakers may fear the bill is frivolous compared with more pressing issues like taxes, said political analyst David Rebovich.
And there's this to consider: Traffic safety groups acknowledge motorists now widely ignore the state's year-old law against using hand-held cell phones, so why would smoking be any different?
Mitchell Sklar of the New Jersey State Association of Chiefs of Police, said police departments may balk at enforcing such a law.
"In general, we'd rather not try to incrementally look at every single behavior and make those a violation," he said.
Some states, including New Jersey, have considered putting the brakes on smoking while children are in the car. But none have gone for an outright ban on smoking while driving, according to Washington, D.C.-based Action on Smoking and Health, the country's oldest anti-tobacco organization.
Earlier this year, lawmakers in Germany proposed a ban on smoking while driving as a traffic safety measure.
Smokers, feeling like easy targets, say enough already. They argue they've been forced outside office buildings, run off the grounds of public facilities, and asked to pony up more in per-pack excise taxes when states feel a budget squeeze.
"With smoking, it's becoming increasingly fashionable to target legislation or prohibitions," said George Koodray, a member of the Metropolitan Cigar Society, a 100-strong group that meets in Paterson for dinner and a smoke.
A driving ban, said suburban Chicago smoker Garnet Dawn Scheuer, is "completely asinine. It's unbelievable that they want to try it. People have been smoking in their cars since cars were invented."
Scheuer, who tracks anti-smoking measures in the Midwest and Northeast for the New Hampshire-based Smokers Club Inc., disputes the distraction argument.
"You don't have to look at a cigarette to light it," she said.
Cito, who's also a member of the cigar society, was more blunt.
"They put it all under the ruse of this other crap. It's government interference. What's next my house?" he asked.
Maybe, said Assemblyman McKeon, "If your house was on four wheels and going 70 mph, you're right I would."
Anita Hill slams Supreme choice of Roberts
Woman who opposed Clarence Thomas claims Bush pick step back for diversity
Anita Hill, the woman who opposed Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court by alleging sexual harassment, is now blasting President Bush's selection of John Roberts, claiming it's a step back for diversity and fears it could lead to "an all-white-male Supreme Court."
In a 
"With O'Connor on the bench, the Supreme Court was the most diverse in its history," Hill continued. "If confirmability through the Roberts 'primer' becomes the rule, it is not hard to imagine a return to an all-white-male Supreme Court.
"The nomination process may have become so politicized that the only secure nomination is someone who is an ultimate Washington insider, liked by both sides. If so, it misses a chance to reflect the experiences of the vast majority of Americans. Moreover, a gold standard for judicial selection based on exclusivity appears to contradict the values of ever-expanding opportunities we espouse."
Hill's opinion is prompting reaction from bloggers across the Internet, including one from Jon Henke, who said, "Good Lord, is she really arguing that appointments to the Supreme Court should be made based on skin color and gender, rather than judicial merits? Is she really arguing that we're paying too much attention to merit and not enough to appearance?"
Another writes, "It's ironic that the woman who did her best to torpedo court diversity during the Clarence Thomas hearings, is now such a huge advocate."
In 1991, Hill nearly derailed the confirmation of Justice Clarence Thomas by claiming she had been sexually harassed by Thomas when she worked for him years earlier at the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission.
She said Thomas would discuss sexual acts and pornographic films after she rebuffed his invitations to date him.
In response to the allegations, Thomas called Senate hearings on the matter "a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks."
He was eventually confirmed by the Senate by a 52-48 vote.
hungry
The Justice Department has launched a criminal investigation into whether Democratic Senators Dick Durbin (Top left), Jay Rockefeller (Middle Left), and Ron Wyden (Lower Left) leaked details about a secret "black ops" CIA satellite program last December in a move that may have seriously compromised national security, former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Jed Babbin said on Saturday.
"The CIA made a request to the Justice Department to investigate and possibly bring criminal charges against these three [senators]," Babbin told WABC Radio host Monica Crowley. "My information is that investigation is ongoing."
Rockefeller is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and Durbin is the No. 2-ranking Democrat in the Senate.
Media reports on the satellite leak last December indicated that the Bush administration was concerned about public comments by Durbin, Rockefeller and Wyden and that the CIA had requested a Justice Department probe.
"The formal request for a leaks investigation would target people who described sensitive details about a new generation of spy satellites to The Washington Post, which published a page-one story about the espionage program Saturday [Dec. 11, 2004]," a Justice Department official told The Associated Press at the time.
But the same official told the AP that Justice "has not decided whether to investigate."
Former Deputy Undersecretary Babbin's comments on Saturday were the first indication that such a probe was actually launched and is ongoing.
"The fact of the matter is that [Durbin, Rockefeller and Wyden] divulged something that was above and beyond top secret and frankly, they probably blew the strategy and the hundreds of millions of dollars that were being spent to pursue it," Babbin told Crowley.
"The acknowledgement of [the "black ops" program's] existence is not even proper and the acknowledgement of them and the details of them can very well damage national security," Babbin added.
Asked if he thought the three Senate Democrats should have their security clearances revoked for the duration of the leak probe, the former Defense Department official said: "Absolutely and forthwith. I mean, they should have been revoked at the time of the leak."
"There's really not much doubt about the leak having occurred," Babbin told Crowley. "It's in the press records, it's in the Congressional record. We know what they did."
"The only question," he explained, "is how much damage was done by the leak. And that's part of the criminal investigation right now - to do a damage assessment, to figure out how much this is going to cost us strategically and militarily."
I guess this is what happens when some people age, yet fail to grow up. Whats next? A cartman style tea party?
What do you think of me Polly Prissypants?
And what do you think Peter Panda?
I don't know Peter Panda.....what do you think of me Rumpertumskin?
"I think you're a piece of crap!"
Democrats-only Hill hearing targets Rove
Democrats convened a partisan hearing yesterday in an attempt to breathe new life into the suspicion that Karl Rove is guilty of an illegal leak to the press.
The hearing, convened in a Senate office building by the Democratic Policy Committee, featured both House and Senate members and a slate of witnesses guaranteed to testify that the deputy White House chief of staff was guilty of misdeeds in leaking the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame.
"We know that a dastardly crime in all likelihood was committed," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan was peppered with questions about Mr. Rove nearly every day for two weeks in early July, and the story dominated the political news. Since Mr. Bush tapped Judge John G. Roberts Jr. for the Supreme Court on Tuesday, however, questions about Mr. Rove and stories about the controversy have dwindled to a trickle.
Mr. McClellan was not asked a single question about Mr. Rove by reporters traveling aboard Air Force One yesterday.
Roll Call reported Thursday that a set of "talking points" was issued Wednesday by Senate Democratic leadership urging rank-and-file senators to do what they could to keep the controversy surrounding Mr. Rove in the news.
Republican National Committee spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said the "faux hearings" demonstrate that Democrats are too eager to score political points to wait for the facts to come out upon completion of the special prosecutor's investigation into the matter.
"If Democrats had any confidence in the investigatory process, they would hold their fire and let the investigation proceed rather than rushing to judgment," Miss Schmitt said.
Mrs. Plame is the wife of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, who has accused the White House of lying about Iraq's attempts to acquire weapons-grade nuclear material from Niger. A report by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the British intelligence service and other intelligence agencies around the world, however, claim the attempt was made.
The bipartisan intelligence committee report also determined that Mrs. Plame recommended to the CIA that her husband -- a critic of the war in Iraq -- travel to Niger to verify the story of attempted "yellowcake" uranium purchases. Though his own report suggested it had occurred, Mr. Wilson wrote an op-ed in the New York Times on July 6, 2003, saying it was wrong of the White House to suggest it did happen.
Mr. Wilson has never publicly reconciled that conflict.
Democrats, however, made it clear that they believe Mr. Wilson's op-ed, and are convinced that Mr. Rove "outed" Mrs. Plame as a form of political retribution.
"The White House launched a smear campaign, and Valerie Plame became collateral damage," said Rep. Henry A. Waxman, California Democrat. "Now the White House has gone silent. It won't answer any questions. It won't take any administrative action against Mr. Rove."
Rep. John Conyers Jr., Michigan Democrat, said that what occurred is "at its worst, treason committed by high-level White House officials, and at the best we have seen an abuse of power."
don't ask
An international ring smuggled girls as young as 14 into the U.S. from Honduras and forced them to work as virtual slaves in New Jersey bars - and endure brutal beatings if they protested, authorities said yesterday.
Some of the girls were raped by smugglers and those who became pregnant were forced to take abortion drugs so they could stay on the job, prosecutors said.
"This was inhumane and sadistic treatment of young women who were kept as virtual slaves," said Newark U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie. "These are among the most vile crimes I've seen."
The alleged ringleader, Luisa Medrano, 50, of Cliffside Park, N.J., and nine other suspects, some in Honduras, were charged yesterday with alien smuggling and other crimes that could get them up to 20 years in prison and $250,000 in fines.
An indictment handed up in Newark alleged smugglers promised the victims jobs as waitresses - but instead forced them to drink and dance with customers at Medrano's three Hudson County bars.
The women were paid $240 for working up to seven days a week - but nearly all the money went to the smuggling ring, which charged $10,000 to $20,000 to bring them to the U.S.
Christie said girls who objected were treated brutally. "One 15-year-old was beaten so badly blood vessels were broken in her eyes and a 14-year-old was beaten with a belt that raised welts all over her body," he said.
He said 10 young women were victimized from mid-2003 until January, when the ring was smashed. But at least 20 others are believed to have been enslaved. The probe is continuing. The victims already identified and located are now under federal protection and getting counseling and schooling, Christie said. He said they're eligible to seek visas to remain legally in the U.S.
cheeky
Instead, Bush gave them Judge John G. Roberts Jr. >>>>>
He is smart, graduating from Harvard in three years. He is well-qualified, arguing 39 cases before the Supreme Court. He is well-liked, winning over both sides in his legal career.
Roberts, a federal judge on the Washington, D.C., court of appeals, is expected to be confirmed by the Senate this fall - which leaves Democrats a little unsure how to proceed.
"He's kind of defanged or neutered the Democrats at this point," said Richard Born, a congressional expert at Vassar College. "He just doesn't give the Democrats a lot to work with."
Democratic senators have been quiet on Roberts nomination, voicing no outright opposition and refusing to criticize when baited by reporters. Instead, they have praised him. "John Roberts has had an impressive legal career," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said. "Both in government and in private practice, he has been a zealous and often successful advocate for his clients. He has argued many cases before the Supreme Court and is respected for his legal skills. By all accounts he is a very nice man."
There's more:
Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut said he is "a credible nominee." Sen. Barbara Boxer of California described him as "a very affable individual." Sen. Charles Schumer of New York said he "has outstanding legal credentials and an appropriate legal temperament and demeanor."
Roberts got none of the criticism Robert Bork did from Democrats when he was nominated for the court by President Ronald Reagan in 1987 - and later rejected by the Senate.
"They didn't get the guy they thought they were going to get," said Jennifer Duffy, who analyzes the Senate for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report in Washington. "They expected the son of Robert Bork."
Roberts spent three days this week visiting with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will hold his confirmation hearings in August or September. The Democrats, like their Republican colleagues, played nice, exchanging pleasantries and smiling for photos.
All of them talked of reserving judgment about Roberts and said the confirmation hearings should be fair.
"It is critical ... that we not prejudge a nominee," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee.
Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, one of the most outspoken and liberal Democrats on the committee, said that "historically, there's always a honeymoon period for the nominee."
"He's pretty much a blank slate as to where he stands," he said. "Blanks have to filled in."
As the summer drags on, the talk is expected to heat up. Still, Roberts is expected to be confirmed, barring any startling discovery in his background.
Kennedy and two other Democratic committee members voted against Roberts for D.C. Court of Appeals two years ago, but he was approved by voice vote in the full Senate.
"When you nominate someone of the caliber of Judge Roberts, you take away every credible argument the Democrats might have had" to oppose him, said Sen. Rick Santorum, third-ranking Republican in the Senate.
With only 44 of 100 seats in the Senate, Democrats are limited in their ability to oppose a nominee. They could try to use a filibuster - a parliamentary procedure to prolong debate - but a May agreement by 14 senators makes that difficult.
The so-called Gang of 14 - seven Republicans and seven Democrats - cut a deal on judicial nominees that allows for a filibuster only under "extraordinary circumstances" - a phrase left undefined.
The group represents enough votes to prevent Democrats from being able to filibuster, and Republicans from changing the rules to override a filibuster.
Several Democrats said this week that Roberts is well-qualified, and they doubt their party would try to filibuster his confirmation. The filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee is almost unheard of, and would likely end in political squabbling that would bring the business and cooperation of the Senate to a halt.
"At the end of the hearings we do not anticipate anything that would be a stickler, that would rise to the level of extraordinary circumstances," said Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., one of the Gang of 14. "But you can't come to that conclusion until the end of the entire process."
Democrats would have benefited from a real fight - so they could try to show that the Republican party is moving more to the right, fire up their base and placate special interest groups.
But now that the majority of people have accepted Roberts as well-qualified, Democrats don't want to be seen as obstructionist.
A USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll this week shows 51 percent of those polled called the choice of Roberts excellent or good; 34 percent called it fair or poor; and the rest had no opinion. A Washington Post-ABC News poll showed 59 percent in favor of his confirmation; 23 percent opposed; and the rest undecided.
Democrats "don't have a strong strategic position," said John Fortier, a political scientist who studies Congress for the American Enterprise Institute. "You'd have to have some strong argument. Right now to make lots of noise against him, there is no ammunition."
St. Petersburg Times Washington bureau chief Bill Adair and researcher Carolyn Edds contributed to this report.