Bush's job rating continues to drop

Found this from CNN.Com:

(CNN) -- President Bush's job approval rating continues to plummet, with 39 percent of Americans surveyed in the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll supporting his performance, compared to 58 percent expressing disapproval.

The approval rating was the lowest the poll has recorded during Bush's presidency, down from 45 percent in a survey taken September 26-28, and the disapproval rating was up from 50 percent.

The latest poll results, released Monday, were based on interviews with 1,012 adult Americans conducted by telephone October 13-16. In both surveys, the questions on approval ratings had a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Bush has seen his approval rating steadily decline since he was sworn in for a second term in January, when 57 percent approved of his handling of the job and 40 percent disapproved.

So now Bush has dropped down to under 40% approval ratings. It doesn't surprise me with all the mis-steps the White House has created--from the FEMA fiasco with both Hurricane's Katrina and Rita (And now we have a Category 5 monster named Wilma off the Florida coast), Iraq war, high energy prices, Valerie Plamegate (Complete with all the rumors of Fitzgerald handing down indictments against senior Bush officials). You also have to wonder whether the Bush White House is tainted by the scandals rocking the GOP-Congress, with Tom DeLay being indicted on money-laundering charges, Bill Frist being investigated for insider-trading of stock, and just about anyone who has talked or met with lobbyist Jack Abramoff. It is a total snowball effect that is barreling down towards the White House. And it is going to get worst if Fitzgerald start indicting Karl Rove, Scooter Libby or even Dick Cheney. For the past year, the Bush White House has been lurching from one crisis to the next crisis without any thought towards the long-term consequences. Oh, there's Bush's pick of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court--who may have been chosen for both long and short-term political reasons. But even her nomination has caused a crisis, the the right-wingnuts claiming that Miers is not "conservative" enough for them. And the Bush White House has had to deal with that crisis. Is it no wonder that voters are jumping off this rudderless Bush Ship-of-State?

We still have three more years left of this Bush presidency.

No Final Report Seen in Inquiry on C.I.A. Leak

This is from the New York Times:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 - The special counsel in the C.I.A. leak case has told associates he has no plans to issue a final report about the results of the investigation, heightening the expectation that he intends to bring indictments, lawyers in the case and law enforcement officials said yesterday.

The prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, is not expected to take any action in the case this week, government officials said. A spokesman for Mr. Fitzgerald, Randall Samborn, declined to comment.

A final report had long been considered an option for Mr. Fitzgerald if he decided not to accuse anyone of wrongdoing, although Justice Department officials have been dubious about his legal authority to issue such a report.

By signaling that he had no plans to issue the grand jury's findings in such detail, Mr. Fitzgerald appeared to narrow his options either to indictments or closing his investigation with no public disclosure of his findings, a choice that would set off a political firestorm.

With the term of the grand jury expiring Oct. 28, lawyers in the case said they assumed Mr. Fitzgerald was in the final stages of his inquiry.

So there's no final report yet? Well, this could mean one of three things. First, Fitzgerald is making up some indictments to hand down--either for this week or next week, certainly before the gran jury closes down. And if he's going to hand down indictments, he's got plenty of people to choose from--Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, VP Dick Cheney. I've even heard rumors of other Bush aids as listed for indictments--Mary Matalin being indicted? What is certainly amazing is how close Fitzgerald is keeping his cards to his chest, where just about everyone--from reporters to bloggers--are trying to find out who is going to walk the perp walk. The second possibility is that he may just close the investigation without issuing a report or handing down indictments. Of course that amounts to Fitzgerald committing political suicide. By simply shutting down the investigation, Fitzgerald opens himself up to criticisms and investigations from both the Democrats and liberals, after spending so much time and taxpayer monies on this case. Of course, this would be a wet dream for the Republicans and the Bush White House. A huge firestorm will certainly ignite between both political spectrums, causing even more suspicion and acrimony against the Bush White House by liberal and Democratic partisans. The third option would be that Fitzgerald submits a report later on this month, but does not hand down indictments. With this option, his report will be picked apart on both sides of the political spectrum. The Democrats and liberal blogosphere will certainly shred him with any inconsistencies that are gleaned from the report. The Republicans and Bush White House will be happy because Rove, Libby, and Cheney may be free from suspicion by the special prosecutor. Of course, a political firestorm will also ignite by the liberal and Democratic partisans, but the anger will be directed against both the Bush White House and Fitzgerald. The press reports say that Fizgerald will go to Washington DC to announce his decision, rather than stay in Chicago where Fitzgerald's office is based. If Fitzgerald is going to Washington, then he has to have something to say--otherwise his reputation is going to be politically creamed.

So we're stuck waiting until Fitzgerald pops his head up.

A Year Later, Goss's CIA Is Still in Turmoil

This is from the Washington Post:

When Porter J. Goss took over a failure-stained CIA last year, he promised to reshape the agency beginning with the area he knew best: its famed spy division.

Goss, himself a former covert operative who had chaired the House intelligence committee, focused on the officers in the field. He pledged status and resources for case officers, sending hundreds more to far-off assignments, undercover and on the front line of the battle against al Qaeda.

A year later, Goss is at loggerheads with the clandestine service he sought to embrace. At least a dozen senior officials -- several of whom were promoted under Goss -- have resigned, retired early or requested reassignment. The directorate's second-in-command walked out of Langley last month and then told senators in a closed-door hearing that he had lost confidence in Goss's leadership.

The turmoil has left some employees shaken and has prompted former colleagues in Congress to question how Goss intends to improve the agency's capabilities and restore morale. The White House is aware of the problems, administration officials said, and believes they are being handled by the director of national intelligence, who now oversees the agency.

But the Senate intelligence committee, which generally took testimony once a year from Goss's predecessors, has invited him for an unusual closed-door hearing today. Senators, according to their staff, intend to ask the former congressman from Florida to explain why the CIA is bleeding talent at a time of war, and to answer charges that the agency is adrift.

Do we really need to have a Congressional investigation into WHY people are leaving the CIA? The CIA has been pretty much shredded by the White House. First, the White House demanded that the CIA produce intelligence reports which would promote their arguments for invading Iraq. Second, any intelligence reports that countered the White House PR arguments--such as intelligence reports saying Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction--were either ignored by the White House or suppressed. Third, any dissent or criticism from the CIA towards the White House was also suppressed, or such critic's reputations were destroyed by the White House. Fourth, two words--VALERIE PLAME! Career CIA analysts and operatives are not going to work for a president who will--either through himself or through his key aids--expose undercover agents out of spite and invectiveness in response to criticism. Finally, through the bureaucratic shake-up after Sept. 11 with the CIA being subservient to the new national director of intelligence, the CIA has become a former shell of itself.

The intelligence services has become way too big, and too complex. There are too many intelligence offices--the CIA, FBI (which was originally designed as a domestic intelligence agency, but now is the premier crime-fighting agency that also maintains some intelligence services), NSA, Pentagon intelligence agencies of Army intelligence, Navy intelligence, Air Force intelligence. Each agency has their own budget, their own staff, and their own agenda for gathering intelligence. And each agency certainly doesn't want the other agencies to step on their turf. Of course, Congress doesn't help with its legislation of putting all the intelligence agencies under one roof with a single intelligence czar. And the White House isn't helping with the faulty intelligence reports on Iraq's WMDs or Valerie Plame. Forming them into a single bureaucracy is one way to solve the problem, but it also creates another layer of management that can also filter the intelligence data, or play the CYA game when intelligence fails the government again--such as another terrorist attack. Greater sharing of intelligence between the different agencies is certainly needed, where the agencies can be trusted in knowing that their turfs are not going to be stepped upon. It is an almost impossible job--especially considering the role the CIA played during the Cold War years when it was an all powerful agency, that is now being relegated to second-hand status and which has been used in partisan politics through the Bush administration.

Lawmaker's Abramoff Ties Investigated

And now, another exciting episode of The Jack Abramoff Scandal. This is from the Washington Post:

As federal officials pursue a wide-ranging investigation into the activities of Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff, his arrest on fraud charges in the purchase of a Florida casino boat company has increasingly focused attention on a little-known congressman from rural Ohio.

Rep. Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio) placed comments in the Congressional Record favorable to Abramoff's 2000 purchase of the casino boat company, SunCruz Casinos. Two years later, Ney sponsored legislation to reopen a casino for a Texas Indian tribe that Abramoff represented.

Ney approved a 2002 license for an Israeli telecommunications company to install antennas for the House. The company later paid Abramoff $280,000 for lobbying. It also donated $50,000 to a charity that Abramoff sometimes used to secretly pay for some of his lobbying activities.

First there's House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Then we have his protoge Roy Blount. And now we have Ohio Representative Robert Ney getting sucked into the Abramoff scandal? Where will it end? Continuing on with the Post story:

Meanwhile, Ney accepted many favors from Abramoff, among them campaign contributions, dinners at the lobbyist's downtown restaurant, skybox fundraisers, including one at his MCI Center box, and a golfing trip to Scotland in August 2002. If statements made by Abramoff to tribal officials and in an e-mail are to be believed, Ney sought the Scotland trip after he agreed to help Abramoff's Texas Indian clients. Abramoff then arranged for his charity to pay for the trip, according to documents released by a Senate committee investigating the lobbyist.

Ney is under investigation by Florida federal prosecutors looking into Abramoff's acquisition of SunCruz, according to sources familiar with the investigation who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Abramoff and his business partner Adam Kidan were indicted in August on fraud charges related to the purchase.

Ney declined to be interviewed. He has said his actions benefiting Abramoff had nothing to do with the favors he received. He said he was misled by Abramoff and his associates.

He was misled by Abramoff? Come on--he can't be that dumb! Of course, there's this little tidbit to chew on:

A six-term congressman from rural eastern Ohio, Ney, 51, does not have a national profile. A former teacher and public safety director for his home town of Bellaire, Ney was an Ohio legislator in 1994 when he defeated the Democratic incumbent in the congressional district once represented by Wayne Hays (D).

But to members of Congress, Ney is known as the mayor of Capitol Hill. Ney is Administration Committee chairman, a powerful position that doles out budgets, equipment, offices and parking spaces to House members. These perks are used by House Republican leaders to keep their rank and file in line.

Ney became chairman of the committee thanks to his political patron, Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), who recently stepped down as House majority leader after he was indicted on a charge of conspiracy to violate a Texas campaign law. Shortly after Ney arrived in the House in 1994, he became a part of DeLay's Retain Our Majority Program (ROMP), a fundraising effort in which GOP colleagues donated to Republicans such as Ney in districts without a safe majority. After lines were redrawn to make Ney's district more Republican, he returned the favor, donating to other vulnerable House Republicans. That helped him earn his chairmanship in 2001, leapfrogging over a colleague with more seniority.

Just about anyone in Congress who has any type of relationship with DeLay, is most certainly going to be involved with Abramoff. This is about as low as you can go regarding cronyism. And it gets worst. Continuing on:

Ney and Abramoff, whom DeLay once described as "one of my closest and dearest friends," crossed paths as early as 1996. That year Ney took a trip to Montenegro sponsored by a foundation that had links to Abramoff, who was a lobbyist for Montenegro.

A few years later, Ney paid unusual attention to another Abramoff client, the Florida gambling boat company SunCruz, which was headquartered more than 1,000 miles outside of Ney's congressional district. Abramoff and his business partner were trying to buy the cruise ship fleet from Konstantinos "Gus" Boulis, but Boulis was demanding unwelcome additional terms.

So now the SunCruz scandal comes up.

In March 2000, Ney used the Congressional Record to assail Boulis.

"On the Ohio River we have gaming interests that run clean operations and provide quality entertainment," Ney wrote. "I don't want to see the actions of one bad apple in Florida, or anywhere else to affect the business aspect of this industry or hurt any innocent casino patron in our country."

Ney's remarks were orchestrated by Michael Scanlon, a former DeLay spokesman who had just been hired to work for Abramoff at Preston Gates & Ellis LLP. Scanlon had approached Ney through his chief of staff, Neil Volz, according to sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Volz has repeatedly declined to be interviewed.

A few months later, Boulis agreed in principle to sell SunCruz to Abramoff and Kidan for $147.5 million. The deal closed in the fall. But Abramoff and Kidan failed to make good on a $23 million payment owed to Boulis, court records show.

When Boulis was being difficult in the negotiations, Ney again made an official statement, this time heaping praise on Kidan.

"Since my previous statement, I have come to learn that SunCruz Casino now finds itself under new ownership and, more importantly, that its new owner has a renowned reputation for honesty and integrity," Ney said in the Congressional Record on Oct. 26, 2000. "The new owner, Mr. Adam Kidan, is most well known for his successful enterprise, Dial-a-Mattress, but he is also well known as a solid individual and a respected member of his community.

"While Mr. Kidan certainly has his hands full in his efforts to clean up SunCruz's reputation, his track record as a businessman and as a citizen lead me to believe that he will easily transform SunCruz from a questionable enterprise to an upstanding establishment that the gaming community can be proud of."

But Kidan's "track record" included a string of lawsuits, judgments, liens, bankruptcies and failed businesses. His Dial-a-Mattress franchise in the District was in bankruptcy. He had filed personal bankruptcy, and he had surrendered his law license in New York after being accused of fraud. One of his mentors, Anthony Moscatiello, was alleged by law enforcement to be an accountant for New York's Gambino crime family.

Ney later said he did not know about Kidan's background.

I wonder how long it is going to be before Ney is indicted?

Cheney's Office Is A Focus in Leak Case

This is from the Washington Post:

As the investigation into the leak of a CIA agent's name hurtles to an apparent conclusion, special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has zeroed in on the role of Vice President Cheney's office, according to lawyers familiar with the case and government officials. The prosecutor has assembled evidence that suggests Cheney's long-standing tensions with the CIA contributed to the unmasking of operative Valerie Plame.

In grand jury sessions, including with New York Times reporter Judith Miller, Fitzgerald has pressed witnesses on what Cheney may have known about the effort to push back against ex-diplomat and Iraq war critic Joseph C. Wilson IV, including the leak of his wife's position at the CIA, Miller and others said. But Fitzgerald has focused more on the role of Cheney's top aides, including Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, lawyers involved in the case said.

One former CIA official told prosecutors early in the probe about efforts by Cheney's office and his allies at the National Security Council to obtain information about Wilson's trip as long as two months before Plame was unmasked in July 2003, according to a person familiar with the account.

So Cheney's office was interested in Wilson and his trip to investigate the purported Iraqi purchases of uranium yellowcake from Niger two months before Plame was unmasked? So now the question is why was Cheney and the NSA interested in Wilson? What were their reasons for this little investigation? Could it be that Wilson was already critical of the White House PR strategy of selling the Iraq war with weapons of mass destruction, even though Wilson and the CIA never found any such weapons? Were they planning to discredit Wilson two months before Plame surfaced? Continuing on with the Post story:

Lawyers in the case said Fitzgerald has focused extensively on whether behind-the-scenes efforts by the vice president's aides and other senior Bush aides were part of a criminal campaign to punish Wilson in part by unmasking his wife.

In a move people involved in the case read as a sign that the end is near, Fitzgerald's spokesman yesterday told the Associated Press that the prosecutor planned to announce his conclusions in Washington, where the grand jury has been meeting, instead of Chicago, where the prosecutor is based.

It could be that the aids were running ahead of Cheney and the president in this campaign for punishing Wilson after his criticism against the Bush administration for the Iraq war. Yet this behind-the-scenes efforts by the VP aids and other senior Bush aids would not have gone on unless their actions were tactfully acknowledged by either the president, the vice-president, or perhaps even Karl Rove. Even more interesting is that Fitzgerald will announce his conclusions in Washington, probably in a major press conference. Fitzgerald wouldn't go to Washington to make this big PR-newsworthy even unless he had something really big to say--perhaps indictments against Rove, Scooter Libby, or even Cheney himself. And Fitzgerald has been shifting his gaze away from the Plame story and towards the infighting between Cheney's office and the CIA. The Post story continues:

In the course of the investigation, Fitzgerald has been exposed to the intense, behind-the-scenes fight between Cheney's office and the CIA over prewar intelligence and the vice president's central role in compiling and then defending the intelligence used to justify the war. Miller, in a first-person account Sunday in the Times, recalled that Libby complained in a June 23, 2003, meeting in his office that the CIA was engaged in "selective leaking" and a "hedging strategy" that would make the agency look equally prescient whether or not weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.

The CIA probably knew there were no WMDs in Iraq. However the White House didn't want to hear that since such reports shredded their PR arguments for going to war with Iraq. The White House was probably demanding intelligence reports favorable to their PR-strategy, and the CIA didn't have any. Hence, the fight between Cheney's office and the CIA. The CIA started leaking their own views to the press, since the White House wouldn't accept their conclusions, causing an even greater rift between the White House and the CIA--Scooter Libby told Judith Miller that regarding the CIA's hedging strategy. According to the Post story:

Starting in the days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the vice president was at the forefront of a White House campaign to convince Congress and the American public that invading Iraq was central to defeating terrorists worldwide. Cheney, a longtime proponent of toppling Saddam Hussein, led the White House effort to build the case that Iraq was an imminent threat because it possessed a dangerous arsenal of weapons.

Cheney was at the forefront of the White House PR strategy to sell the invasion of Iraq to the American public. He was a proponent for toppling Saddam Hussein. Cheney also believed in the PNAC Doctrine of invading Iraq and setting up a major American protectorate, where the U.S. could project greater military and political power in the Middle East. Cheney was a member of PNAC. Continuing on:

Before the war, he [Cheney] traveled to CIA headquarters for briefings, an unusual move that some critics interpreted as an effort to pressure intelligence officials into supporting his view of the evidence. After the war, when critics started questioning whether the White House relied on faulty information to justify war, Cheney and Libby were central to the effort to defend the intelligence and discredit the naysayers in Congress and elsewhere.

Administration officials acknowledge that Cheney was immersed in Iraq intelligence, and pressed aides repeatedly for information on weapons programs. He regularly requested follow-up information from the CIA and others when a piece of intelligence caught his eye. Wilson's trip, for example, was triggered by a question Cheney asked during a regular morning intelligence briefing. He had received a Defense Intelligence Agency report alleging Iraq had sought uranium from Niger and wanted to know what else the CIA may have known. Cheney's office was not told ahead of time about the Wilson mission to investigate the claim.

Cheney was immersed in the intelligence briefings from the CIA. There is no doubt he was looking for favorable intelligence that he could use to support the Bush administration's arguments for invasion. He was a proponent for the invasion. Cheney's office was at the forefront of the PR effort, and were thus in a prime position to discredit the critics. The allegations that Iraq was purchasing uranium from Niger was an especially cherry-picked piece of intelligence for Cheney. If such allegations were true, it would be hard, concrete evidence that would support the Bush administrations claims for invasion. So Cheney would have wanted everything regarding this piece of intelligence. The CIA had no choice but the investigate this claim. Thus, Joe Wilson enters the picture.

The story does not end. Continuing on:

In the Bush White House, Cheney typically has operated secretly, relying on advice from a tight circle of longtime advisers, including Libby; David Addington, his counsel; and his wife, Lynne, and two children, including Liz, a top State Department official. But a former Cheney aide, who requested anonymity, said it is "implausible" that Cheney himself was involved in the leaking of Plame's name because he rarely, if ever, involved himself in press strategy.

We've seen this happen in the Nixon administration were top Nixon aids were operating in complete secrecy, while conducting illegal activities as smear campaigns against Democratic opponents, and using government resources to conduct illegal intelligence and sabotage activities against political opponents. Remember the bugging of the Democratic HQ at Watergate? The Plumbers? The money laundering of campaign funds to pay for these intelligence and sabotage activities? So now we have the vice president's office also operating in secret, with the vice president relying on a close circle of extremely loyal aids. When an office works in total secrecy with zealously loyal aids, you can bet that those aids will believe that their agenda--their cause--is certainly above the laws that govern the country. And that anyone who opposes their agenda, should be destroyed. The power corrupts them. The real problem with this type of secret office is that the top people who run this office are responsible for creating this type of atmosphere--namely Cheney and ultimately President Bush. They allowed such an atmosphere of secrecy to exist and are thus responsible for the consequences caused by this secrecy--whether they knew about it or not. However, both Bush and Cheney (if he's not indicted) will claim deniability.

This is not the first time we've seen Cheney operate in secret. Remember the Cheney energy commission and the fact that the members names on that commission are still classified today? Cheney may not have been involved in the press strategy for leaking Plames name and discrediting Wilson. But his anger at Wilson and his desire for revenge against Wilson would have prompted his aids to conduct this smear campaign. And Cheney would have played dumb, saying he didn't know what was going on in his office--even though he would have been pleased by the events.

Finally, there is this from the Post story:

One fact apparently critical to Fitzgerald's inquiry is when Libby learned about Plame and her CIA employment. Information that has emerged so far leaves this issue murky. A former CIA official told investigators that Cheney's office was seeking information about Wilson in May 2003, but it's not certain that officials with the vice president learned of the Plame connection then.

Miller, in her account, said Libby raised the issue of Plame in the June 23, 2003, meeting, describing her as a CIA employee and asserting that she had arranged the trip to Niger. Earlier that month, Libby discussed Wilson's trip with The Washington Post but never mentioned his wife.

Senior administration officials said there was a document circulated at the State Department -- before Libby talked to Miller -- that mentioned Plame. It was drafted in June as an administrative letter and addressed to then-Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman, who was acting secretary at the time since Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Deputy Secretary Richard L. Armitage were out of the country.

As a former State Department official involved in the process recalled it, Grossman wanted the letter as background for a meeting at the White House, where the discussion was focused on then growing criticism of Bush's inclusion in his January State of the Union speech of the allegation that Hussein had been seeking uranium from Niger.

The letter to Grossman discussed the reasons the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) did not believe the intelligence, which originated from foreign sources, was accurate. It had a paragraph near the beginning, marked "(S)," meaning it was classified secret, describing a meeting at the CIA in February 2002, attended by another INR analyst, where Plame introduced her husband as the person who was to go to Niger.

First, why was Cheney seeking information from the CIA about Wilson in May 2003? Was Wilson targeted as a critic against the war within the CIA? Then there's this interesting discussion between Libby and Miller in June 23, 2003. Libby starts planting the story of Plame sending her husband Joe Wilson to Niger for the uranium investigation to Miller. And yet earlier that month, Libby talks about Wilson's trip to the Washington Post, but never mentions Wilson's wife. Did Libby know about Wilson's wife when he talked to the Post? Cheney's office was certainly seeking information about Wilson in May, and anything that the CIA would have sent to Cheney would have gone through Libby. So the question here is about the timeline--when did the CIA send information regarding Wilson to Cheney, and when did Libby learn of Wilson's wife working for the CIA? Did Libby know of Wilson's wife when he talked to the Post reporter? If so, then why did he not mention it to the Post, and yet talked about Plame with Miller? Was Libby trying to goad Miller into publishing this story about Plame sending Wilson to Niger in late June?

The State Department letter also provides some tantalizing clues in this scandal. It was a classified letter of a February 2003 CIA meeting which links Valerie Plame with sending her husband Joe Wilson to Niger to investigate the uranium cake purchases by Iraq. It was certainly written before Libby talked to Miller. This letter was to be used as background in a meeting at the White House to respond to the growing criticism against Bush's inclusion of the Niger argument in his State of the Union speech. The big question here is who was at the White House meeting? When did the meeting take place? And who had access to the contents of this letter?

Pop some popcorn, sit back, and watch the exciting conclusion to this scandal as it is played out. Fitzgerald will pop up real soon.

White House Asks Judges to Vouch for Miers

This is off Yahoo News:

WASHINGTON - Stunned by conservative opposition to Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, President Bush next week will bring in former justices from her home state of Texas to trumpet her qualifications for the nation's highest court.

The event is part of an administration effort to refine its push for Miers after its initial strategy failed to quiet opposition from members of the president's own party.

The Republican critics, who suggest Bush passed over candidates with long records of conservative rulings from the bench, say that if the White House strategy continues to amount to a "trust me" message, they'll continue to grumble.

On Friday, press secretary Scott McClellan repeatedly used the words "qualified" and "well-qualified" to defend Miers and say she deserved a fair hearing from the Senate Judiciary Committee. Conservative opponents say emphasizing her resume is part of a new White House tack.

The White House has sought to dampen opposition from the GOP's right flank by noting that Miers attended an evangelical church in Texas that is almost universally anti-abortion. Earlier this week, the president spoke of how religion is part of her life.

That only inflamed some critics, rubbing against the grain of judicial conservatism — the idea that judges should strictly interpret the Constitution and that their opinions should not be colored by personal beliefs.

Talk about changing your PR strategy. If at first, your supporters don't believe in you saying 'Trust me,' then try hauling in former Texas judges who will rehash the same White House PR script. The problem here is that Bush has alienated his conservative right-wing base. The right-wingnuts were expecting Bush to select a hard-liner with strong ideological views to tip the Court further right, and to overturn Roe verses Wade. The White House knew there was no way Senate Democrats were going to allow such an ideologue to the Court--the Senate Democrats would filibuster such a nominee, forcing a nuclear showdown in Congress that would further weaken the president. So Bush chose this relative unknown lawyer on the basis of personal loyalties to himself, rather than judicial qualifications. And now he's been forced to defend his choice against his own base, including bringing up Miers' religious faith to convince the religious right of Meirs social conservativism. And since the president has brought Miers religious views into the public debate, this only adds ammunition to the Democrats when the Senate confirmation hearings take place.

But the right-wing base still doesn't believe the White House PR spin. According to the story:

The National Pro-Life Action Center on Friday called on Bush to withdraw his "ill-advised" nomination. Gary Bauer, a leading conservative, wrote his supporters on Friday: "The nomination of Harriet Miers has split conservatives unlike anything I can remember. The debate will not end, in fact it will become more intense."

The conservative National Review magazine said that Miers should withdraw her own nomination and that the White House should "start over."

The magazine argued that while Miers' supporters say her conservatism is reflected in her work to pick federal judges, most of that work was completed before she became White House counsel eight months ago. Moreover, the magazine said, claims that she is anti-abortion or an evangelical Christian do not make for a reliable guide to judicial opinions she might write.

"The fact that her supporters have had to resort to such weak defenses and, worse, to pleasant generalities about her kindness to her colleagues and name-calling about her critics' alleged sexism is perhaps the most distressing evidence that no stronger arguments are available on behalf of this nomination," the magazine said.

So now President Bush is bringing in these Texas judges to vouch for Miers. As this talk of convincing the right-wingnuts continues on, more information will start to surface on Miers' ideology--both good and bad, depending on what side of the political spectrum you're on. The Texas judges will try to convince the right-wingnuts that Miers can be just as hard-line and ideological as they wanted from the more famous ideological candidates. As this infighting between conservatives continues on, more of Miers past and her ideology may become known, giving new issues and charges that Senate Democrats can use against Miers. The "stealth candidate" that the White House had hoped for is becoming more and more visible. If Miers is an ideologue, then the greater visibility will certainly cause a fight in the Senate, possibly compromising the White House plan for a quick confirmation and the goal of packing the Court.

Let the fun continue on....

Bigfoot Conference in Texas Draws Hundreds

Found this off Yahoo News:

JEFFERSON, Texas - Next to a lifelike replica of a giant ape head, the believers milled around tables Saturday covered with casts of large footprints, books about nature's mysteries and T-shirts proclaiming "Bigfoot: Often Imitated, Never Invalidated."

While they can have a sense of humor about it, the search for the legendary Sasquatch is no joke for many of the nearly 400 people who came here to discuss the latest sightings and tracking techniques at the Texas Bigfoot Conference.

"It's not a matter of believing, like faith, when you believe in something you can't see," said Daryl G. Colyer, a Lorena businessman who has investigated hundreds of reported Bigfoot sightings in Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana.

"It's a flesh-and-blood animal that just has not been discovered yet. And I think we're getting closer and closer and closer," Colyer said.

You've got to love Bigfoot! Here's a giant ape or man, whose sightings and legends go back to the Indian stories circulating in Washington and Canada. Even his name Sasquatch comes from the Indians in the Pacific Northwest. While anthropologists and the true believers can argue whether Bigfoot exists or not, he has been ingrated into American culture. He's a blue pick-up truck with monster tractor tires that can roll right over cars parked in a traffic jam. You can order a Bigfoot pizza and then sit back and watch your favorite movie and television star perform in such classic hits as Harry and the Hendersons, or even the Six Million Dollar Man! You can even download all the internet content you ever dreamed of onto your Bigfoot hard drive--try Googling "Bigfoot." You'll end up with 4 million hits on the big guy. And just when you thought he disappeared, he's come back for a convention in a state known for its love of everything big. And while anthropologist may theorize that Bigfoot could be a "towering, ape-like creature descended from a prehistoric 9- to 10-foot-tall gorilla called a Gigantopithecus, and that it now inhabits North American forests," it is not the same. America loves big. Bigfoot is just another example of our quirky, cultural Americana.

Rice: I Don't Want to Run for President

This is also from Yahoo News:

WASHINGTON - For Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, no means no — and no again — when it comes to whether she will run for president.

"It's not what I want to do with my life, it's not what I'm going to do with my life," Rice said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."

A group pushing for a Rice candidacy has run a television ad in New Hampshire — traditional site of the first presidential primary — and plans to air it soon in Iowa, where the first party caucuses take place.

At least two Web sites are promoting Rice even though Rice herself has said for months that she is not interested in running.

Asked on NBC and on "Fox News Sunday" whether she would run for president in 2008, Rice said she is flattered but would decline.

"I'm not somebody who wants to run for office. I haven't ever run for anything," Rice told NBC. "I think I'm doing what I need to do, which is to try and promote American foreign policy, American interests, the president's democracy agenda at an extraordinary time."

Pressed by host Tim Russert, Rice said, "I don't know how may ways to say no."

"So," asked Russert, "no ...?"

A few seconds of silence followed. "Tim," Rice said, "I don't know how many ways to tell people that I have no interest in being a candidate for anything. ... No."

I don't blame Rice for saying no tpresidentialntal run--even though there are quite a few on the Republican side who are goading her into running. If Rice were to run and win the White House in 2008, she would end up getting stuck with the mess in Iraq that she was responsible for creating in the first place. And that's even if she could win, considering that a Rice campaign would be consistently badgered with questions regarding the Iraq war, Valerie Plamegate, and the Bush administrations lying regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The second problem that Rice has is that her knowledge and expertise is in foreign policy, Soviet relations, and now Iraq. She has no experience regarding the economy, relations with Congress, the budget deficit, health care, unemployment, or a number of domestic issues the a president must address. And with interest rates rising, the defict ballooning, domestic issues may take center stage in 2008. For Rice to learn of these issues, she would need the expertise of conservative economists and business leaders. And it would be difficult enough for her to study up on domestic issues if Iraq gets even worst.

So after eight years in the Bush administration--both as National Security Advisor and as Secretary of State, it wouldn't surprise me if Rice goes back to Stanford and academia.

Poll: Bush Presidency Judged Unsuccessful

Talk about leaving a legacy. This is from Yahoo News:

WASHINGTON - For the first time, more people say George W. Bush's presidency will be judged as unsuccessful than say it will be seen as a success, a poll finds.

Forty-one percent of respondents said Bush's presidency will be seen as unsuccessful in the long run, while 26 percent said the opposite. Thirty-five percent said it was too early to tell, according to the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.

In January, 36 percent said successful and 27 percent said unsuccessful.

The increasing pessimism about Bush's long-term prospects comes at a time when many polls have found the public increasingly is negative about Bush's performance and the direction of the country.

When the country is facing so many uncertainties and problems, it is no wonder that the president's poll numbers have been dropping. Take your pick of issues--Iraq, Valerie Plamegate, Fema Fiasco, the economy, the budget deficit, health care, and our deteriorating foreign relations. But here's the real kicker in the story:

Seven in 10 said they want the next president to offer policies and programs that are different from the Bush administration's.

This has got to be very bad news for Republican strategists looking towards both the 2006 midterm and 2008 presidential elections. The first big problem is that the Republicans control both the White House and both houses of Congress--they can't really place much blame of the country's problems on the Democrats when they control the levers of power. The Democratic Party is obstructing the legislation for our vision of the country? Well, that's what the opposition party is suppose to do. What the Republicans have to realize is that they need to compromise--give some things up to the opposition in order to get legislation through. That's bipartisanship. The second big problem the Republicans have is all the scandals and corruption that's sticking to their leadership. Valerie Plamegate has embroiled White House ubber-brain Karl Rove and Vice Presidential chief of staff Scooter Libby. House majority leader Tom DeLay has been indicted on money laundering charges stemming from the Jack Abramoff scandal, and now DeLay's replacement for majority leader Roy Blount is tainted with Abrmaoff. Senate majority leader Bill Frist is under investigation for stock insider trading. All of this is coming out, even though the congressional leadership has avoided any investigations into these scandals. As this mess continues gaining headlines in the news (Just wait until Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald starts handing down indictments in the Valerie Plame scandal), there's a good chance that the American public would start kicking out the Republican senators and representatives, possibly reverting control of one or both houses of Congress to the Democrats. And you can bet the Democrats will start their own congressional investigations into a number of these scandals--certainly against the White House. How much lower can Bush's poll numbers go?

Airmen Fill the Gaps in Wartime

You know the military doesn't have enough troops when they pull this little stunt. This is from the Los Angeles Times:

WASHINGTON — Straining to find ground troops to maintain its force levels in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon has begun deploying thousands of Air Force personnel to combat zones in new jobs as interrogators, prison sentries and gunners on supply trucks.

The Air Force years ago banked its future on state-of-the-art fighter jets and billion-dollar satellites. Yet the service that has long avoided being pulled into ground operations is now finding that its people — rather than its weapons — are what the Pentagon needs most as it wages a prolonged war against a low-tech, insurgent enemy.

Individual branches have spent decades carving out unique roles within the U.S. military, and Air Force officials insist that the redeployment of its personnel is temporary. Nonetheless, the reassignments come as another sign that the Pentagon is struggling to meet the demands of what military officials have begun calling "the long war."

As part of the effort, more than 3,000 Air Force personnel are being assigned new roles. And they are being dispatched to combat zones for longer tours of duty — as much as 12 months rather than four.

The changes within the Air Force, even if temporary, run counter to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's overall vision of the military as a lighter, faster and more lethal force that relies on technology and efficiency to accomplish national security goals more quickly.

Let's face it. We don't have enough troops in Iraq to do the job we're required to do. And since we don't have enough troops, we play musical chairs--shifting airmen to do customs or driving trucks. We don't have enough money to pay for this war--considering that Bush will refuse to pay for taxes. We've got a renewed insurgency that we can't put down.

This is Vietnam all over again.

The Army's Musical Pitch: Download, Join Up

You know that the Army National Guard is having some serious trouble trying to recruit young people when they try this new advertising gimmick. From the Washington Post:

The Army National Guard has been hoping to bend young Americans' ears to a recruiting pitch by giving them something else to listen to first.

The Guard has been targeting 18-to-25-year-olds in online ads that promise three free iTunes music downloads to anyone who agrees to be contacted by a military recruiter.

After three months, more than 770 people have downloaded, although it is too early to tell how many of them will join up, said Lt. Col. Mike Jones, deputy division chief for National Guard recruiting.

The promotion ends Saturday, and officials will study whether the $20,000 budgeted for the campaign was worth it. "Ultimately the goal is not leads but enlistments," Jones said. "At the end of the day, what I'm trying to produce is a soldier that's capable to serve at home and abroad."

These are challenging times for military recruiters. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and deployments to hurricane-stricken areas in the United States have resulted in the activation of tens of thousands of National Guard troops. Many have been killed. It is the rare recruit who believes that his National Guard commitment will be limited to one weekend of training a month and two weeks out of the year.

At the same time, reaching potential recruits has gotten harder. With the proliferation of cable TV channels and the growth of the Internet, simply running television ads during college football games and on full-page spreads in Sports Illustrated can be costly and incomprehensive ways to get the message to the desired audience.

In contrast, ads for the Guard's iTunes promotion are less expensive and have run on hundreds of Web sites frequented by young people. (Music.com, Billboard.com and the Web site for Fry's Electronics are examples.) Each download costs the government between 90 cents and a dollar, Jones said. That's much cheaper than more traditional giveaways of hats and T-shirts, which can cost $3 per item plus delivery charges.

"My responsibility is to get the best bang for the buck out of what we are entrusted with," Jones said.

Let's face it. The kids are certainly a lot smarter than the military brass here. If they realize they can download free music at the military's expense, then they certainly are taking advantage of it and still refuse to join up. They are obviously going to be contacted by a military recruiter anyways--considering the recruiters can get their information through either the high schools or Selective Service registrations. And these kids probably also have some idea of the mess that's going on in Iraq--otherwise, why would we see recruitment numbers going down.

Now it is certainly true that the online ads for the military is going to be a lot cheaper than giving away hats and t-shirts, which are more expenseive. And it will probably take fewer enlistments to pay for these online ads than for the hats and t-shirts. But the military has got one big problem that they cannot solve--they are bogged down in an increasingly unpopular Iraq war with the American public. And no amount of free iTunes giveaways is going to solve this problem.

Bush Says Miers Has Experience, Leadership

Some more fun with Harriet Miers. This is from Yahoo News:

WASHINGTON - President Bush countered conservative displeasure Saturday with a detailed defense of his Supreme Court nominee, saying White House counsel Harriet Miers would bring to the bench vast experience in the courtroom and at the highest levels of government.

"No Supreme Court nominee in the last 35 years has exceeded Harriet Miers' overall range of experience in courtroom litigation; service in federal, state and local government; leadership in local, state and national bar associations and pro bono and charitable activities," Bush said in his weekly radio address.

"Throughout her life, Ms. Miers has excelled at everything she has done," he added.

PROVE IT!

You've got to love these constant propaganda-controlled lies. If you constantly tell the lie to the American people again and again over time, the American people will finally start to believe it to be true. And Harriet Meirs will step up to the Senate confirmation hearings, refuse to say anything regarding her opinion on issues, and be voted in on a straight party-line vote. At least that's the White House pipe-dream. Only there's a slight problem. The liberals and Democrats don't believe in the White House lies anymore--they've seen enough of it over the past five years. But now the conservatives are starting to see the light. According to the Yahoo story:

A growing number on the right have expressed displeasure with Bush's selection of Miers to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court.

The grumbling stems from Miers' career, which encompassed 28 years as a corporate attorney in Texas, stints as a member of the Dallas City Council and as chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission and, since 2001, as a top member of Bush's White House staff.

None of the positions provide a public record clearly identifying her as a strong conservative.

The White House refuses to provide any proof in their statements. They are certainly not going to release any legal papers that Miers may have worked on as White House counsel to provide details of her judicial philosophy--can't let the evil Democrats see those scanalous details. They're basically saying to their conservative base, "Trust us--we know what we're doing!"

Now here's the real kicker in the Yahoo story:

Robert Bork whose nomination to the high court was rejected by the Senate in 1987 called the choice of Miers "a disaster on every level."

"It's a little late to develop a constitutional philosophy or begin to work it out when you're on the court already," Bork said Friday on MSNBC's "The Situation with Tucker Carlson." "It's kind of a slap in the face to the conservatives who've been building up a conservative legal movement for the last 20 years."

You know that both the White House and Miers are in trouble when you've got a hard-lined conservative like Robert Bork calling Miers' choice "a disaster on every level."

Long an outlet for the GOP message, talk radio undergoes a shift

This is from Yahoo News:

WASHINGTON - When the White House wanted to talk to its political base about a Supreme Court nominee this week, there was no doubt where to go: talk radio.

Vice President Dick Cheney took the administration's case to the Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity programs, speaking simultaneously to the normally sympathetic hosts and their audiences of like-minded Republicans.

A decade after Republicans credited Limbaugh with helping them win control of Congress - they called him the Majority Maker - they still look to his conservative-dominated medium for a lopsided communications edge over Democrats. Today, they count on talk radio to rally support for President Bush, attack those who criticize or question him, and stir passions leading into the 2006 midterm congressional elections.

There are signs that the Republicans could be losing some of their overwhelming edge, however. Ratings for Limbaugh and Hannity slipped this spring in some markets. Liberals such as Ed Schultz, Stephanie Miller and Al Franken are carving out their own radio niche. And Democrats argue that they have an edge on the Internet, where explosive growth could dwarf the political impact of radio.

Some of that could be just wishful thinking by Democrats. The slip in ratings, for example, could be a normal drop in political interest after an election year. They also could be untrue - radio ratings are difficult to measure. And even if Limbaugh and Hannity have fewer listeners than they did in the past, they still have millions more than liberal talk show hosts.

The Republicans are slipping from their advantage in talk radio? Now that's interesting. The Republicans have always had the advantage in the talk radio business, since they were the ones who started on presenting their message through the radio, back in the 80s with the introduction of Limbaugh's program. But talk radio isn't as powerful as it was back in the 80s. Today, an individual can get their news and opinions through a variety of sources--talk radio, television, satellite radio, blogs. Even better yet, an individual can become their own programmer, creating blogs to convey their opinions and including in their blogs photos, videos, and MP3s. Instead of listening to opinions, or calling into a radio station to present their opinion--subjected to the station guidelines, an individual is presenting their own opinion through their own medium without censorship.

Still, I wonder--with the president's poll numbers dropping, and almost 2/3rds of Americans thinking the country is heading in the wrong direction, how many people are starting to tune out of the Republican-propaganda-talk-radio-machine, where Rush and Hannity are spouting the same White-House-approved-fantasy-land talking points, while they're looking out the window and seeing the real truth of the issues?

Bush's Nominee for No. 2 Justice Post Withdraws

This is from The New York Times:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 7 - President Bush's pick for the second-ranking position at the Justice Department abruptly withdrew his nomination Friday after facing weeks of questions over his ties to the lobbyist Jack Abramoff as well as his role in formulating policies for the treatment of suspected terrorists.

The nominee, Timothy Flanigan, a former deputy White House counsel who is now a senior lawyer at Tyco International, had been scheduled to face yet another round of questioning next week from senators who had grown skeptical about his nomination as deputy attorney general.

With the stalled nomination likely to drag on for weeks or longer, Mr. Flanigan told President Bush in his withdrawal letter on Friday that the president and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales "deserve to have a full leadership team in place at the Department of Justice."

Of chief concern to Democrats and some Republicans was Mr. Flanigan's role at Tyco, where as its general counsel he oversaw Mr. Abramoff's work lobbying for the company, which is based in Bermuda, to retain its tax-exempt status. Critics of the nomination said they were also troubled by the fact that Mr. Flanigan had no experience as a criminal prosecutor and that he helped shape administration policy on the treatment of suspected terrorists in American custody, as deputy White House counsel under Mr. Gonzales.

Mr. Flanigan becomes the most prominent Bush appointee to pull his nomination since Bernard B. Kerik withdrew from consideration as homeland security secretary last December. In the end, Mr. Flanigan's nomination appears to have been scuttled by a convergence of disparate issues that have all proven increasingly difficult for the Bush administration: charges of cronyism in political appointees, the wide-ranging investigation into Mr. Abramoff's political lobbying work, and lingering concern about the administration's allowance of the questionable treatment of suspected terrorists.

The Jack Abramoff scandal just continues to ensnare Republican cronies! Abramoff is like...plutonium--you associate with Abramoff and you start taking on a neon-green glow! Here's the details of Flanigan's association with Abramoff, as according to the Times:

Mr. Bush nominated Mr. Flanigan for the deputy attorney general post 4½ months ago. The pick generated little controversy at first. But Mr. Flanigan faced persistent questions, first in an August hearing and then in four rounds of written, follow-up questions from Democrats - about both his oversight of Mr. Abramoff and his role in formulating detainees policies.

Democrats said they were still unsatisfied with some of his answers and demanded more time to review his record, particularly the question of why Tyco and Mr. Flanigan failed to detect that Mr. Abramoff had diverted for his use some $1.5 million paid by Tyco for what was to have been a grass-roots lobbying campaign. Senate Democrats were also continuing to probe other aspects of Mr. Flanigan's relationship with Mr. Abramoff, who gave the Tyco executive a $250 picture frame for Christmas one year.

Republicans on the judiciary committee sought to have a second hearing behind closed doors to deal with the issues concerning Tyco and Mr. Abramoff, but Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, chairman of the committee, agreed Thursday to hold another public hearing next week.

So Flanigan didn't pick up that Abramoff diverted $1.5 million from a grass-roots lobbying campaign? If you're going to work as the number two man in the Justice Department, you've got to know how to follow the money as its being laundered. Or maybe Abramoff paid Flanigan off with a picture frame? It is another example of crass cronyism in the Bush White House. President Bush picks these people--not because they are the most qualified to run these top government positions, but rather because of their loyalties--loyalies to the president, to the Republican Party, to their golfing buddies. It is like they're all connected together--scratching each other's backs. Well now the scandals are starting to surface. Not only is Flanigan the only Bush administration official that has been tainted by Abramoff.

The withdrawal of Mr. Flanigan's nomination came on the same day that a former White House official tied to Mr. Abramoff made his first appearance in court to answer charges of obstruction of justice in connection with the case.

David H. Safavian, who served as the head of the White House's office of procurement until just before his arrest last month in the Abramoff investigation, did not enter a plea in federal court. But his lawyer, Barbara Van Gelder, offered a detailed preview of her client's defense after the hearing, telling reporters that prosecutors have "stretched the limits of the criminal code" in prosecuting him.

An indictment returned against Mr. Safavian on Wednesday charged that he lied to investigators about his contacts with Mr. Abramoff when he denied that the lobbyist had business before the General Services Administration, where Mr. Safavian was chief of staff from 2002 to 2004. E-mail messages traded between the two men at the time showed that Mr. Safavian was trying to help the lobbyists acquire two government-owned properties.

As for a golfing trip to Scotland that Mr. Safavian took with Mr. Abramoff in 2002, the defense lawyer said Mr. Safavian saw it as strictly a personal trip, not professional. "A man wanted to go golfing with his friends," she said. "It was all about golf."

Poll: Groups Unhappy With Bush Performance

This is from Yahoo News:

WASHINGTON - Evangelicals, Republican women, Southerners and other critical groups in President Bush's political coalition are worried about the direction the nation is headed and disappointed with his performance, an AP-Ipsos poll found.

That unease could be a troubling sign for a White House already struggling to keep the Republican Party base from slipping over Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, Gulf Coast spending projects, immigration and other issues.

"Politically, this is very serious for the president," said James Thurber, a political scientist at American University. "If the base of his party has lost faith, that could spell trouble for his policy agenda and for the party generally."

Sentiment about the nation's direction has sunk to new depths at a time people are anxious about Iraq, the economy, gas prices and the management of billions of dollars being spent for recovery from the nation's worst natural disaster.

Only 28 percent say the country is headed in the right direction while two-thirds, 66 percent, say it is on the wrong track, the poll found.

"There is a growing, deep-seated discontentment and pessimism about the direction of the country," said Republican strategist Tony Fabrizio, who believes the reasons for their pessimism differ for those in one political party or another.

You've got to wonder--is there anyone left who actually supports Bush? Who are those 28 percent of Americans--those hard core believers? Bush has never had any support of the liberals or Democrats--not after the Supreme Court gave Bush the presidency in 2000. The centrist / swing voters continued supporting him out of fears of terrorism and Republican charges that the Democrats would lose the war in Iraq. Well, the war in Iraq is pretty much lost, we're still not safe from terrorism, and the war is producing an economic shock of high gas prices (coupled with the hurricane disasters). So the centrist / swing voters have lost support. Bush did keep support of the evangelicals with his pick of John Roberts as chief justice, but when he chose Harriet Miers to the court, the evangelists are complaining louder than the Democrats. So now he's losing support of his evangelical base. Throw in a few scandals--Delay, Abramoff, Valerie Plamegate--and what's a poor president suppose to do? Continuing on with the story:

Among those most likely to have lost confidence about the nation's direction over the past year are white evangelicals, down 30 percentage points since November, Republican women, down 28 points, Southerners, down 26 points, and suburban men, down 20 points.

Bush's supporters are uneasy about issues such as federal deficits, immigration and his latest nomination for the Supreme Court. Social conservatives are concerned about his choice of Miers, a relatively unknown lawyer who has most recently served as White House counsel.

"Bush is trying to get more support generally from the American public by seeming more moderate and showing he's a strong leader at the same time he has a rebellion within his own party," Thurber said. "The far right is starting to be very open about their claim that he's not a real conservative."

The president's job approval is mired at the lowest level of his presidency — 39 percent. While four of five Republicans say they approve of Bush's job performance — enthusiasm in that support has dipped over the last year.

And here's something else to chew over. What do you think is going to happen to the president's poll numbers over the weekend if Fitzgerald starts handing indictments against Karl Rove and Scooter Libby in the Valerie Plame scandal?

U.N. Nuclear Watchdog Wins Nobel Peace Prize

This is from the Los Angeles Times:

OSLO, Norway -- Mohamed ElBaradei and the International Atomic Energy Agency won the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize today for their drive to curb the spread of atomic weapons by using diplomacy to resolve standoffs with Iran and North Korea over their nuclear programs.

The Nobel Committee's decision lent support to negotiations and inspections, not military action, as the best way to handle volatile nations. It also was seen as a message to the Bush administration, which invaded Iraq after claiming U.N. efforts to eradicate Saddam Hussein's nuclear ambitions had failed and which opposed ElBaradei's appointment to another term.

U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, once the U.S. point man on nuclear nonproliferation and a key opponent of ElBaradei's reappointment, refused to comment when asked if the prize was a rebuff to U.S. strategy.

"I'll stick with the secretary's statement," he said today as he entered the United Nations, referring to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's congratulations.

The Nobel committee said ElBaradei and the IAEA should be recognized for addressing one of the greatest dangers facing the world.

"At a time when the threat of nuclear arms is again increasing, the Norwegian Nobel Committee wishes to underline that this threat must be met through the broadest possible international cooperation. This principle finds its clearest expression today in the work of the IAEA and its director general," the committee said.

ElBaradei said in Vienna, Austria, that the prize "sends a strong message" about the agency's disarmament efforts and will strengthen his resolve to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.

This is a huge message that was sent to the White House. President Bush's entire foreign policy was based on the flawed concept that the United States could become a global superpower, reshaping the world to her own image. Bush adopted this policy from the PNAC (People for a New American Century) crowd when he brought most of its members into his administration--Cheney, Wolfowitz, Pearle. The PNAC people wanted to invade Iraq and set up an American protectorate there to project American power in the Middle East. President Bush went right along with the invasion, claiming that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction--even though the UN inspectors never found any weapons! Because of this U.S. invasion of Iraq, we have shown the world that we are now an aggressor nation, which is certainly causing other nations that may fear our power to begin their own nuclear programs--Iran and North Korea are perfect examples. We have not made the world more safer--we have made the world more dangerous through our brash and impulsive actions, through the incorporation of a failed think-tank policy, and through the incompetence of the White House leadership.

DeLay, Blunt Traded Secret Donations

Found this off Yahoo News:

WASHINGTON - Tom DeLay deliberately raised more money than he needed to throw parties at the 2000 presidential convention, then diverted some of the excess funds to longtime ally Roy Blunt through a series of donations that benefited both men's causes.

When the financial carousel stopped, DeLay's private charity, the consulting firm that employed DeLay's wife and the Missouri campaign of Blunt's son all ended up with money, according to campaign documents reviewed by The Associated Press.

Jack Abramoff, a Washington lobbyist recently charged in an ongoing federal corruption and fraud investigation, and Jim Ellis, the DeLay fundraiser indicted with his boss last week in Texas, also came into the picture.

The complicated transactions are drawing scrutiny in legal and political circles after a grand jury indicted DeLay on charges of violating Texas law with a scheme to launder illegal corporate donations to state candidates.

Blunt last week temporarily replaced DeLay as House majority leader, and Blunt's son, Matt, has now risen to Missouri's governor.

The government's former chief election enforcement lawyer said the Blunt and DeLay transactions are similar to the Texas case and raise questions that should be investigated regarding whether donors were deceived or the true destination of their money was concealed.

"These people clearly like using middlemen for their transactions," said Lawrence Noble. "It seems to be a pattern with DeLay funneling money to different groups, at least to obscure, if not cover, the original source," said Noble, who was the Federal Election Commission's chief lawyer for 13 years, including in 2000 when the transactions occurred.

None of the hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations DeLay collected for the 2000 convention were ever disclosed to federal regulators because the type of group DeLay used wasn't governed by federal law at the time.

DeLay has temporarily stepped aside as majority leader after being indicted by a Texas prosecutor.

So now DeLay and Blunt are trading donations with each other--helping each other out in the money situation, while avoiding federal campaign financing regulations. And as DeLay has stepped down from House Majority Leader, Blunt has taken a temporary position as House Majority Leader--even though now he's being investigated for being in cahoots with DeLay. And a major player between these two is none other than Jack Abramoff. The corruption just keeps getting wider and deeper with the Republicans. You can bet that with the details of this new relationship between DeLay and Blunt, that Blunt will think twice before considering a run for House Majority Leader--especially if he's being investigated and indictments will be handed down against him.

Here are the details of the scandal as according to the story:

Blunt and DeLay planned all along to raise more money than was needed for the convention parties and then route some of that to other causes, such as supporting state candidates, said longtime Blunt aide Gregg Hartley.

"We put together a budget for what we thought we would raise and spend on the convention and whatever was left over we were going to use to support candidates," said Hartley, Blunt's former chief of staff who answered AP's questions on behalf of Blunt.

Hartley said he saw no similarity to the Texas case. The fact that DeLay's charity, Christine DeLay's consulting firm and Blunt's son were beneficiaries was a coincidence, Hartley said.

Do you expect me to believe all of this is a coincidence????

Much of the money — including one donation to Blunt from an Abramoff client accused of running a "sweatshop" garment factory in the Northern Mariana Islands — changed hands in the spring of 2000, a period of keen interest to federal prosecutors.

During that same time, Abramoff arranged for DeLay to use a concert skybox for donors and to take a golfing trip to Scotland and England that was partly underwritten by some of the lobbyist's clients. Prosecutors are investigating whether the source of some of the money was disguised, and whether some of DeLay's expenses were originally put on the lobbyist's credit card in violation of House rules.

Both DeLay and Blunt and their aides also met with Abramoff's lobbying team several times in 2000 and 2001 on the Marianas issues, according to law firm billing records obtained by AP under an open records request. DeLay was instrumental in blocking legislation opposed by some of Abramoff's clients.

Noble said investigators should examine whether the pattern of disguising the original source of money might have been an effort to hide the leaders' simultaneous financial and legislative dealings with Abramoff and his clients.

"You see Abramoff involved and see the meetings that were held and one gets the sense Abramoff is helping this along in order to get access and push his clients' interest," he said. "And at the same time, you see Delay and Blunt trying to hide the root of their funding.

"All of these transactions may have strings attached to them. ... I think you would want to look, if you aren't already looking, at the question of a quid pro quo," Noble said.

Blunt and DeLay have long been political allies. The 2000 transactions occurred as President Bush was marching toward his first election to the White House, DeLay was positioning himself to be House majority leader and Blunt was lining up to succeed DeLay as majority whip, the third-ranking position in the House.

The entities Blunt and DeLay formed allowed them to collect donations of any size and any U.S. source with little chance of federal scrutiny.

DeLay's convention fundraising arm, part of his Americans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee (ARMPAC), collected large corporate donations to help wine and dine Republican VIPs during the presidential nominating convention in Philadelphia in late summer 2000. DeLay's group has declined to identify any of the donors.

Blunt's group, a nonfederal wing of his Rely on Your Beliefs Fund, eventually registered its activities in Missouri but paid a $3,000 fine for improperly concealing its fundraising in 1999 and spring 2000, according to Missouri Ethics Commission records.

Both groups — DeLay's and Blunt's — were simultaneously paying Ellis, the longtime DeLay fundraiser who was indicted along with his boss in Texas in the alleged money laundering scheme.

The DeLay group began transferring money to Blunt's group in two checks totaling $150,000 in the spring of 2000, well before Republicans actually met in Philadelphia for the convention. The transfers accounted for most of money Blunt's group received during that period.

DeLay's convention arm sent $50,000 on March 31, 2000. Eight days later, the Blunt group made a $10,000 donation to DeLay's private charity for children on April 7, 2000, and began the first of several payments totaling $40,000 to a northern Virginia-based political consulting firm formed by DeLay's former chief of staff, Ed Buckham.

That consulting firm at the time also employed DeLay's wife, Christine, according to DeLay's ethics disclosure report to Congress.

Hartley said Blunt was unaware that Mrs. DeLay worked at the firm when he made the payments, and that she had nothing to do with Blunt's group.

On April 14, 2000, Concorde Garment Manufacturing, based in the Northern Marianas Islands that was part of Abramoff's lobbying coalition, contributed $3,000 to Blunt's group.

Hartley said the donation was delivered during a weekend of fundraising activities by Blunt and DeLay but his boss did not know who solicited it.

Concorde, derided for years in lawsuits as a Pacific island sweatshop, paid a $9 million penalty to the U.S. government in the 1990s for failing to pay workers' overtime. The company was visited by DeLay.

The company was a key member of the Marianas garment industry that the islands' government was trying to protect when it hired Abramoff to lobby DeLay, Blunt and others to keep Congress from imposing tougher wage and tax standards on the islands.

After the November 2000 election, Abramoff's firm billed its Mariana Islands clients for at least one meeting with Blunt and three meetings with Blunt's staff, billing records show. Abramoff's team also reported several meetings with DeLay and his staff on the issue, including one during the presidential convention.

On May 24, 2000 — just before DeLay left with Abramoff for the Scottish golfing trip — DeLay's convention fundraising group transferred $100,000 more to Blunt's group. Within three weeks, Blunt turned around and donated the same amount to the Missouri Republican Party.

The next month, the state GOP began spending large amounts of money to help Blunt's son, Matt, in his successful campaign to become Missouri secretary of state. On July 25, 2000, the state GOP made its first expenditure for the younger Blunt, totaling just over $11,000. By election day, that figure had grown to more than $160,000.

Hartley said Blunt always liked to help the state party and the fact that his son got party help after his donation was a coincidence. "They are unrelated activities," he said.

Exchanges of donations occurred again in the fall. Just a few days before the November election, DeLay's ARMPAC gave $50,000 to the Missouri GOP. A month later, the Missouri GOP sent $50,000 to DeLay's group.

Brainstorming Of Ideas On What's Wrong With The Democrats

This is sort of a brainstorming of ideas about what's wrong with the Democratic Party and what they need to do to counter their problems against the Republicans.

Brainstorming Ideas Of What’s Wrong With The Democratic Party

Worried about the state of the Democratic Party as a viable opposition party against the Republican-controlled Congress and Presidency.

Believe Democrats main problem is a lack of vision on the issues. Democrats love to see the issues in differing shades of gray—different voices, different opinions, different policies that contradict each other in solving an issue. While this is good for shaping government policy, it is terrible for playing politics or winning elections. Republicans have been able to tailor their message into short slogans or simplified words—Republicans use God, Guns and Gays for example.

Democrats refuse to engage in class warfare—even though the Republicans are doing it all the time. This is a potent weapon the Democrats can use—painting the Republicans as pro-rich, supporting the elites of big-business. Republicans could care less about the middle or lower classes—if the super-rich get richer, then they’ll spend their money and the money will trickle down to the middle and lower classes (The old trickle down theory of economics that the Republicans love).

Democrats consistently argue the issues according to the Republican rules and terms. Example—pro-life or pro-choice on abortion? If you’re not pro-life, then you’re pro-death and you’re a murderer. Democrats need to argue the issues according to their rules and their terms—ignore what the Republicans are saying, or counter the Republican arguments according to the Democratic terms.

Democrats have been fighting short-term tactical battles, without an overall strategy. Perfect example is the Democratic support for authorizing President Bush to use military force in Iraq—if you don’t give the authority to use military force to President Bush, then you’re not a patriot. If you don’t provide funding for the war, then you’re a traitor—you support the terrorists. Democrats need to change from fighting short-term tactical battles, to fighting large-scale strategic battles of ideas—example could be providing a free college education for everyone who wants it.

Democrats have somehow lost the support of centrists and progressives with their lack of opposition to the Republicans, and their lack of a viable message. Centrists and progressives are certainly angry at the scandals and incompetence of the Bush administration and the Republican-controlled Congress. But at the same time, they don’t see any spine within the Democratic Party. If the Democrats are expecting these centrists and progressives to join their party in open arms simply because Democrats are against George Bush and the Republicans, then the Democrats are setting themselves up for a major fall in the next elections. Some centrists and progressives will certainly vote Democratic. However others have been complaining about the need for a viable third-party that can counter both the Democratic and Republican Parties. These progressives may split their vote between the Democrats and the smaller third-party candidates, allowing the Republicans to continue maintaining control of Congress and the Presidency. The Democrats need to provide more for these centrists and progressives than just saying that they oppose the Republicans. Hence, they need to craft a powerful message with new ideas that will entice and energize the centrists and progressives into their party. That is still not happening.

Democrats need to start fighting dirty against the Republicans in order to win elections.

Bush Fends Off Sharp Criticism of Court Choice

This is from The New York Times:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 4 - President Bush on Tuesday defended his latest choice for the Supreme Court, Harriet E. Miers, from complaints on the right that she was not conservative enough and from accusations on the left that she was a White House crony unqualified for the job.

The president also said he did not recall ever talking to Ms. Miers, whom he has known for more than a decade, about her personal views on abortion, and he reiterated that he was a "pro-life president" who nonetheless had no litmus test on the issue for judicial candidates.

He insisted that Congress and the American public would come to be impressed with Ms. Miers, the White House counsel and a former president of the State Bar of Texas who was once Mr. Bush's personal lawyer.

"I can understand people not, you know, knowing Harriet," the president said in a 55-minute news conference in the Rose Garden at the White House, designed in large part to bolster Ms. Miers's position as many conservatives remained agitated about the choice the day after she was selected. "She hasn't been, you know, one of those publicity hounds. She's been somebody who just quietly does her job."

The president, who appeared at ease during the news conference but intent on pressing his case for Ms. Miers's nomination, added: "But when she does it, she performs, see. She's not a person in Texas saying: 'Look at me. Look at how stellar I have been.' She just did it, and quietly, and quietly established an incredibly strong record."

But some of the most important parts of that record might remain largely off-limits, as President Bush indicated that he would probably reject any requests for documents relating to her work as White House counsel.

So we're suppose to take President Bush's word that Miers is the right candidate for the Supreme Court, even though she doesn't have a judicial record, and the White House will not release any documents regarding her work as White House counsel. And of course, the president doesn't even recall ever talking to Miers about social issues that may have come up during their relationship.

In some ways, I'm just dumbfounded by how this administration works. Yes, Miers is the perfect stealth candidate--virtually unknown in the public, having no paper trail, and thus providing no way for Senate Democrats to understand how she thinks. And what paper trail there is in her work as White House counsel, will be blocked by President Bush, citing executive privilege. She is not a constitutional scholar, an intellectual, nor does she have any experience as a judge--on either the state or federal level. And when the confirmation hearings take place, she'll employ the same strategy as Roberts did, refusing to answer questions regarding their views on issues by saying these issues may come up in future court cases. She was once a Democrat, who switched to Republican. She's a born-again Christian--very similar to Bush. It seems that the only qualifications that she has for the court is that she worked for Bush, and that Bush says she's a hard worker.

I don't buy it.

There've been other rumors going around through the blogosphere that I'll touch upon. Of course, the big one is that President Bush selected Miers due to her loyalty to him. And his selection of Miers to the Court is a reward for her services--prompting charges of cronyism from both liberal and conservative factions. We've seen this cronyism before with Bush's selection of Michael Brown to FEMA--even though Brown had no experience in disaster planning (Although he can put on a good horse show). I've also heard other stories that Miers was picked to keep Bush out of any criminal or impeachment proceedings if the Democrats take control of Congress and start digging into all the scandals of the past five years. This may be a possibility, considering Miers could continue to profess her loyalty to Bush even after she is placed on the Court.

The problem I have is that I don't know who this Miers is. I listen to Bush saying that she's qualified, but I also look at the evidence of the president selecting people to top federal jobs based on loyalty and not on qualifications. The cronyism is real and continues on. I look at Miers and see a virtual unknown with no paper trail, and the White House refusing to provide any documents regarding her work. I see the right wing-nuts saying Miers is not conservative enough. I see Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid professing wonderful praise for the president's selection of Miers--which makes me wonder if the Democrats are going to lie down and die on this selection. I don't see the Democrats starting to fight against the White House over viewing the documents that Miers worked on as White House counsel--and if anything, the Democrats should filibuster this court nominee until the White House releases the documents because Miers has a non-existent paper trail. I see conservatives saying that she's not right-wingnut enough, so now there's a fight raging within the Republican Party over Miers.

A very dangerous turn of events.

DeLay Is Indicted on Two New Charges

This is from the Washington Post:

A Texas grand jury indicted Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) yesterday for alleged involvement in money laundering related to the 2002 Texas election, raising new and more serious allegations than the conspiracy charge lodged against the former House majority leader last week.

The surprising new indictments followed by a matter of hours a motion by DeLay's Texas legal defense team to quash last week's charge on grounds that the Texas prosecutor in charge of the case lacked authority to bring it. The lawyers alleged that the crime of conspiracy was not covered by the state election law at the time of the alleged violation.

Later on Monday, a different grand jury -- which had no prior involvement in the case -- brought the new charges, which roughly match allegations made against two of DeLay's political associates one year ago.

DeLay has got some serious problems now. He's now facing two counts of conspiracy for committing money laundering, which if he's found guilty, could lead to prison time. The Post then details the two indictments, saying:

One count of the new indictment accuses DeLay of conspiracy to commit money laundering. It says he agreed with one or more associates to launder $190,000 in corporate contributions through an arm of the Republican National Committee in Washington, allowing the funds to be passed illegally into the election campaigns of Republican candidates in Texas. Texas law prohibits the use of corporate money in political campaigns.

The aim of the assistance was to ensure that Republicans could gain control of the Texas House, and thus reorder the state's congressional districts in a manner that would favor the election of Republicans. The stratagem worked: Five more Republicans were elected to the U.S. House from the state last year, making it harder for Democrats to wrest control of Congress.

The other new count alleges that DeLay and the two associates "did knowingly, conduct, supervise, and facilitate" the transfer of the $190,000 to Washington and back to Texas in violation of the state's money-laundering statutes. Last week's conspiracy charge, in contrast, involved the state's election law, and it was that linkage that DeLay's attorneys challenged.

What really intrigues me about this story is how quickly this new gran jury was able to come together and--without any involvement in the case--issue new indictments against DeLay regarding this money laundering scandal. This makes me wonder how much evidence does the prosecution have against DeLay? There's also another little twist regarding this scandal. In the New York Times:

The new [DeLay] indictment was issued as Bush administration officials confirmed news reports in London that the Justice Department had asked the British police to question former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher about the circumstances of her meeting in 2000 with Mr. DeLay during a trip to Britain organized by the Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

A spokesman in London for the former prime minister, speaking on condition that he not be identified by name, acknowledged that the British police had recently contacted Mrs. Thatcher to "clarify" details of the meeting that she had with Mr. DeLay when he visited London in May 2000.

The spokesman was quoted by The Press Association, the British news agency, as saying that Mrs. Thatcher would cooperate with investigators and that the meeting with Mr. DeLay, which she had previously acknowledged, was a "courtesy call" at which no business of any sort was conducted.

In Washington, a Bush administration law enforcement official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of grand jury secrecy rules, confirmed that the interview request had been made to the British police as part of the investigation of Mr. Abramoff, a Republican lobbyist once described by Mr. DeLay as being among his "closest and dearest friends." The official said that Mrs. Thatcher was not suspected of any wrongdoing.

The interview request to Mrs. Thatcher was first reported in Monday's editions of The Mirror, a British newspaper, which said it had obtained a briefing paper prepared by the British Home Office about the Justice Department's reasons for questioning Mrs. Thatcher.

The newspaper quoted the document as saying that "U.S. officials are investigating whether Abramoff was involved in obtaining legislative assistance from public officials in exchange for arranging and underwriting trips to the U.K." Federal bribery laws bar members of Congress and other government employees from accepting money or other favors in exchange for official actions.

The document said that the Justice Department investigation involved "high-profile American and U.K.-based individuals, including a leading congressman and former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher," the newspaper reported.

So Tom DeLay met with Margaret Thatcher in London, on a business trip that was organized by Jack Abramoff. That opens up a whole new can of worms--not just for Abramoff, but also for DeLay. What was the purpose of that trip for Abramoff and DeLay? What was said in the meetings between DeLay and Thatcher? What 'legislative assistance' did Abramoff expect to get from DeLay[?] in exchange for these London trips? What did DeLay do on his return home, regarding this 'legislation' and did it assist Abramoff, or the clients he represented--and who were those clients?

This scandal is getting messy.

Bush Chooses Miers for Supreme Court

This is from Yahoo News:

WASHINGTON - President Bush nominated White House counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court on Monday, turning to a lawyer who has never been a judge to replace Sandra Day O'Connor and help reshape the nation's judiciary.

"She has devoted her life to the rule of law and the cause of justice," Bush said as his first Supreme Court pick, Chief Justice John Roberts, took the bench for the first time just a few blocks from the White House.

If confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate, Miers, 60, would join Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the second woman on the nation's highest court and the third to serve there. Miers was the first woman to serve as president of the Texas State Bar and the Dallas Bar Association.

Senate Republicans said they would press for confirmation by Thanksgiving — a tight timetable by recent standards that allowed less than eight weeks for lawmakers to review her record, hold hearings and vote. Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he intended to talk to Miers later in the day "about how many speeches she's made and about how many articles she's written and about how many cases she's tried and what volume of paper we will have to look at."

The ultimate in cronyism. Bush named her to White House counsel in November of 2004, calling her a "a trusted adviser on whom I have long relied for straightforward advice." She is an extreme loyal ally of Bush. According to Yahoo News:

Whatever her credentials for the high court, Miers' loyalty to Bush — who once called her a pit bull in size 6 shoes — is above question. When he first decided to run for governor in the early 1990s, he hired Miers to comb his background for anything derogatory that opponents might try to use to defeat him.

Miers also introduced Bush to Alberto Gonzales, who served as Bush's counsel in Austin and later in Washington, before being named U.S. attorney general.

During Bush's first term as governor, Gonzales used information turned up by Miers to persuade a local judge to excuse Bush from jury duty, a civic task that would have forced him to disclose his 1976 arrest for drunken driving in Maine. The incident was not divulged until the waning days of Bush's 2000 campaign for the White House.

Federal Election Commission records show Miers contributed $1,000 to Bush when he first ran for the White House in 2000 and $5,000 to the Bush-Cheney Recount Fund in the post-election struggle that finally sealed his victory over Al Gore.

Ironically, she had donated $1,000 to Gore a dozen years earlier, when he first sought the White House.

Of course, it also doesn't hurt Bush to know that Miers has no judicial experience, and thus no paper trail that Senate Democrats can comb through to understand her views on the issues--abortion. And certainly Miers will use the same strategy Roberts used in the confirmation hearings, saying that she cannot express her views on the issues, claiming that these issues may come up on the Supreme Court in the future. What really angers me is the Democratic Party's response to Bush's selection. Consider this:

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid was complimentary, issuing a statement that said he likes Miers and adding "the Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer."

At the same time, he said he looked forward to the "process which will help the American people learn more about Harriet Miers, and help the Senate determine whether she deserves a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court."

Reid had personally recommended that Bush consider Miers for nomination, according to several sources familiar with the president's consultations with individual senators. Of equal importance as the White House maps its confirmation campaign is that the Nevada Democrat had warned Bush that the selection of any of several other contenders could trigger a bruising partisan struggle.

Other Democrats sounded anything but conciliatory. "The president has selected a loyal political ally without a judicial record to sit on the highest court in the land,"said Sen. Barbara Boxer (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif.

Reid recommended Miers for nomination? What the heck does Reid know about this lady? Does absolutelytly know that she'll be a moderate, similar to that of Sandra Day O'Conner? Harry Reid may like Miers, but I'm not sure I do. I've watched enough cronyism going through the White House, FEMA--and just about every federal agency, Congress, and now this cronyism is extending into the Supreme Court. I don't like the idea that Miers is a Texas attorney, who's worked for and contributed to Bush's presidential campaign. I don't like the fact that there's no information regarding her viewpoints. And I certainly don't like what Reid has done to mute the Democratic opposition. I don't want her to sail through the confirmation process as the Democrats did for Roberts. I don't want her to refuse to answer questions regarding her views--if anything, I want the Democrats to filibuster if she refuses to answer questions. For too long, I've watched the Democrats play the "Bush-lite" game and they've been terrible at it. This is not how to beat Bush. The Democrats laid down and died for the Robert's confirmation. And now the Democrats, under Harry Reid, are about to lay down and die for this Miers' confirmation as well. If they continue down this path, they are never going to win either Congress or the Presidency.

It is time now to start fighting back hard and dirty.