If even the "liberal media" is doing the McCain camp's bidding, what fucking chance do we have?

Bush to lift ban on off-shore drilling?! WTF?

Again, the media will determine the outcome of this race. I don't think the polling numbers are wrong. Media is ignoring McCain's senior moments, empty promises without asking for specifics, never questioning his constantly changing messages, and most of all, his theory to win the white house, attacking Obama without putting forth his own ideas on correcting our major issues.

The media is also helping Obama lose. Fox hates him, and the others are not far behind in ensuring his message gets lost in silly exchanges.

Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae should wake up America to our economic problems, which will continue to implode. McCain will not change this situation, he will be the nail in the coffin for America's financial future.

I like that Greg, too finds Lieberman to be a distasteful little jerk.

SFCWallace--"I don't remember all this indignation when the carttons of Condi as Aunt Jemima came out...."

That was appropriate. The Bush White House showed her off for her color as a demonstration that the Bush administration hired those kinds of people, and she failed to do her job, instead acting like she was the cook who only did what she was told.

I'd like to deliver a 'fist-bump' to his nose . . .

I'm not sure that accurate reporting on Lieberman matters at this point. At the end of his term he is looking at either retirement or crushing defeat if he dares to run.

His only option (career wise) is to complete the transformation and hope to land something/somewhere in the McCain administration -- then retire on a high note. Calling him out on his change of heart might actually support that option.

I think Lieberman knows his career in the Senate is over after this term, so he's probably setting the stage for his future ability to make a good living.

On another note; Lieberman's caustic comments on the Democratic party and Obama may be worse than his public support of McCain.

Is it all right to suggest the major reason Leverman has joined the hearthside Hannibals sending their red elephants east?

Why leave off fighting those who attacked us in order to invade a nation which had never caused us harm? Why all this huffing and puffing about "mushroom clouds" when anybody would know or could learn Saddam had no missile which would reach our shores?

Aha, but he could reach Israel.

Our foreign policy is Israeli. The current regime is primarily motivated by Israeli interests. Why not kill or capture the crew which sent the mass killers after us? Because Afghanistan offers no threat to Israel. Why the urgency for war with Iran before the little dunce leaves office? Because with Iran off the table, Israel will be unthreatened.

Not all the chesthumpers are Jewish (in fact, Jews, who make up only 3% of the population (including my family) supported the atrocity in Iraq a full ten points less than the general population), but the hard core of the neocons is fixed and firm with Israel their objective.

There are other features, of course. The spineless heartless little lout wants to finagle a War President legacy to set under glass for that library he is even now extorting bribes to pay for. And of course there is reportedly twenty six trillion in oil reserves under that sand.

But a factor with No Name on the ballot is the Israeli connection. Read all about it.

I think that a thousand or so Letters to the editor are warranted. See ya all in a few . . . Gotta type my e-mail.

There are two things preventing offshore drilling: an executive order under Clinton (I think), and legislation to that effect.

Bush is simply taking care of his side of the equation. It is mainly symbolic.

The problem with Imperial presidents is not the power grabs per se. The Founders intended each branch to grab as much power as it possibly could, aqnd to surrender each power as grudgingly as possible. At times of crisis like Lincoln's and FDR's, the resistance from the other branches was at low ebb because the sectional representation of Congress had collapsed completely (Lincoln), or the collapse of the economy left Congress eager to hand the reins (and the accountability) to the Executive (FDR).
In Lincoln's case, the backlash against Presidential power started immediately, with Johnson's impeachment. FDR's model has proven irresistible to later Presidents, as there is very little incentive for Congress to gain power, and seemingly every incentive to lose it.

Leyoreberman ought to be stripped of his committee positions by the Democrats after they get more jellyfish Dem senators in the fall. They're only looking for #'s, though I can't imagine why. They'll cave with or without him for the lame duck thugs.

Let's see...

I wonder why the New York Times is so intent on protecting Joe Lieberman?

I just can't figure it out. I mean, is there a more dishonest, less trustworthy man in Washington who has ever stabbed the Democratic Party and the American People in the back more often and more reliably than Joe Lieberman?

Is there a slimier, senator in Washington (in either party) than Joe Lieberman? Is there anybody in the US Senate who puts the well-being of the USA second to his own agenda the way Joe does and still calls himself a "liberal"?

I pray every day that the Democratic Party throws that scum out before he has the opportunity to get media mileage out of the inevitable "I must switch parties for the good of the country" speech that Lieberman will give at the GOP convention. I pray that I live to see the smirk wiped off Joe Lieberman's face when he loses his senate seat.

For the life of me, I can't understand what motivates Lieberman.

I think there is something else that makes them stand out as great presidents, and that is that they respected (and even sought out) diverse opinions, they respected the Constitution, and basically, respected the other branches of government even when they were exasperated with them. Thus whatever they did was done with the idea of furthering the good of the entire country, and not just in the interests of a narrow faction.

Presidents have been pushing the limits of their power since George Washington's first term. Washington was a much stronger executive than the figurehead that many of those at the Constitutional Convention probably envisioned. But Washington was deeply committed to republican principles, and he was always careful to respect the institution of Congress even while he took steps, for example, to bring the cabinet secretaries under his control rather than Congress's, or to trim down the formal scope of the "advice and consent" role of the Senate.

But the authors of the Constitution envisioned that institutional rivalry among the various branches would ultimately prevent one branch from overreaching. Part of the structural role of Congress is to push back against a president's attempts to amass power, just as it did against Roosevelt's attempt to expand the scope of the Supreme Court.

That's been one of the big differences with the Bush presidency. When Congress was under the control of the Republicans, their allegiance was more to party than to the institution of Congress, and they went along with everything the president wanted, even though it compromised their own institutional power. Then when the Democrats came to power, they seemed not to have the stomach to oppose the president, afraid, apparently, that chattering classes would call them mean or unpatriotic or something. But if the first Congress didn't think it was unpatriotic to oppose George Washington, who was the next thing to an American God, then why should it be unpatriotic to stand up to a little piss-ant like George W. Bush?

There is a reason that the oath of office for everyone in the federal government is to the Constitution and not to the president.

“When asked whether he had received "talking points" from the McCain campaign or the Republican National Committee, Lieberman replied, "I usually don't."

Notice the pompous independent republiCON did not say NO. “I usually don’t.” Sounds a lot like he did.

McSame/ Lie-berman 08

Because bush has not totally destroyed America, and these two are the most capable of finishing the job.

By the way, what the hell happened to the NYT? Like lie-berman, they have become willing tools and mouthpieces for the bush/McSame republiCONs and their destructive, warmongering policies. They should just merge with FIX’d news and get it over with.

Joe Lieberman is a paragon of bad values.

I'm not trying to be silly, but here is a question for you. If voters cannot remember what a candidate said when they elected him, how much good will a reminder from the mainstream media accomplish? How quickly will they forget once again?

I think the problem is that voters can't remember facts and promises. The same thing applies to reporters--like those at the NYT, for example. The current "narrative" is all that matters to them. If inconvenient facts or memories do not fit the current narrative, then those facts and memories are ignored or forgotten. Media watchdogs really have their work cut out for them.

Perhaps the NYT gives Zionist Lieberman a (constant) pass because of the NYT/NY, Jewish/Israeli factor. I'm not allowed to say that of course, that's one (of many) of the forbidden subjects here in GodBlessAmerica.
And no one to date has pursued investigation into the hundreds of thousands of dollars that came down the pike to Lieberman's, until then, losing campaign against Lamont in the general election that was recorded as "petty cash". Clearly illegal to term that much moolah petty cash! Once again, AIPAC/NYT protects its own. Down the memory hole with that one.
In a capitol filled with dishonest scumbags, Lieberman is top tier. Swine.

The CORPORATE CONTROLED MEDIA along with LIE-berman and Friends will see McCain setting in the White House come November. The CORPORATE CONTROLED MEDIA PARENT COMPANYS have made BILLIONS off this WAR and they do not intend to leave Quietly when they can install McCain and LIE-berman and Friends in the White House and have another War and make BILLIONS More.