I love it, and AMEN to somebody going after these people who only stand for their rules, not the US constitution.

And to all those poster's who like to talk about weakness and what is politically expediant or if the democrats are weak or never fulfill their promises, hey maybe a little levity and some discourse about the subject matter pertaining to the Congressional subpoena might lift this crowd up into action. Whethre or not they are weak or fulfill their duty to serve the constitution how you see fit, does not change the subject matter related to Karl Rove and President Bush's horrible actions used against the American people and the US Constitution. It is fact that Lorita Doan used government offices and in front of civil servants asked them to do what they could to make sure Republicans were elected. That is a violation of the hatch act. Of course how, who and why are also imprortant and this is where bloggers can talk about the discourse related to this subject. DO I think the Presidents use of executive priveledge is constitutional? NO! Why, well legaly I am naive about the law language, but it seems to me that when the president invokes executive priveledge their has to be oversight into the reasoning behind his justification. As of yet this simple question has not been answered because the president and his lawyers as well as those of Karl Rove and others are using stall tactics. Now what rubs me the wrong way is that the same Republicans down here in Texas have comlained about the judiciary and legalistic manuevers used against businesses which they see as unfit, thus resulting in Tort reform. I am leaving out a whole chunk, but the essence of these players arguement is that the rules are meant to be interpreted and if are not interpreted as they see fit then they should be changed. And of course behind this is a great distrust in the goverment in general to deliver anything to the people, because they believe in small goverment and a big military to protect it! Seems like they are for a small priveledged society!

Posted at May 15, 2008 5:14 PM in response to Conyers on Rove: "Someone's Got to Kick His Ass"

Adding to the 100's of solution arguement, I have always thought there could be an opportunity for certain regions of this country becoming hotspots for R&D of specific energy technologies that relate to the environement. For example in areas where the sun has the most energy would have universities and grade schools who used their natural region as a catalyst for innovation, the same could be said for areas where rivers or water is plentiful and any other specific environment which suits a particular energy source. This could also be a platform which forms a greater partnership between the communities and their natural environment as well those ties between industry and education.

Posted at May 12, 2008 4:12 PM in response to Obama Supports "Clean Coal" in W. Virginia

Crumbrye, I think your concerns are well placed! The issues facing us regarding coal as a domestic product are immense. The methods used to gather the coal such as mountain top removal or other methods must be managed at a high level to ensure little impact on the surrounding environment. And like my Sierra club meetings of late have been emphasizing the Fad that is "clean coal" (i.e. there is no such thing as clean coal). Unfortunately as in any democracy we have a public that is mostly uninfomred or unconcerned about the nuances of energy policies and we are also at the mercy of our existing giants in the energy sector who to a large degree dictate the platform for public conversation. I am also dismayed by Obama's policy regarding clean coal and would hope that given the right amount of effort we could change his outlook on this issue. Of course it would be troublesome and near-sighted not to realize that he is on the same side as all the other people in power who also have influence on this conversation. So it would be a disservice to single him out but it could be a good opportunity to position him and other Democrats towards a policy which is much more compatable with the agenda of energy, self-sustainable growth and the environment. These must together can be married to be immune from the predators who will scream of anti-competative and pro-regulation/tax crowd which is sure to rear it ugly head. Of course if I was smart of enough to package this just right I would probably be working from one of the bad guys!

Posted at May 12, 2008 3:38 PM in response to Obama Supports "Clean Coal" in W. Virginia

Scary, these guys have the time to discuss deceiving the American People and laugh it up throughout the entire audio. Why we do not train people to think for themselves especially from these types of tactics is astounding? DO these people who were in the room believe that you build trust and honor through deception and manipulation. Call me naive but these are not the values that our founding fathers have nor are they the values that this cuountry was founded upon. ANd yet these guys will scream all day that they are patriots? I call Bullshit!

Posted at May 8, 2008 4:12 PM in response to Audio: Military Analysts Laud "The Leader" Rumsfeld

Thank god for the ACLU! I know they take many cases which divide communities but it has always amazed me the disdain the ACLU has in the conservative communties and many fo the regular folks down here in the South. I see them as a organization which fights many of the causes that need to be fought but publically don't look so sexy or sweet.

Posted at May 8, 2008 2:15 PM in response to Today's Must Read

As long as supporters on both side understand that it would be perplexing to many of us if either were not to support whomever the nominee happens to be! I understand the polls are the polls and that emotions are running high, but serioulsy whether you are an Obama supporter or a Clinton supporter to think that you would abandon the party if your choice is not the people's coice makes no sense to me whatsoever. Just look at the policies, forget about the candidates, when you do that it is hard to understand how you could vote for either Clinton or Barack and then look at John McCain's record and say, Yeah that suites me much better. It's fricken crazy and by any strecth of the imaginiation both Dem candidates records are far more in sync than McCain's record. Add his record with the fact that he has been running the George Bush campaign by pandering to the religious and neo-conservative right and his record would seem to be getting further and further away from either of the Dem's position. So I take the results with a grain of salt and chalk it up to emotion but if the case happens to be true than the country which happens to be my native one is as screwed up as all the lambasting I have railed against for the last 20 years. I believe this is the most important election in my life and perhaps the ost important since the 60's.

Posted at May 8, 2008 2:06 PM in response to What the hell is wrong with you people?

He does not want her negatives! And to be fair I think politically she would be better served being a Senator versus being a VP even with the expansion of the Vp office by Senor Cheney. The problem is neither really sees the other as a political plus and the elction has just highlighted these issues.

Posted at May 8, 2008 1:55 PM in response to Collusion between VoteBoth and the Clinton campaign

And they just said on MSNBC, David Gregory on campaign coverage, that 40% of the Hillary supporters would vote for McCain come November. Now how many of those 40% were women? And if so they would rather have John McCain and his judicial appointees than have Barack Obama? How is that? Were these voter's ever gonna vote for any other democrat other than Hillary? Or is the operation chaos crowd actually influenceing all this hyperventelating analysis?

Posted at May 6, 2008 7:30 PM in response to CNN: Exits Show That Half Of Hillary's Indiana Backers Say They Wouldn't Back Obama Against McCain

Hey Crumbrye, there is no need to draw the conclusion of racist. The issue is simply why would supporters of Hillary, if she is to lose the nomination, not select Barack Obama come fall? What makes them think that John McCain is better qualified to be their choice versus Barack Obama? Obviously they could also choose to not vote or vote for a third party but despite the support I have with the idea of a third party, I can not imagine that somehow all these people that support Hillary Clinton in the nomination would rather support the policies John McCain versus Barack Obama. One of the factors which might tell us something about this chasm/seperation between these two constituencies could be race but it could also be economic policies, it could be military policies, it could be civil liberty policies. But again Obama and Clinton positions on many of these issues are closer to each other than either is to John McCain. Therefore many of us who support Sen Obama are left mystified by this development. As I have said on this post many a times during this election, I have not been impressed with the tenure with which the Clinton campaign has engaged in this election but come November their won't be a chance that I would support any result which would lead to a Republican named John McCain being in the White House! Can You?

Posted at May 6, 2008 7:13 PM in response to CNN: Exits Show That Half Of Hillary's Indiana Backers Say They Wouldn't Back Obama Against McCain

Obama took the ad referencing a statement that Krugman made in the NYT out of the ad cycle. He replaced it with one that does not use his quote.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/06/paul-krugman-obama-ad-dis_n_100291.html

See this is change we can beleive in! Someone says you were wrong to use my quote and he shows the leadership and takes it down. Wow a leader that actualy listens! What a change indeed!

Posted at May 6, 2008 11:12 AM in response to Intimidation Politics