Kucinich Introduces Impeachment Articles against President Bush

Conyers wants You to Rebut his 5 Reasons Not to Impeach

lease mail or fax your rebuttals directly to Chairman Conyers, with the note that here are rebuttals to his objections to impeachment. Ask him to please consider them very carefully.

I have a feeling that now is the last chance to push for impeachment.

Here’s the address, phone numbers and faxes of all three of Conyers' offices.

Washington Office
2426 Rayburn Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-5126
(202) 225-0072 Fax

Detroit District Office
669 Federal Building
231 W. Lafayette
Detroit, MI 48226
(313) 961-5670
(313) 226-2085 Fax

Trenton District Office
2615 W. Jefferson
Trenton, MI 48183
(734) 675-4084
(734) 675-4218 Fax

Chairman Conyers also indicated he would welcome our individual Congressional reps' signatures on the [Wexler] letter that currently has 15 signers, five of whom are on the Judiciary Committee. Contacting your respective representatives could help.

We'll never know unless we try.

Peace

Kucinich Makes Case for War Crimes Prosecution Updated at 5:24 PM

If George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are ever impeached, they will certainly be prosecuted and convicted for war (and other) crimes. If they are not impeached, they may still be eventually convicted, but it won't be as easy. Court rooms are not scientific laboratories sealed in a vacuum. What happens in a criminal's society matters, and "My people never impeached me" is a defense that has to be taken seriously.

If Bush is impeached, or if even a serious movement threatens his impeachment, it should ideally be done in such a way as to lay out before the public and potential prosecutors both domestic and international, the crimes, both domestic and international. Of the 35 articles of impeachment that Rep. Dennis Kucinich introduced in the House on Monday night, the most important one to look at is Article VIII. It reads as follows:

INVADING IRAQ, A SOVEREIGN NATION, IN VIOLATION OF THE UN CHARTER AND INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW

In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed", violated United States law by invading the sovereign country of Iraq in violation of the United Nations Charter to wit:

(1) International Laws ratified by Congress are part of United States Law and must be followed as evidenced by the following:

(A) Article VI of the United States Constitution, which states "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"

(2) The UN Charter, which entered into force following ratification by the United States in 1945, requires Security Council approval for the use of force except for self-defense against an armed attack as evidenced by the following:

A) Chapter 1, Article 2 of the United Nations Charter states:

"3.All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

"4.All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

(B) Chapter 7, Article 51 of the United Nations Charter states:

"51. Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."

(3) There was no armed attack upon the United States by Iraq.

(4) The Security Council did not vote to approve the use of force against Iraq as evidenced by:

(A) A United Nation Press release which states that the United States had failed to convince the Security Council to approve the use of military force against Iraq.

(5) President Bush directed the United States military to invade Iraq on March 19th, 2003 in violation of the UN Charter and, therefore, in violation of United States Law as evidenced by the following:

(A) A letter from President Bush to Congress dated March 21st, 2003 stating "I directed U.S. Armed Forces, operating with other coalition forces, to commence combat operations on March 19, 2003, against Iraq."

(B) On September 16, 2004 Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

( C ) The consequence of the instant and direction of President George W. Bush, in ordering an attack upon Iraq, a sovereign nation is in direct violation of United States Code, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 118, Section 2441, governing the offense of war crimes.

(6). In the course of invading and occupying Iraq, the President, as Commander in Chief, has taken responsibility for the targeting of civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, use of antipersonnel weapons including cluster bombs in densely settled urban areas, the use of white phosphorous as a weapon, depleted uranium weapons, and the use of a new version of napalm found in Mark 77 firebombs. Under the direction of President George Bush the United States has engaged in collective punishment of Iraqi civilian populations, including but not limited to blocking roads, cutting electricity and water, destroying fuel stations, planting bombs in farm fields, demolishing houses, and plowing over orchards.

(A) Under the principle of "command responsibility", i.e., that a de jure command can be civilian as well as military, and can apply to the policy command of heads of state, said command brings President George Bush within the reach of international criminal law under the Additional Protocol I of June 8, 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, Article 86 (2). The United States is a state signatory to Additional Protocol I, on December 12, 1977.

(B) Furthermore, Article 85 (3) of said Protocol I defines as a grave breach making a civilian population or individual civilians the object of attacks. This offense, together with the principle of command responsibility, places President George Bush's conduct under the reach of the same law and principles described as the basis for war crimes prosecution at Nuremburg, under Article 6 of the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunals: including crimes against peace, violations of the laws and customs of war and crimes against humanity, similarly codified in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Articles 5 through 8.

(C) The Lancet Report has established massive civilian casualties in Iraq as a result of the United States' invasion and occupation of that country.

(D) International laws governing wars of aggression are completely prohibited under the legal principle of jus cogens, whether or not a nation has signed or ratified a particular international agreement.

In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

Dear Friends,

Our effort to hold the Bush/Cheney Administration accountable has taken another dramatic step forward. Last night, Congressman Dennis Kucinich introduced the first Articles of Impeachment ever to be introduced against President Bush. It includes, in total, thirty-five Articles detailing this Administration's blatant abuse of power. Today, I enthusiastically co-sponsored this vitally important bill.

I am grateful for Dennis' leadership on this issue and for the steadfast support that countless Americans have given to both of our efforts to redeem our government and expose the crimes of Bush and Cheney.

I will now expand my efforts to secure impeachment hearings in the Judiciary Committee for these new Articles of Impeachment against President George W. Bush.

* Wexler For Congress Campaign's diary :: ::
*

Many of the charges against President Bush are well known – and would shock the conscience of everyday Americans if only the national media would be willing to report on these stark facts.

The Articles present a stunning narrative of offenses that have go well beyond previous crimes committed by any US chief executive. In fact no President or Vice President in history has done more to undermine our constitution.

These charges are broad, with 35 separate allegations including the deliberate lies regarding WMDs that led us to war and the approval of illegal wiretapping of American citizens. The Articles also include new allegations of high crimes – including the explicit approval for high Administration officials to violate treaties and US law banning the use of torture.

The Democratic Party gained a majority in the House and Senate due in large part to our promises to end the corruption of the Republican majority and to hold the Administration accountable to the law. This courageous bill is a crucial step towards fulfilling this promise, but – like the Articles against Cheney – they require your support to convince Democrats and open-minded Republicans to support this bold but necessary action.

Time is running out so we must work together to spread the message and apply pressure.

First, please encourage your friends and family members to sign up at WexlerWantsHearings.com – as it will allow us to keep in touch with you and speak to a wider audience. If you haven't yet put in your phone and address, please sign up again, as we will be doing telephone town halls in the near future.

Second, call your representative and urge them to support Impeachment hearings.

Finally, contact newspapers, news stations, and your favorite bloggers and urge them to report on this movement. We need to keep Impeachment a significant news story until the Democratic leadership sees the value in it.

McClellan Agrees to Testify:

I was pleased to inform you yesterday that Judiciary Committee Chairman Conyers met my call to have Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan testify under oath. I am thrilled to inform you that McClellan has agreed to testify on June 20th at 10AM. This will be the first step in what we hope will be ongoing and deepening examinations of the stark evidence and charges against both President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

Thank you for your continued passion and advocacy. Your support means so much to me.

Sincerely,

Congressman Robert Wexler

I'm talking to me-self. I'm hearing voices in my head... The voices are telling me to "vote in this impeachment poll!"and "vote in this one too!"

Anti-War Protesters Banned From Demonstrating Against Bush

BBC uncovers lost Iraq ($23) billions ("largest war profiteering in history")
Advertisements [?]Source: BBC

A BBC investigation estimates that around $23bn (£11.75bn) may have been lost, stolen or just not properly accounted for in Iraq.

For the first time, the extent to which some private contractors have profited from the conflict and rebuilding has been researched by the BBC's Panorama using US and Iraqi government sources.

A US gagging order is preventing discussion of the allegations.

...

Henry Waxman who chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform said: "The money that's gone into waste, fraud and abuse under these contracts is just so outrageous, its egregious.

"It may well turn out to be the largest war profiteering in history."

In the run up to the invasion one of the most senior officials in charge of procurement in the Pentagon objected to a contract potentially worth seven billion that was given to Halliburton, a Texan company, which used to be run by Dick Cheney before he became vice-president.

Unusually only Halliburton got to bid - and won.

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7444083

Kangaroo...

And to think that the neocons made a huge issue out of "Welfare Queens."

I think we should make a bunch of posters of the CEO's dressed up as those welfare queens.

"Countdown" Beats "O'Reilly Factor" In Ratings Demo For First Time Ever

MSNBC's "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" beat Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" in the key Adults 25-54 demographic for the first time ever last week.

"Countdown" averaged 477,000 viewers (A25-54) vs. O'Reilly's 472,000 (excluding Tuesday's primary coverage). This marks the first time that MSNBC has beaten Fox News in O'Reilly's 8pm time slot since June 2001.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/10/countdown-beats-oreilly-f_n_106298.html

You can listen to the Articles being read back into the record by the clerk. Afterwords, DK is going to ask that they be referred to the Judiciary Committee. We questioned the timing and the possibility that they (DK, Wexler, Conyers) were actually...working together...to do this and it appears that we could have had hints that this was indeed planned.

I heard Wexler on Ed Schultz and Wexler described that with Scotty testifying next week, and "with Soctty being the first person to NOT CLAIM EXECUTIVE PRIVALEDGE, it was good timing to do this."

The VP shortlist. (Allegedly)

I don't see Wes Clark and I wish I did.

Get this...Bush Tells UK Paper He Regrets His Image As A War Monger

At least Olbermann and Abrams are reporting on the Impeachment motion.

Jerry Springer believes impeachment is a waste of time. I guess it takes one to know one...

Jerry Springer was a horrible radio host. He should know about wastes of time. Two shows that were a disappointment.

Jerry Springer is a waste of time.

Impeach bush.

Ailing Paul Newman Turns Over $120 Million To Charity

Movie star Paul Newman has quietly turned over the entire value of his ownership in Newman's Own -- the company that makes salad dressing and cookies -- to charity.

Completed over a two-year period in 2005 and 2006, the amount of his donations to Newman's Own Foundation Inc. comes to an astounding $120 million.

This is unprecedented for any movie star or anyone from what we call Hollywood. Of course Newman and actress wife Joanne Woodward have never been Hollywood types. They've lived their lives quietly in Westport, Conn., for the last 50 years. (They were married in January 1958. And people said it wouldn't last!)

This column learned about this extraordinary gift as news started coming out recently about Newman's battle with lung cancer. This is not news to my readers. I told you several months ago that Newman -- who has five grown daughters -- was seeing an oncologist, that he'd been in and out of Memorial Sloan Kettering hospital on many visits from Westport. Like everything else, the Newmans tried to keep Paul's illness a private matter.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/10/ailing-paul-newman-turns_n_106341.html

Hmmmm.

First of all, I have taken out my violin to play while George W. Bush tells the Europeans he "regrets his image as being a war monger".

IMAGE??!!??. It's still all about YOU, isn't it, Mr. President? It's STILL all about your IMAGE, isn't it? What about WHO YOU REALLY ARE? What about WHAT YOU REALLY DID? What about the "spin" to ensure you went down in history as a "great" President?

That is narcissistic. On top of it all, he "regrets" his image as being a war monger. Well, let me tell you, Mr. President, and Mr. Rove, the rest of the world, including your own country, regrets it alot more than you EVER will.

Oh, to hear him "whine". It's too little too late. The Europeans are likely to be less dismissal of his role and legacy of being a war monger than many others.

My prayer is that the truth will come out, and that according to the truth, justice will be done.

Have only gotten 1/2 of Scotty's book read. Hoped for the other 1/2 tonight, but went to bed extra early.

A thought ~ then back to bed....

Could it be that Scotty "flipped"? Are there indictments to be handed down?

I love that we already have a strong candidate, and the election is less than five months away. The timing was brilliant. I wonder if Scotty "flipped", and if part of his reward was getting to put out his book before impeachment proceedings were read? Somehow I think old Scotty will always be able to take care of himself.

scotty may have been flipped.

These people are facing serious crimes that include hanging offenses, and it is just not bloody likly any of them are still 100% confident they can get away with it.

Again, on his book, don't you find it odd that he only really focuses on the one lie we all already knew he told? The more I think about what he left out, the more it bothers me.

His confession is barely, just barely a confession. Maybe now that they have been giving him the traitor treatment he is going to be more forthcoming before congress, but I suspect his old spinning ways will instantly take over again as soon as they ask him about anything else except this one single lie and how it is so not his fault.

but I suspect his old spinning ways will instantly take over again as soon as they ask him about anything else except this one single lie and how it is so not his fault.

Nothing will happen Christy, just look at Halliburton and Blackwater.

As Jonathan Turley said last night, if you don't seriously pursue Articles of Impeachment against Bush here, especially after McClellan, why have the provision on the books at all?

You likely can't remove him - but if there ever was a President who deserved it, it's this guy.

The idiots - i.e, the most grossly uninformed segment of the electorate - would probably take exception to anything that interfered with their stupor, and take it out on the Democrats in November, but if Bush's actions don't constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors", I don't what does.

Why even keep the provision on the books at all?

Christy,

I agree with you. I think when they get him under oath that he will only talk with forthrightness about the Plame-treason and the Iraq propaganda because it's the only thing on the record. You can see him on tv trying to be honest yet defending the Bush people when people dig too deep and ask if Bush committed war crimes. (He doesn't respond)

I don't think he will do it because 'it is the only thing on record'.

I think he is doing it because it is the one thing on the record most likly to get him hanged as a traitor. And war criminal.

That is why he doesn't bother with anything else. If he can get out of the Plame Affair, everything else can be spun to not be his fault.

I think he is doing all this, because he suddenly realized they are not going to get away with it.

Does anyone know if CNN or MSGOP has covered the impeachment? (Other than K.O. and maybe Jack Cafferty?)

Christy,

You have more hope than I do. I believe all of them will get away with this. From what I can tell the media STILL isn't paying attention. My greatest hope is that the online activities have at least pushed back enough to make it happen. That's why I posted the two-in-one threads the way I did.

Roo Said:

"Nothing will happen Christy, just look at Halliburton and Blackwater."

I perfectly understand your cynical outlook darling. But something is up. Something is different.

Kucinich came out of the blue like that, but the most telling thing is he faced ZERO resistance to it being read onto the record.

How did he manage 0 resistance? Something is up. I just can't say what exactly.

Also, huffington post still has not covered it at all, and I saw yesterday a post at Americablog calling Kucinich silly and all this a waste of time. Even said how 'the people' would hate dems for it in November. It is dems like this that give us all a reputation for cowardice.

But here is the thing, every day that goes by, there are MORE people wanting him impeached, NOT LESS. People are really starting to freak out over here.

I am cynical too, but, scotty is not halliburton or blackwater, he is a singular person that literally put us next to georgie with the words actually coming out of georgies mouth. That is something no one at halliburton or blackwater can do.

"Kucinich came out of the blue like that, but the most telling thing is he faced ZERO resistance to it being read onto the record.

How did he manage 0 resistance? Something is up. I just can't say what exactly."~~Christy.

~~Sparrow...

I was SHOCKED that all of a sudden there was "Breaking NEWS: Kucinich reading 35 Articles of Impeachment"

AND I've called Congress (even my Repubs) to GET THEM ON BOARD.

The thing is that I think it's TOTALLY wrong to just blame the Dems. Without the Republicans on board, the republicans can filibuster impeachment too.

Even my brother was like, "Huh? They're not going to impeach him THIS LATE! He's almost out!" Well, that's why I get a sense that something IS different this time.

There is SILENCE. I wasn't able to see if DK was speaking to an empty room like Wexler was but the thing is that we MUST be the media. I'm going out today. I'm telling EVERYONE I SEE about the impeachment.

I may grab my sign and my homework. Maybe my sign will say, "DK submits 35 Articles of Impeachment. HONK for IMPEACHMENT" and see what happens.

I know I am having a difficult time focusing on my job. But I must find a way to do this and do that!

PS. THANK GOD THE PRIMARY IS OVER!!! Maybe we can fight with THOSE PEOPLE instead of with people who mostly agree with us now.

Hope. Yes. I still have hope.

If there were no hope I would not even be here, I would not even bother. None of us would.

Hope is the only reason I do not pick up a gun and become a lone wolf. Hope is the only reason I will vote for Obama this year. Hope is the only thing left standing between us and the dark future they believe we will willingly walk into.

I can't afford gas, I can barely afford food, I can not afford insurance for my kids. I am probably on a dozen government lists and my state has been abandoned by both the federal government and the rest of the USA, the dollar is worth only slightly more than toilet paper and military recruiters are coming for my only son starting in 1 month.

There is nothing left anymore EXCEPT hope. But that is ok, because really, in the end, that is all you need.

Rate up--favorite whatever these impeachment videos at youtube

Can someone track how many times John McCain says "my friends" in the course of a town hall meeting?

Wow, is that annoying.

Dan Abrams had a segment on it on MSNBC

Can someone track how many times John McCain says "my friends" in the course of a town hall meeting?

Isn't it sick, you think to yourself every time he says it, shut the **** up, your not my friend.

Conyers means business even if House leadership doesn't. He means to push this if Bush doesn't shut up about attacking Iran and Bush is still at it.

Can someone track how many times John McCain says "my friends" in the course of a town hall meeting?

Isn't it sick, you think to yourself every time he says it, shut the **** up, your not my friend.

Christy, your getting your wish at last, a Democratic Presidential Candidate that is not going to forget the South.

The massive Obama/Dean 50-state effort.

I am proud to announce that our presidential campaign will be the first in a generation to deploy and maintain staff in every single state.
That's incredible. It's revolutionary.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/11/105023/784

OPOL has a great diary up on impeachment.

Kucinich referendum to impeach passes to the judiciary.

Source: C-Span

The House: 251 voted yes, 156 voted no.
On to the judiciary!

No link yet.

Where it will languish and die?

June 11, 2008 2:37 PM
monkey said:
Can someone track how many times John McCain says "my friends" in the course of a town hall meeting?

Wow, is that annoying.

It certainly IS, my friend. ha

I saw a blurb go across the screen on MSNBC tonight that mentioned something about the impeachment proceedings, but it didn't make a big deal of it. I think it said the articles of impeachment were read by D.K.

No WONDER they were busy firing judges and hiring different ones.

The only reason I think something might be up is because I don't think it's usual that a former Presidential Press Secretary would say a word in private or public about ANYTHING he or she ever heard during their time of serving the President. Why. Why now?

And with that, I am going to remove myself from the internet and my computer and sit down and read his book further.

"My friends, we are all gathered here today to pay our last respects to the Republican Party. The same party that lied and led us to war, the same party that raided our coiffures, the same party who made sleeping with the lobbyists their own bedtime w*t dream..."

...

"And we give you John McCain to give us leadership you can believe in."

...

"Because without John McCain's strong leadership, my friends, we would not know how to sleep with those lobbyists while at the same time appear to be...."

MY Friends...I don't know about yall but the vibe from DC is giving me the heebie-jeebies.

scotty blabbing in public certianly DOES seem very weird. It just all has a very strange feel to it all of the sudden.

Very freaking weird.

Kinda makes you wonder, if scotty was flipped, who held the spatula...?

Fitz maybe? Pelosi? Conyers...Waxman? The FBI? A non domestic pressure?

Hell, at this point our own CIA could be going after the bastards for revenge.

Wow. This is getting very interesting.

scotty bugs me. Real bad. And I already did not like him.

Robert Mugabe's militia burn opponent’s wife alive

The men who pulled up in three white pickup trucks were looking for Patson Chipiro, head of the Zimbabwean opposition party in Mhondoro district. His wife, Dadirai, told them he was in Harare but would be back later in the day, and the men departed.

An hour later they were back. They grabbed Mrs Chipiro and chopped off one of her hands and both her feet. Then they threw her into her hut, locked the door and threw a petrol bomb through the window.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article4116638.ece

Wow. I just read one of the most screwed up and biased pieces ever about 'feminists'.

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/06/10/walkers/index.html

I mean, really, wow. The woman who wrote that article obviously does not like the thought of an old school feminist (who she obviously is in love with) being questioned by a new generation of feminist, even if it is the womans own daughter.

So totally whack.

Today's NY Times Post, in response to Nick Kristof's Thursday column, "The Sex Speech":

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/opinion/12kristof.html

*****

Nick, there was a terrific feminist candidate running for President in 2008, a candidate who was strong on virtually every issue important to women. That candidate’s name was Dennis Kucinich. Unfortunately, the elite media decided that he wasn’t a serious contender - as opposed to Hillary and Barak - and didn’t bother covering his campaign.

Nick, it strikes me that at the end of the day, sexism had almost nothing to do with outcome of the 2008 race - but media attention had just about everything to do with that outcome. Not coincidentally, the two candidates who received the lion’s share of the media coverage during 2007 received the lion’s share of the votes in 2008.

And need I mention that Dennis Kucinich was right about Iraq from the very beginning, and had the courage to lead the opposition on television and radio. And Dennis didn’t need Mark Penn’s polling data to tell him what to believe, and which causes, however unpopular, were worth fighting for.

So perhaps the speech Barak needs to give isn’t one about sexism, but rather one about how the elite media distorts the dynamics of American democracy? Or maybe even a speech about how incredibly privileged candidates who use that elite media to spin bogus narratives about how they were mistreated, in comparison to say Monica Lewinsky or Gennifer Flowers, ought to actually begin doing their job - instead of complaining about how they were unfairly denied a different one.

Sad article Christy. I am not sure it's that she didn't like the old school feminist (mom) being questioned by the 'new school feminsts' daughter.

I took from it that she didn't think the girl should have done it publically.

Being a mom, and having two teenage girls who are at one end of that spectrum (in the article) or the other, I'm happy that my relationship is private.

Many moms, daughters, fathers, sons, fight. But to have someone say such harsh words of critique so publicly is not only embarrassing, but it's very unkind and unloving.

A speech about the 'elite media' would never be played by the media, unless it's like Scotty's case. (Where the person who played the media then criticized the media.)

Cheney gave a radio show from LIEberman's office. Now that was a big "f-u" to the Democratic Party. Isn't it time to maybe take away his chairmanship and give him a less important job?

Oil futures "Dark Markets" & how the prices are fixed

McCain Defends 'Enron Loophole'

By Jason Leopold

20 May, 2008
Countercurrents.org

Sen. John McCain says he opposes the $307 billion farm bill because it would dole out wasteful subsidies, but his chief economic adviser Phil Gramm also wants to stop its proposed regulation of energy futures trading, a market that was famously abused when Enron Corp. manipulated California’s electricity prices in 2001.

Clearing the way for that California price gouging, Gramm, as a powerful Texas senator in 2000, slipped an Enron-backed provision into the Commodities Futures Modernization Act that exempted from regulation energy trading on electronic platforms.

Then, over the next year, Enron – with Gramm’s wife Wendy serving on its board of directors – worked to create false electricity shortages in California, bilking consumers out of an estimated $40 billion.

Gramm left the Senate in 2002 but now has emerged as what Fortune magazine calls “McCain’s econ brain,” not only filling the Arizona senator’s acknowledged void on economic expertise (“I don’t know as much about the economy as I should”) but recognized as one of McCain’s closest friends in politics. The two men talk daily.

A McCain aide told me that the Arizona senator opposes the farm bill because it “rewards lobbyists” by granting rich farmers lucrative subsidies, although he would support “a reasonable level of assistance and risk management to farmers when they need America's help.”

But the aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, acknowledged that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee also opposes the farm bill because Gramm advised McCain that he should resist its regulatory language on the energy futures market.

Democrats have dubbed that gap in energy futures regulation the “Enron loophole,” but it played a part, too, in the more recent attempt by the Amaranth Advisers hedge fund to corner the national gas market by shifting trades to the unregulated “dark markets” of the Intercontinental Exchange.

The “Enron loophole” also has become part of the debate over the soaring price of oil. Last week, a study sponsored by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, concluded that speculative futures markets were partly to blame for the surge in oil prices that have pushed gas at the pump toward $4 a gallon

At a May 15 news conference, Levin said the skyrocketing price of oil is “not the result of supply and demand. Speculators have taken over most of the futures market."

However, the 673-page farm bill, containing the regulatory provisions on electronic energy trading, still faces obstacles amid overall concerns about the bill’s largesse to farmers at a time of rising food prices.

President George W. Bush has vowed to veto the bill, although it cleared the House and Senate by margins wide enough for an override, assuming Republicans don’t rally behind Bush and McCain, their current and future standard bearers.

Gramm and Enron

The battle over the “Enron loophole” also could draw attention to McCain’s dependence on Gramm as his chief economic adviser and Gramm’s key role in passing legislation that let Enron trade commodities on electronic platforms without federal oversight.

In 2000, with the Republicans in charge of Congress and Gramm chairing the Senate Banking Committee, the exemption on electronic trading was approved without a Senate hearing.

Internal Enron documents, which were released in 2002, revealed that the Houston-based company helped write the legislation, which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in December 2000.

Freed from regulatory interference, Enron then used manipulative trading practices to game the California electricity market and drive up electricity prices across the state.

While California consumers were getting fleeced, the new Bush administration shielded Enron from early accusations of market manipulation. President Bush personally joined the fight against imposing caps on the soaring price of electricity, buying additional time for Enron although the company’s house of cards collapsed anyway in fall 2001. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Bush’s Enron Lies.”]

In 2006, the “Enron loophole” allowed Amaranth Advisers hedge fund to shift its trades from the regulated New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) to the unregulated Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) in Atlanta.

That let Amaranth corner the natural gas market, betting that futures prices would rise. The hedge fund lost about $6 billion and imploded as natural gas prices fell to a two-year low in September 2006.

Last July, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission charged that Amaranth manipulated prices paid in the physical natural gas markets. FERC has proposed $291 million in penalties and the forfeiture of “unjust profits.”

“Unregulated markets are known as ‘dark markets’ because there is very little oversight of the trades,” said Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Michigan, chairman of the subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, during a hearing on energy speculation last December.

By trading on the “dark” ICE market, traders can avoid the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s rules which are in place to prevent price distortions or supply squeezes.

Stupak said trading volumes on ICE “have skyrocketed in the past three years and are now as large or even larger in some months, than the volumes traded on the regulated futures market.”

The lack of oversight “makes it difficult for regulators to detect excessively large positions which could lead to price manipulation,” Stupak said.

Advising McCain

Gramm, who is now a vice chairman of financial services company UBS, began advising McCain in 2005 when the Arizona senator indicated he planned to run for President.

Since then, McCain has adopted much of Gramm’s anti-tax, anti-regulatory agenda. Most strikingly, McCain shifted to support Bush’s tax cuts, which McCain had voted against in 2001 and 2003. He now vows that, if elected President, he would make them permanent.

Yet Gramm’s influence over McCain’s economic agenda – and the checkered political-business history of Gramm and his wife Wendy – have largely escaped media scrutiny.

Gramm received more than $34,000 in campaign contributions from Enron and served as one of the company’s key legislative allies in Washington, including his help in 2000 removing federal oversight from energy trades on electronic platforms.

At the height of the Enron scandal in January 2002, Gramm’s press secretary Larry Neal told The New York Times that Gramm did not “recall a conversation” he apparently had with Enron’s chairman Ken Lay in 2000 to discuss that Enron legislative priority.

An internal Enron e-mail dated Aug. 10, 2000, under the subject “CFTC Reauthorization” – sent by Enron’s top lobbyist Richard Shapiro to Steve Kean, Enron’s executive vice president – said the company needed to get Lay on the phone with Gramm so the bill could be passed.

“The bill is not moving quickly in the Senate due to Senator Phil Gramm's desire to see significant changes made to the legislation (not directly related to our energy language),” Shapiro said.

“Last week at the [2000] Republican Convention, I asked the Senator about the bill and he said they were working on it, but much needs to be changed for his support. More telling perhaps, were Wendy Gramm's comments that she would rather the current bill die if a better bill can be passed next year.

“What this means is that we must, at the least, remove Senator Gramm's opposition to the bill to move the process and more importantly seek to gain his support of the legislation.”

Shapiro added: “However, with less than 20 or so legislative days left, we need Senator Gramm to engage.

“A call from Ken Lay in the next two weeks to Senator Gramm could be an impetus for Gramm to move his staff to resolve the differences. Gramm needs to fully understand how helpful the bill is to Enron.

“Let me know your thoughts on this approach. I am prepared to assist in coordinating the call and drafting the talking points for a Ken Lay/Sen. Gramm call.”

Several other internal Enron e-mails briefed company staffers on the status of Gramm’s position and Enron’s lobbying of the senator. Gramm finally removed a “hold” on the bill in December 2000, reintroduced the bill under a different number, and forced a vote on it without floor debate.

It was then attached to an appropriations bill that was signed by President Clinton on Dec. 21, 2000.

California Crisis

Less than a month later, California began to experience rolling blackouts due to artificial electricity shortages which, according to documents later released by federal energy regulators, were the result of manipulative trading practices employed by Enron.

The California crisis centered on Enron’s energy trades through a new platform called EnronOnline, which had been freed from regulatory oversight by the legislation pushed by Gramm.

In April 2002, Gramm blocked an amendment by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, that would have closed the loophole that Gramm had helped open.

Gramm’s wife, Wendy, also had played a role in the anti-regulatory policies that contributed to the Enron scandal.

On Jan. 14, 1993, in the final days of the first Bush administration, Wendy Gramm – as chairwoman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission – pushed through a key regulatory exemption removing energy derivatives contracts and interest-rate swaps from federal oversight.

That was a major financial boon to Enron, where Wendy Gramm landed five weeks later as a member of the board of directors. She also became a member of the audit committee that signed off on another one of Enron’s fraudulent schemes, partnerships that hid the company’s growing debt.

Even after Enron had collapsed in fall 2001, Sen. Gramm continued to resist congressional efforts at tightening up the rules.

In 2002, despite the accounting scandals at Enron, WorldCom and other major companies, Sen. Gramm objected to the Sarbanes-Oxley corporate reform bill designed to hold executives accountable for inaccuracies in financial reports.

Now, the Gramm family’s anti-regulatory agenda is returning via McCain’s presidential campaign.

As Fortune’s editor-at-large Shawn Tully wrote, “economic conservatives should take heart. McCain’s chief economic adviser – and perhaps his closest political friend – is the ultimate pure play in free market faith, former Texas Sen. Phil Gramm. … Most of [McCain’s] current positions are vintage Gramm indeed.” [Fortune, Feb. 19. 2008]

The first test of McCain’s commitment to Gramm’s anti-regulatory purity may come in the looming battle over the “Enron loophole” that the farm bill seeks to close.

http://countercurrents.org/leopold20058.htm

Wendy Gramm, btw, is from the reactionary Korean-American community.

The Korean community is one of the few communities that get more reactionary with each passing generation in America. And the first generation is a special interest Reagan-Bush reactionary mess to start with.

Wendy is of the third generation.

Hey liberals,

Robert Mugabe's militia burn opponent’s wife alive

Remember that this is one of the best friends of YOUR HERO, HUGO CHAVEZ.

Is Hugo Chavez my hero?

I didn't know that. Frankly, I know Cindy Sheehan met him but I don't know that it meant any thing different than Bush's family meeting the Saudi family.

Maybe someone can clue me in on what I'm suppose to think.

Kangaroo,

Re: the alleged energy shortage in 2001 cost plenty of Nevada's consumer's too.

I remember our governor giving a speech on the eve it was announced that there was a severe energy crisis in California, and higher prices, of course. He stood there and said "There is no way Nevada consumers are going to pay with higher prices because of the "energy crisis" that is going on in CA right now. A little less than a year later, and my utilities payments had doubled.

I don't think anyone actually thinks Hugo Chavez is a 'hero.

Except, of course, Hugo Chavez.

Ok Sparrow, I will start with your words first, then hers. Or, no, I will have to rebutt them both at the same time.

"I am not sure it's that she didn't like the old school feminist (mom) being questioned by the 'new school feminsts' daughter."

That was exactly my take since she never once critisized the mother (whom she liked) while completely attacking the daughter (whom she obviously does not like.) She even conceeds the daughter 'has a point' yet then completely diverts without ever once giving any wieght at all to the 'point', and instead gives every paragraph to telling you how lewd she thinks the daughter is, even if she has a point.

It is obvious the author considers the daughter an upstart critisizing someone she deeply admires, and her only defense is the daughter needs to STFU.

"I took from it that she didn't think the girl should have done it publically."

This is where it gets funny. The author of the article flat out says that she, too, held her own mother up to public critism, but she made it how she was a much more thoughtful child though since she waited until after her mom DIED!

For 1, what kind of 'feminist' can not be honest with their own mothers in their lifetimes...?

And for 2, what kind of 'feminist' brags about publicly knocking around the corpse of her own mother?

Apparently it is perfectly ok to critisize your mother publicly, but only after she is DEAD and can not defend herself.

"Being a mom, and having two teenage girls who are at one end of that spectrum (in the article) or the other, I'm happy that my relationship is private. "

There is nothing about these two womens lives that are considered 'too private'. They rightly or wrongly represent the public face of ALL vaginas.

AND do remember it was the MOTHER that brought fame and public scrutiny into their lives, so the fact it is now not ok to go public just because the daughter dissents is simply turn about being fair play.

"Many moms, daughters, fathers, sons, fight. But to have someone say such harsh words of critique so publicly is not only embarrassing, but it's very unkind and unloving."

Sometimes, when dealing with the type of people she is describing her mother as,sometimes the only way to deal with them is by going through someone else, because obviously her mother does not want to listen to her. To some people love is all about control, and the description of her phone call telling her mother she was pregnant is a perfect example of a struggle for control between them.

And it also shows that for all the 'feminist' in the mother, she certainly is not a very warm mother. Which was the daughters entire point. Her mothers politics and policies DID NOT make her any better at being a woman than any of the rest of us.

And then, to just pile on, the article basically ended by saying, you know, since men get all these excuses to be a bad or absent parent, then BY GOD the mother can use those excuses too because she is a GREAT FEMINIST.

Girl Power!

The whole article smacks of status quo trying to swat down what they consider an offensive upstart, and not any real debate on the actual point of the mothers policies this girl is dissenting against.

I will be honest, this article is a perfect example of why I am loathe to call myself a 'feminist'.

Feminism is a political philosophy, one I fully endorse. Yet instead of it being held up as a philosophy it is too often used by women, to tell other women, what kind of women they SHOULD BE.

If this chick was REALLY going after the daughter in defense of the Sisterhood, to further understanding of it, that would be one thing, but she didn't. She did it to tell the daughter to STFU and tout how amazing the mother is, even if the people who know her best say her politics are flawed.

In a way it really does remind me of how I am going to be told Hillary is my hero, no matter what, because we both have vaginas. Even if I think she is a liar, a cheat, a fraud...

The mother in this article is also being held up the same way. Her daughter says she is a hypocrit and bad mother, and she 'has a point', but... but... she is an ungrateful child that should just shut up and wait for the mother to die, I guess, before she speaks the truth publicly of who her mother REALLY was.

It is totally freaking ridiculous.

I will be honest, this article is a perfect example of why I am loathe to call myself a 'feminist'.

Feminism is a political philosophy, one I fully endorse. Yet instead of it being held up as a philosophy it is too often used by women, to tell other women, what kind of women they SHOULD BE.

~~~

Yep.

~~

This is where it gets funny. The author of the article flat out says that she, too, held her own mother up to public critism, but she made it how she was a much more thoughtful child though since she waited until after her mom DIED!

~~~

Yep

~~~

And it also shows that for all the 'feminist' in the mother, she certainly is not a very warm mother. Which was the daughters entire point. Her mothers politics and policies DID NOT make her any better at being a woman than any of the rest of us.

~~~

Yep, but even 'traditional moms' can be cold as ice. I know a few. Don't forget a long time ago, parents were told to not 'coddle the baby and children...'

~~~

~~~

Ok. so I don't disagree with you that much. I think the daughter has the right to try to work things out with her mother. And yes, the mom is a public figure. But did the mom use the daughter as an example of perfect womenness and motherhood? If so, then I guess it would be ok to be public about it. But if the mom kept the profession and the daughter out of the media fray, then it might be different.

I have to admit that overall, I just found the article sad.

I myself has 'scars' of the feminist movement or scars of being 'called' a 'feminist'. As far as I'm concerned, you can't win (as a woman or a feminist.)

1. If you're a feminist, then you're not suppose to want the traditional role of motherhood. (OR so they made 'my generation' feel. I was a stay at home mom and home school mom and I heard all the insults by 'feminists.'

And yet, I feel the women's movement fought for the RIGHT to stay at home or work.

2. If you work, then the traditional women abhor you. Take a look at that poor woman who lost her baby because the nanny shook him and he died. The mother was blamed for working even though she only was a part-time Doctor, and she thought by having a nanny she was able to fulfill both roles.

3. Young feminists don't appreciate getting all the "superwomen" (impossible role to fill) that the older feminist made it seem possible that the women could do it all.

So at any rate, I don't know if the daughter added to the attack against her mom in a public way or if the person who wrote the article added to it. Before that article, I didn't know about it. So maybe that is more an instance of who should stfu.

But I still think that both the writer and the daughter and the mom have 'issues' and that it's a shame that this story is even public. I still think it's sad. I don't think the author should have 'waited until her mom was dead to bash her around.' And yet, the only 'good' that I hope can come out of such a discussion is that

1. Women need to have realistic expectations of working or staying at home and both should be accepted.

2. Old and new feminists are dealing with the repurcussions that the first wave didn't lead to the perfect life.

And the dysfunction of those three women seem to prove that feminism by itself isn't the right way, but instead people need to learn to communicate better and listen to others and ADAPT.

1. If you're a feminist, then you're not suppose to want the traditional role of motherhood. (OR so they made 'my generation' feel. I was a stay at home mom and home school mom and I heard all the insults by 'feminists.'

And yet, I feel the women's movement fought for the RIGHT to stay at home or work.

.........

Absolutely! I am also a stay at home mother, and I get insulted by working women all the time. It is hard not to be bitter about it.

But on the flip side, I was once also a working single mother, but I get ZERO credit for that, since I currently no longer work outside my home. I have 5 kids, all my money would literally be spent on gas and baby sitters, who yeah, will probably give my kids Shaken Baby Syndrome. Even if I COULD find a babysitter/daycare to manage all 5. Even with a job I would literally have to be on food stamps and medicaid, because I could work constantly and still not afford gas, daycare, and housing.

I no longer work, because I can literally not AFFORD to work, and I know I am blessed for having the option to stay home without facing financial ruin. But man, sometimes working women really start trippin on me. It is weird.

I was thinking about that earlier, even when I was working I never resented stay at home moms, because I was a mom early, and Good Lord, what a thankless series of never ending constant grueling work that is. Why as a mommy is everything that touches you either sticky, slimy, or someones/somethings bodily fluids? I agree 100% even traditional mothers can be cold as hell. I am not freezing myself but my kids know I am very frosty. With 5 I have to be, I am outnumbered and outflanked.

I credit my writing talent and my artistic abilities to being a stay at home mother, because they were developed to literally get through the mind numbing days, hours and years of waiting, constantly waiting, for them to grow up. I became a woman in my own right, by doing what women have been doing since time began.

I do not understand where it all came about how to be a feminist you must abandon traditional roles. To me, it is the traditional roles that is the whole point of feminism. Not to eliminate those roles, but to expand on them. To give those roles more influence, and power.

But somewhere along the way it became you can not be a feminist if you stay home, and you can not have traditional views if you get a job.

I agree, you can't win having that conversation. It leads to nothing but bitterness and drama.
.................

3. Young feminists don't appreciate getting all the "superwomen" (impossible role to fill) that the older feminist made it seem possible that the women could do it all.

....

I think what is happing is literally a full scale, universal political revolution. Obama is a radical new face representing new politics, and I think all aspects of politics, including the feminist movement is suddenly caught in a swirl of evolutionary progress.

In other words, I think the feminist movement is maturing. Our elders blazed pathways by burning dinners and bras and bridges, and huge gains were made. But, in that time, women like hillary became 'heros' simply because they were women with power, and that was all that was needed to become a poster child for the movement.

But now, it is becoming more refined. And the old ways are being usurped by a new generation of female that literally do have it all, they just have no idea what the hell to do with it, mostly because they are being tokd you must chose one over the other and both are mutually exclusive of the other.

The new generation of feminist know that for all the progress the older generations made, we still have not gotten very far at all. Probably because we are mired in this internal polarity where tradition and progress are suppossed to be two different narratives at war with each other.

Until women can reconcile the two narratives and fight as one, we will never get very far. And we, as women can no longer accept such a division that completely stalls the debate. The suicidal evolution of mankind is about to kill us all, and we, as Women better unite real fast to stop them or else we will suffer the most casualties. Women and children.

The men will all toast our memories, right before they start raping and killing each other.

Christy, sparrow

Too many liberals do hold Hugo Chavez up as their hero against the W foreign policy, and I was just giving a reality check.

sparrow

Feminism is a political philosophy, one I fully endorse. Yet instead of it being held up as a philosophy it is too often used by women, to tell other women, what kind of women they SHOULD BE.

Sadly you are right on this one. Imposing one's view of womanhood/manhood on others is something women are not supposed to do - this is a very male mentality.

I see this among transwomen all the time - too many of them still think, act, and even vote like men. Mann Coulter is a perfect example.

Here's irony for you Christy.

I am a stay at home. (OR I was.) I home schooled my kids which at the time was a very 'religious conservative' thing to do. (Though at Kos this week, I've been fascinated to see the number of posters who admit to being home schooled or home school parents! I really could have used that support and so could my kids!)

Anyways...

My point is that I feel I am sort-of a feminist even though I stayed at home. I feel as a home school parent I accepted a challenge that women and men fight for: to be able to make personal family choices and let society deal with their own choices.

But, yet despite the traditional stay at home mom role I accepted (after lots of torn years of being told I SHOULD get a job and put my kids in daycare and later in school...), I still feel like a feminist. And my inlaws and their kin smear feminists!

My family is feminists (at least for the most part they are accepting of that philosophy). But my mom could NEVER accept those choices I made. To her, I should have worked, period. (Eventually she came to accept the homeschooling but ironically it was after I stopped homeschooling that she discovered she thought it was good.)

Anyways, my in-laws smear feminists, and yet their daughter (doubt she considers herself a feminist) spent the last 15 years working in a supervisory position at different places of employement. Of course she had to so that they could make ends meet. But nontheless, if you think of it, SHE the nonfeminist was living the life of a feminist. And I the feminist was living the life of a traditionalist!

I do not regret staying at home and home schooling. Those years were awesome! Hard work but awesome! Sure, I felt completely under-appreciated and over-worked but I was able to have so many blessings as a result of being there.

AND I am BLESSED that my husband earned enough that I didn't have to work.

(Though frankly, they say that after gas, childcare, and takeout food, you do not earn that much extra money anyways.)

Is Mann Coutler REALLY a man though? I just don't get it!

I consider myself a 'feminist' in political philosphy, but again, I am reluctant to use it as a descriptive of myself because I do feel the word itself has been distorted, much like 'liberal'.

My personal belief is any woman whom is not a feminist in political theory has probably been brainwashed by men into acting against their own best interests politically.

Oldest story in the book.

I do not argue with any womans claim to being a 'feminist', no matter what role she picks. It is the ones that openly scorn the idea of equality that I find flat out creepy and twisted.

sparrow

I've yet to see a definite evidence that the Mann is NOT a man.

It's up in the air, but the Mann fits a very classic profile of a reactionary transwoman. There are PLENTY of right-wing evangelical Republican transwomen, even though they will be the first to be exterminated under totalitarian Republican rule.

sparrow

The Mann once said that women need their voting rights taken away, because they don't know how to make money, only know how to spend it.

Oh man! I was really worried about jindal, and I think crooks and liars just found his weakness. If this had come out during his race here, it would have turned the good christians against him.

Snip

"It occurs to me that this might seem like satire. An Oxford-trained governor and VP possibility really wrote about participating in an exorcism?

Yes, he really did.

The whole report from TPM is worth reading, but Jindal — who was a high-priced corporate consultant when he wrote the piece — explained that he had a classmate, “Susan,” who was acting strangely and was surrounded by “sulfuric” smells. After she reportedly suffered a seizure, Jindal and some friends began an exorcism, which he claimed lasted hours, and during which “Susan” tried to leave, causing the exorcism team to hold her down."

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/12/weve-heard-of-politicians-battling-demons-but-this-is-ridiculous/

HAHAHA! The VooDoo Guvnah!

Holy shittoki Batman! That is funny. But, how does this crap never get mentioned in the press here?

That is how we wound up with a diapered whoremonger as a senator too.

You know, that whole story just smacks of a bullsh*t lie. Like men who make up military service to appear macho, it sounds like something made up to let everyone know what a true believer he is, willing to fight 'demons'.

Look at this one passage...

"Whenever I concentrated long enough to begin prayer, I felt some type of physical force distracting me. It was as if something was pushing down on my chest, making it very hard for me to breathe. . . Though I could find no cause for my chest pains, I was very scared of what was happening to me and Susan. I began to think that the demon would only attack me if I tried to pray or fight back; thus, I resigned myself to leaving it alone in an attempt to find peace for myself."

Even if it is true, he never even considers that 'pressure' cutting off his breath may be guilt, or panic, or the bodys normal reaction to witnessing something that is traumatic... None of that consideration. Zero.

And her siezure is never actually considered as a medical condition. It MUST BE demons. There is simply no other thing it could be.

Bobby Jindal. Great Demon Fighter.

Oh, by the way, did I mention jindal has always struggled with being labled a 'Hindu', much the same way Obama is labled a Muslim? If it is a lie, or even if it is the truth, there is no doubt he feels compelled to prove his christian bona fides.

But what a strange way to do it.

The headline at AP on the Gitmo case says that the Gitmo case highlights differences between McBush and Obama.

So...in 2004, people were like "Torture is ok. Torture is ok..." *(Protect me by beating the Hell out of someone else.)

So now that it's 2008, where do the majority of people stand on that?

The court in dissent: Alito, Roberts, Scalia. (Surprise surprise there, huh?)

There is more to petroluem oil trading;

In January 2006, the Bush Administration’s CFTC permitted the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), the leading operator of electronic energy exchanges, to use its trading terminals in the United States for the trading of US crude oil futures on the ICE futures exchange in London – called “ICE Futures.

Previously, the ICE Futures exchange in London had traded only in European energy commodities – Brent crude oil and United Kingdom natural gas. As a United Kingdom futures market, the ICE Futures exchange is regulated solely by the UK Financial Services Authority. In 1999, the London exchange obtained the CFTC’s permission to install computer terminals in the United States to permit traders in New York and other US cities to trade European energy commodities through the ICE exchange.

Follow the money.

Republicans block hearings for two days in a row:

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/12/video-two-straight-days-of-gop-obstructionism/

Feinstein's reaction here is a little embarrassing, in my mind. It's like she's a little girl doing what her dad tells her to do.

The other guy handles it much better.

The whole thing is an embarrassment.

From this website (where there are some great comments):

http://livefrankly.wordpress.com/2008/06/11/why-are-you-voting-republican/

Live Vote on MSNBC:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904

As of 3:15 PM on 6/13/08, out of 705,000+ people, 89% answered "Yes"!

Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment?

Tim Russert is dead. Heart attack.

I am a speech pathologist certified by the American Speech and Hearing Association with a PhD in Speech Science as well and I must say that Coulter has an unusually large larynx, even given her unusually large hands, feet and height for a woman. Her speech pattern likewise sounds very practiced and affected as well. Who knows, but many of us have wondered for some time ..

Godspeed, Tim Russert.

Really bummed out by this one, he was so excited at witnessing the historic prospects of a Obama presidency

... and if yer into numerology...

58 yrs old... 5+8=13
Friday the 13th

Blue On Black

I wonder if he had known he was going to die, if he would have asked more meaningful questions?

Yes, I know, I am obscene. Yet, I was never the one being used as cheneys personal sock puppet.

And even though he was cheneys personal sock puppet, I know, it does not matter, as for the next 3 days all we will hear about is how wonderful he was and what a GREAT GREAT journalist he was. That Tim, what a paragon of journalistic ethics!

And no one will mention the fact we all know he was cheneys personal sock puppet.

I think I will go gag now.

I'm a little flabbergasted at hearing of Russert's death. I don't believe he was the 'accountability man' that the accolades are saying about him.

But I'm really shocked.

Fifty-eight seems very young. Particularly for a guy who enjoys something that many don't have: money and health care insurance.

It just hits home for me. My grandfather died at age 50. My dad at 63. (Both were smokers and had heart problems.)

At this moment, I wonder if Russert had any regrets before he died. I wonder if he realized that his interviews made a difference to us and that he let a criminal administration off the hook. His reputation for being the one that asked deep questions wasn't really valid--at least not for the last eight years.

But if he knew he was a goner, I wonder if inside his head, he said to himself, I should have done it differently.

It seems like the moments before dying are the times when most people second guess their choices and they start thinking about their 'legacy'.

As I say frequently, because I feel strongly about it, I have hardly watched tv since 1991 Gulf War - but Tim Russert is one of the only "Talking Heads" I would recognize.

Kerry Statement on Tim Russert

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Sen. John Kerry today released the following statement in response to the death of Tim Russert:

"Today’s awful news about Tim Russert’s sudden passing is a swift kick for everyone who knew, respected, and loved Tim and had the honor of sharing his company. It's hard to describe the shock. Tim was the best political newsman of his generation, and he was a trailblazer in the unique way he brought his personal love of politics, honed by Moynihan and Cuomo, right into our living rooms every Sunday. Tim was at once brilliant and insightful while always approachable, always accessible, and always your next door neighbor and your friend who was there to referee the debates of the big issues of our time. He relished that role and he excelled at it, as any one would who believed in the tenets of Jesuit education. He loved to hold the big guys accountable and in the original, intelligent, studied way he did it he emerged as the biggest guy of all. It is impossible to overstate how much Tim was inseparable from American politics. When I decided to announce for President, the only place to do it was on ‘Meet the Press.’ It is impossible to imagine political life without him as our guide every Sunday. But it is even more difficult to find the words to express our sympathy for Maureen, Luke, his father Big Russ, and Tim's family at NBC. Tim, Maureen, and their family will remain in our thoughts and prayers a long, long time."

NMP
As for Coulter: it's a MAN, baby! Tranny whore!

And just like you, it's hard for me to grasp the significance of the death of Russert, given that I avoid cable TV news (even Olbermann) at all costs.

Wow on Russert. God rest his soul. It's hard to imagine NBC without him. Those are some big shoes to fill.

HIs family must be devastated.

Carol,

Of course his family is devastated. Fifty-eight is young nowadays.

I know I was shocked when my dad died at 63. He was retiring in 2 years. You just don't expect it.

I wonder if he had a history of heart problems or if he was undiagnosed.

At any rate, I sympathize with his family but I do admit that a part of me has a hard time letting the eulogy re-write his journalistic work that he did. He earned the reputation of being a tough reporter and an every-guy-sort-of-guy. But as I watched him over the years, I saw times when he was tough as nails but other times when he just let spin go without the needed rebuttal that they were not telling the truth.

It's a shame that I can not let that go now that he's gone. I admit it. Sure, it makes me feel like a bad person that I'm not just saying "RIP" or something else nice.

I don't want the guy to go to Hell. I just don't want history re-written like they did with Reagan after Reagan's death or like they did with Nixon after his death.

Russert was a good guy. He had some in-depth interviews and he had some interviews that were propaganda. I guess that's all I feel I can say about him.