Arizona Liberal Blog

From Bill Schorr

2006-06-02T07:27:00.001-07:00

This sums it up for me. Between the anti-whistle blower ruling from the Supreme Court to the attempted cover-up of the most recent massacre in Iraq to the looming war against in Iran to the debt to the current prices of gas Bush the Worst has managed to all but break this great nation.

What is Bush doing to fix all of this? He is backing the Marriage amendment. Who the F*** cares? The state of the nation is the worst it has been in decades and Bush is wasting time on trying to stop a minority of Americans from being happy?

Will someone please impeach this idiot?!?

Bush Compares Himself to a Real American President - What a Joke

2006-05-27T09:57:00.000-07:00

It gets worse. At the commencement exercises at West Point the other day Bush compared himself to Truman. What a joke. Not only was Truman a liberal and decent human, a man and mason who loved people and actually cared about America (rather than his personal agendas).

Bush the Worst went as far as saying "This is only the beginning," he said. "The message has spread from Damascus to Tehran that the future belongs to freedom, and we will not rest until the promise of liberty reaches every people in every nation."

He even went as far as saying "By the actions he (Truman) took, the institutions he built, the alliances he forged and the doctrines he set down, President Truman laid the foundation for America's victory in the Cold War," Bush said.

"Today, at the start of a new century, we are again engaged in a war unlike any our nation has fought before. And like Americans in Truman's day, we are laying the foundations of victory," the president said.

Again, Truman was a man and mason who cared about people and America. Truman realized the war in Japan could have been dragged on for years but opted for quick and decisive action to end it. Had Bush been in the same situation he would no doubt have made illegal and back alley deals (like has been doing now) with the military industry complex companies to insure that profits will be made.

Any and all Democrats who read this should be as offended as I am by this speech.

More highlights (or should I say low lights) can be found here.

If you are offended, pass this along to your fellow Democrats and Democrat elected officials.

When Will the Tyranny of the Bush Administration Stop?

2006-05-24T22:22:00.000-07:00

The other day a Congressman's office was raided by the FBI, an arm of the Executive branch of the government (aka, King Bush's minions.) This is the first time in the history of the United States a Congressman's office was raided. If this is not a wake up call for America and even the GOP, I do not know what could possibly qualify as such. Thankfully, both sides are outraged by what can only be called a gross breach of Constitutional powers.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R) weighed in, following what colleagues describe as angry phone calls from his staff to the Justice Department. "The Founding Fathers were very careful to establish in the Constitution a separation of powers to protect Americans against the tyranny of any one branch of government. They were particularly concerned about limiting the power of the Executive Branch," he said in a statement.

"Insofar as I am aware, since the founding of our Republic 219 years ago, the Justice Department has never found it necessary to do what it did Saturday night, crossing this Separation of Powers line, in order to successfully prosecute corruption by members of Congress," he added, noting especially the need to protect "certain legislative branch documents." "Nothing I have learned in the last 48 hours leads me to believe that there was any necessity to change the precedent established over those 219 years.

This is from the Speaker of the House, the leading GOP in Congress. Needless to say, my fellow Democrats are saying things much stronger than that. All I can do from here is reiterate that Bush is out of control and needs to be stopped. Please, use the links to the right and contact your Senators and Congresspersons and let them know you think enough is enough and that it is time to impeach the fool in the White House while they still have the right to do so.

Good-Bye Lloyd

2006-05-23T23:40:00.000-07:00

We Dems lost a good man the other day... Lloyd Benson, a soft-spoken man from Texas who served this nation as a WW2 aviator who flew over 50 bomber missions over Europe, county judge, US Representative, Senator and Secretary of the Treasury.

As a former Texan I was very proud of Sen. Benson during the famous VP debate with Dan “how do you spell potato” Quail.

Good-bye and God Speed!

Religious Absolutism

2006-05-22T21:53:00.000-07:00

The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…" Yet under the Bush administration we see how the "Christian Right", which is neither, has a strangle hold on the President's agenda. A recent story from Reuters details former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s thoughts on this issue.

"I worked for two presidents who were men of faith, and they did not make their religious views part of American policy," she said, referring to Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, both Democrats and Christians.

"President Bush's certitude about what he believes in, and the division between good and evil, is, I think, different," said Albright, who has just published a book on religion and world affairs. "The absolute truth is what makes Bush so worrying to some of us."

I believe that any from of absolutism is unhealthy. Whenever one refuses to see or consider that they may be wrong, or at the very least not 100% correct on something dialog ends. Given Bush’s seemingly messianic visions of what he thinks the Middle East should be is it any wonder the mess it is. I see very little difference between Bush’s crusade against the Arab world and those of the medieval crusaders. Both were told by Christian leaders and believed it was their destiny and legacy to save the Middle East from itself. Both sacrificed resources, human and material to the point of near destruction of their governments. Both will go down in history as barbarous.

It has been said that those who do not study and learn from history are condemned to repeat its mistakes. Napoleon attempted to invade Russia in the winter and lost his army. Hitler followed in Napoleon's footsteps and received the same fate. Bush is on the same path. Many have tried to conquer the Middle East to only come home in failure. Perhaps if Bush paid more attention to history rather than the lies of the "Christian Right" he you and I would not be in this mess. Then again, perhaps he is as ignorant and foolish as many critics make him out to be.

The Beginning of the End of the GOP?

2006-05-21T14:12:00.000-07:00

Could this be the beginning of the end of the GOP? My heart skipped a beat when I read this story from the AFP. Here are the high points:

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The patriarch of US conservatives has urged his followers to halt their financial support of the Republican Party and start an independent movement, signaling a major political shift that could result in heavy losses for the US ruling party in upcoming elections.

Richard Viguerie, who was instrumental in cementing the winning coalitions behind Ronald Reagan in 1980 and George W. Bush in 2000, declared that conservatives were "downright fed up" with both the president and Republican-controlled Congress.

"At the very least, conservatives must stop funding the Republican National Committee and other party groups," Viguerie wrote in a lengthy essay in The Washington Post Sunday.

He suggested conservatives "redirect their anger into building a third force," which he defined as a movement independent of any party, and laying the groundwork for the 2008 election campaign.

Traditional conservatives, who abhor big government and excessive spending, equate abortion with murder and emphasize individualism over collectivism, have always formed the so-called "base" of the Republican Party and determined its viability as a political organizations.

Viguerie's public outburst and his suggestion that conservatives should sit out the next election is seen as another ominous sign for the party less than six months before the November congressional vote.

Viguerie insisted that Bush only "talked like a conservative to win our votes but never governed like a conservative."

He lamented that the conservative movement has been rewarded by the president for its support with "an amnesty plan for illegal immigrants."

"We've been rewarded with a war in Iraq that drags on because of the failure to provide adequate resources at the beginning, and with exactly the sort of 'nation-building' that candidate Bush said he opposed," the conservative patriarch went on to say.

He also called congressional Republicans "unprincipled power brokers", whose agenda "comes from big business".

Often referred to as "the conservative voice of America", Viguerie gained prominence in the 1960s and 1970s when he pioneered political and ideological direct mail, an innovation that helped conservatives organize and gain their voice.

He is the author of numerous books and credited with forming dozens of political organizations.

GOP Attack on the 1st Amendment

2006-05-21T13:52:00.000-07:00

Bill of Rights, Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

That is the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The founding fathers of this nation who wrote this over 200 years ago did so with the intention of Americans having to right to worship or not worship as they see fit, to speak as they see fit, to print what they see fit, to hold meetings (of any sort) as they see fit and to charge the government with wrong doing as they see fit.

There are no provisions in the 1st Amendment for mandatory prayer in public school and there are no provisions in the 1st Amendment for national security. It very clearly says Congress shall make no law preventing or restricting the ability of the media to print whatever it chooses to print.

However, the GOP controlled congress and president now claim they have the right and duty to prosecute individual reporters for exercising their constitutional right to print whatever they see fit.

According to this AP story Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Sunday he believes journalists can be prosecuted for publishing classified information, citing an obligation to national security.

The nation's top law enforcer also said the government will not hesitate to track telephone calls made by reporters as part of a criminal leak investigation, but officials would not do so routinely and randomly.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales: "There are some statutes on the book which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a possibility," Gonzales said, referring to prosecutions. "We have an obligation to enforce those laws. We have an obligation to ensure that our national security is protected."

Read again the 1st Amendment and then what the Attorney General had to say. If such laws do exist, and I presume they do, they are unconstitutional and thus illegal. Either the Attorney General has not read the 1st Amendment, does not understand it or is deliberately choosing to violate it.

Please the links to the right and let your Senators and Congresspersons know how you feel about your Constitutional rights being stripped away from you.

It Is About to Get Harder to Vote in Arizona

2006-05-20T16:22:00.000-07:00

In Arizona, like most other states, those who wish to vote are required to register and bring their cards to the polling places. When the voter gets to the poll a clerk examines the card and makes a note in the logbook that the voter has visited the polling place. This is pretty standard stuff and a good idea in that it helps to prevent voter fraud. It is a good and fair system. Conservatives want to change that and make it harder for those less likely (lower income persons) to vote.

The conservative plan is to require a form of government issued ID (driver’s license, state ID card or federal passport) to vote. These things cost time and money to acquire. A single mom who cannot afford a car and rides the bus typically does not have such ID because she does not need it, cannot afford it and dose not have the time to get it. A single mom has more important things to attend to such as spending money on food, rent, medicine, school supplies and bus fees. It is ludicrous to expect such an individual to invest the time and money to pay for a bus ride to go to get an ID and then pay for the ID just so she can exercise her guaranteed constitutional right. The so called “Christian Right” (which is neither)/ GOP/ neo-con cabal are counting on single moms and other in similar plights to give into this evil plan, not get an ID and not vote.

Do not let this happen. Go to the Arizona Democratic HQ website and volunteer to help register voters. Then on Election Day offer rides to those you helped register.

My Thoughts on Loose Change 2

2006-05-20T08:49:00.000-07:00

I finally saw loose change last night. If you have not seen it yet, go to www.seeloosechange.com. From there you can download it from Google. You will have to download and install some free Googleware but it’s worth it.

The movie covered so much that I’m going to have to see it again to take it all in. However, there are a few things that stand out in my mind. The first thing is the attack on the Pentagon. According to the movie there was no debris that resembled that of what would be found in a conventional airliner wreck – specifically no engines, wings or tail sections. The excuse given by the government for this is it was burnt up by the aircraft’s fuel. This is not possible since the metal used in the aircraft requires a much higher temperature than that of what the aircraft fuel burned at. The other odd thing about the Pentagon attack is that the initial hole made by what hit the building was 16 feet in diameter. If an airliner hit the building the hole would have been much bigger than that. Think for a moment of how big those things are.

The attack on the Word Trade Center towers looks like every commercial demolition I have seen. The Discovery Channel from time to time does shows on commercial demolition of buildings. As I recall, in each the explosions, the buildings look like they are neatly sinking into the ground. There are also small flashes that occur in order from top to bottom of the building as the building goes down. This is exactly what the World Trade Center towers look like. Besides, no other building has been brought down by a fire before. So how could a buildings built as well as the World Trade Center burn for a few minutes and then collapse? Even buildings hit by aircraft before have not collapsed. Case and point, the Empire State building was hit by a military bomber and still stands today.

My Take on the Marriage Amendment

2006-05-20T08:30:00.000-07:00

Congress has been at work again on the proposed Marriage Amendment. I believe they are doing this to rally the so-called Christian Right (which is neither) on account of the very low approval ratings of the president and congress. Now the fundies and progressive groups are at war and regardless of the outcome the conservatives in power will win. Why do I say this? I say this because those that are not conservatives in power are being distracted from more important pressing issues (the war, the 911 debacle, the debt and health care crisis).

That statement may get me in trouble with some progressive thinkers, but please read on. The Marriage Amendment, like the other intentionally made disasters by the conservatives, is just that… a self-made disaster. Had the GOP left the gay marriage issue alone there would be no discussion on the issue. Progressive local governments would grant gay marriages on demand and areas that were not inclined to do so would not. Let’s face it, there are not a lot of applications for same sex marriages in rural Kansas. In San Francisco however, there are. Then again, even if there was an application for a same sex marriage in Kansas what would the big deal be? Would rural Kansas develop a large gay community? I think not.

Fundies will tell you that same sex marriage is a sin against God and that those that do are going to hell. How do they know? Have any of them ever been to hell much less had direct communication from God on the issue? (Insert Pat Robertson jokes here.) What proof do they have of this claim or any other aspect of Christianity? They don’t because there is none. This does not stop them from trying to force their way of thinking on others. Besides, even if the fundies were right, how would that impact their eternal reward? Is there something in the Bible that says that if same sex marriages occur that God will punish straights?

Those that are not fundies but claim to be responsible conservatives propose another equally weak argument. They assert that if same sex marriage were allowed that gays would flock to the alter and get divorced in a matter of weeks or months. Sounds like what straights have been doing in Las Vegas for decades. Should marriages be banned in Las Vegas? The other argument I have heard from conservatives is that many same sex marriages would occur just for the sake of getting heath care or other benefits. More simply put, one person would marry another because the other had health care insurance. First, we should all have heath care insurance. Second, what is there to stop straight people from getting married for this purpose? Nothing. It happens all the time.

Bottom line, the marriage amendment is diversion created by the conservatives in power to divert time and money from progressives. We are forced to fight a battle that even if we win we will loose valuable resources over. The arguments that fundies are propose are flawed at best. They have no proof they are right. Fiscal conservatives have equally weak arguments. The very thing they are trying to prevent gays from doing is not only legal for straights, but it’s commonplace.

Iran's Nuclear Program: The Way Out

2006-05-15T19:52:00.000-07:00

What follows is something that you will probably never hear about on TV or read about in most newspapers. However, TIME had the balls to acknowledge and publish this second letter from Iran to King Bush. The king dismissed the first letter saying that if it was relevant to the nuclear situation he would have given it greater weight. However, what Bush failed to mention was that there was a second letter. This second letter came from someone who is, for all intents and purposes, more relevant to the nuclear situation than the president of Iran. While reading this letter consider the source... Hassan Rohani.

Hassan Rohani is representative of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameini, on the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) and Iran's former top nuclear negotiator.

Posted Tuesday, May. 09, 2006
A nuclear weaponized Iran destabilizes the region, prompts a regional arms race, and wastes the scarce resources in the region. And taking account of U.S. nuclear arsenal and its policy of ensuring a strategic edge for Israel, an Iranian bomb will accord Iran no security dividends. There are also some Islamic and developmental reasons why Iran as an Islamic and developing state must not develop and use weapons of mass destruction.

Three years of robust inspection of Iranian nuclear and non-nuclear facilities by the IAEA inspectors led Dr. El-Baradi to conclude and certify that to date there are no indications of any diversion of nuclear material and activities toward making a bomb. At the same time, El-Baradi has pointed out that the IAEA cannot certify that Iran's program is exclusively peaceful. But the fact is that few among many states with a nuclear program have received such a clean bill of health from the IAEA. Such certification by the IAEA does and should take time and effort. Iran is prepared and willing to invest the time and effort necessary to receive the IAEA clean bill of health. The IAEA is also ready to pursue its investigation of Iran's nuclear activities. So should the states that have concern about it.

What is, then, the motive for the rush to heighten the situation and create a crisis? Could it be that the extremists all around see their interests — however transient, domestic and short-sighted — in heightened tension and crisis? This situation, if not contained with cool head and if miscalculations continue, can easily turn into a crisis with potentially global ramifications for the rule of law under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and for the economic and security interests of all concerned in the region and beyond. It is high time to cease sensationalism and war mongering, pause and think twice about where we are heading.

Iran is not accused of having the bomb. There are no indications that Iran has a nuclear weapon program. If Iran were to have a weapons program, the alarmists in the U.S. and Israel have reportedly said that it would take at least another seven to ten years for Iran to make the bomb. What is often cited by American officials as 20 years of Iranian secret nuclear military program turned out to be, as declared by the IAEA, nothing more than the failure to declare, in a timely manner, some experiments and receiving some material and equipment. Such failures to declare are not uncommon among the NPT members. Remedial steps are envisioned in the Safeguards Agreement to address them, and Iran has done so. Moreover, it was no secret that we were in the European, Russian and Asian markets to purchase enrichment technology in the late '80s and '90s. Therefore, an Iranian secret weapon program is only hype, and the sense of urgency about Iran's nuclear program is rather tendentious. The world should not allow itself to be dragged into another conflict on false pretenses in this region again.

Iran is intent on producing nuclear fuel domestically for reasons both historic and long-term economic. The U.S. and some Europeans argue that they cannot trust Iran's intentions. They argue that they cannot accept Iran's promise to remain committed to its treaty obligation once it gains the capability to enrich uranium for fuel production. They ask Iran to give up its right under the NPT, and instead accept their promise to supply it with nuclear fuel. This is illogical and crudely self-serving: I do not trust you, even though what you are doing is legal and can be verified to remain legal, but you must trust me when I promise to do that which I have no obligation to do and cannot be enforced. It is this simple and this unfair. There must be a better way out of this than to top this travesty with threatening Iran in the Security Council with possible sanctions and perhaps even use of force. This path can potentially cause harm and suffering at differing degrees to all parties to the conflict.

A negotiated solution still can and must be found if we intend to strengthen the non-proliferation regime and avoid an unwise and unnecessary conflict. To this end, we must dare to leave the emotions aside and avoid polluting the atmosphere with the baggage of immediate and long-past history of Iran-U.S. relations. A solution imposed on Iran by the Security Council is unlikely to provide the assurances the U.S. seeks about the Iranian nuclear program. In my personal judgment, a negotiated solution can be found in the context of the following steps, if and when creatively intertwined and negotiated in good faith by concerned officials:

* Iran would make an active contribution, provided that other countries with similar sensitive fuel cycle programs also do the same, to fixing the loopholes in the non-proliferation system and to developing a technically credible international control regime.

* Iran would consider ratifying the Additional Protocol, which provides for intrusive and snap inspections.

* Iran would address the question of preventing break-out from the NPT.

* Iran would agree to negotiate with the IAEA and states concerned about the scope and timing of its industrial-scale uranium enrichment.

* Iran would accept an IAEA verifiable cap on enrichment limit of reactor grade uranium.

* Iran would accept an IAEA verifiable cap on the production of UF6 — uranium hexafluoride, which is used for enrichment — during the period of negotiation for the scope and timing of its industrial scale enrichment.

* Iran and the IAEA would agree on terms of the continuous presence of inspectors in Iran to verify credibly that no diversion takes place in Iran.

* Iran's readiness to welcome other countries to partner with Iran in a consortium provides additional assurance about the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program.

It is not Iran's intention to disregard Security Council decisions. The way out is for the Security Council to mandate the IAEA to address this issue and establish a negotiating process for a fixed period to formulate a credible plan taking into account the suggestions I made in my personal capacity.

Iran is prepared to work with the IAEA and all states concerned about promoting confidence in its fuel cycle program. But Iran cannot be expected to give in to United States' bullying and non-proliferation double standards.

From Bill Schorr

2006-05-11T19:17:00.000-07:00

NSA has massive database of Americans'phone calls

2006-05-11T19:13:00.000-07:00

The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.

The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.

"It's the largest database ever assembled in the world," said one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA's activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation. The agency's goal is "to create a database of every call ever made" within the nation's borders, this person added.

For the customers of these companies, it means that the government has detailed records of calls they made — across town or across the country — to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others.

Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, nominated Monday by President Bush to become the director of the CIA, headed the NSA from March 1999 to April 2005. In that post, Hayden would have overseen the agency's domestic call-tracking program. Hayden declined to comment about the program.

With access to records of billions of domestic calls, the NSA has gained a secret window into the communications habits of millions of Americans. Customers' names, street addresses and other personal information are not being handed over as part of NSA's domestic program, the sources said. But the phone numbers the NSA collects can easily be cross-checked with other databases to obtain that information.

Comment... So my calls to my 89 year old grandmother to see how she is doing are going to help the NSA fight terror? I do not have the words to express how I feel but I will give it a try. Outraged, pissed off, betrayed and more convicted than ever to fight these evil bastard pigs. Join me in this fight and use the links to the right to contact your Senators and Congresspeople while you still have the right to do so.

Cover the Uninsured Week 2006

2006-05-10T22:05:00.000-07:00

The Problem
Nearly 46 million Americans, including more than 8 million children, are living without health insurance - forced to gamble every day that they won't get sick or injured. That's a risk no one should have to take. Uninsured Americans live sicker and die younger than those with health insurance. Just one serious illness or injury can wipe out an uninsured family's bank account, and the problem is getting worse.

The Response
That's why the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and some of the most influential organizations in the country again organized Cover the Uninsured Week. This year's effort mobilized thousands of individuals and organizations from many sectors of society to plan activities to tell Congress that health care coverage must be their top priority.

Cover the Uninsured Week 2006 created a groundswell of activities in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, including press conferences, health and enrollment fairs, seminars for small businesses, campus activities, business leader summits, interfaith outreach, and more. These activities were designed to mobilize a diverse mix of business owners, union members, educators, students, patients, hospital staff, physicians, nurses, faith leaders and their congregants, and many others at thousands of events across the country.

The Result
Millions of people were alerted to the pressing needs of those living without health insurance. These 46 million uninsured Americans need our - and your - help.

This is a very important issue that unfortunately, the GOP pigs have put on the back burner. Here is a link to the CoverTheUninsured.org web site. After checking it out, be sure to use the links to the right to contact your elected officials and let them know how you feel.

From Bill Schorr

2006-05-07T13:37:00.000-07:00

Conservatives Drive Bush's Approval Down

2006-05-07T13:24:00.000-07:00

Angry conservatives are driving the approval ratings of President Bush and the GOP-led Congress to dismal new lows, according to an AP-Ipsos poll that underscores why Republicans fear an Election Day massacre.

Six months out, the intensity of opposition to Bush and Congress has risen sharply, along with the percentage of Americans who believe the nation is on the wrong track.

The AP-Ipsos poll also suggests that Democratic voters are far more motivated than Republicans. Elections in the middle of a president's term traditionally favor the party whose core supporters are the most energized.

This week's survey of 1,000 adults, including 865 registered voters, found:

• Just 33 percent of the public approves of Bush's job performance, the lowest of his presidency. That compares with 36 percent approval in early April. Forty-five percent of self-described conservatives now disapprove of the president.

• Just one-fourth of the public approves of the job Congress is doing, a new low in AP-Ipsos polling and down 5 percentage points since last month. A whopping 65 percent of conservatives disapprove of Congress.

• A majority of Americans say they want Democrats rather than Republicans to control Congress (51 percent to 34 percent). That's the largest gap recorded by AP-Ipsos since Bush took office. Even 31 percent of conservatives want Republicans out of power. (Looks like even Republicans can only take so much nonsense.)

• The souring of the nation's mood has accelerated the past three months, with the percentage of people describing the nation on the wrong track rising 12 points to a new high of 73 percent. Six of 10 conservatives say America is headed in the wrong direction.

Republican strategists said the party stands to lose control of Congress unless the environment changes unexpectedly. (Even they can read the writing on the wall!)

"It's going to take some events of significance to turn this around," GOP pollster Whit Ayres said. "I don't think at this point you can talk your way back from those sorts of ratings."

Conservative voters blame the White House and Congress for runaway government spending, illegal immigration and lack of action on social issues such as a constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage. Those concerns come on top of public worries about Iraq, the economy and gasoline prices.

"I think he's the dumbest president we've ever had," said Mark Rauzi, a conservative voter from Gillespie, Ill. "I disapprove of a lot of the stuff he's doing. This war was a big boo-boo and he won't admit he did wrong."

Hardline conservatives are not likely to vote Democratic in the fall, but it would be just as devastating to the Republicans if conservatives lose their enthusiasm and stay home on Election Day.

AP-Ipsos polling suggests that Democrats may be winning the motivation game. Fewer voters today than in 2004 call themselves Republicans or Republican-leaning. In addition, 27 percent of registered voters were strong Republicans just before the 2004 election, while only 15 percent fit that description today.

Only 23 percent of the public approve of the way the president is handling gasoline prices, the lowest in AP-Ipsos polling. Those who strongly disapprove outnumber those who strongly approve by an extraordinary 55 percent to 8 percent.

As for his overall job performance, history suggests that Bush's paltry 33 percent spells trouble for Republicans in the fall.

In the past six decades, only one president had a lower job approval rating six months before a midterm election — Richard Nixon in May 1974, the year in which Watergate-scarred Republicans lost 48 seats in the House and four in the Senate. By November, Nixon was out of a job too, having resigned the presidency in August. (Let's hope Bush is gone too!)

Nearly half of the public strongly disapproves of Bush, a huge jump from his 5 percent strong disapproval rating in 2002. The poll has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

Of all Republicans, nearly 30 percent disapprove of the job Bush is doing, including 13 percent who feel strongly about it.

Democrats need to gain 15 seats in the House and six in the Senate for control of Congress. (When that happens, America will be on the right track again.)

From Bill Schorr

2006-05-04T20:43:00.000-07:00

Rumsfeld Heckled by Former CIA Analyst

2006-05-04T20:33:00.000-07:00

Protesters repeatedly interrupted Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld during a speech Thursday and one man, a former CIA analyst, accused him of lying about Iraq prewar intelligence in an unusually vociferous display of anti-war sentiment.

"Why did you lie to get us into a war that caused these kind of casualties and was not necessary?" asked Ray McGovern, the former analyst, during a question-and-answer session.

With Iraq war support remaining low, it is not unusual for top Bush administration officials to encounter protests and hostile questions. But the outbursts Rumsfeld confronted on Thursday seemed beyond the usual.

Three protesters were escorted away by security as each interrupted Rumsfeld's speech by jumping up and shouting anti-war messages. Throughout the speech, a fourth protester stood in the middle of the room with his back to Rumsfeld in silent protest. Officials reported no arrests.

Rumsfeld also faced tough questions from a woman identifying herself as Patricia Roberts of Lithonia, Ga., who said her son, 22-year-old Spc. Jamaal Addison, was killed in Iraq. Roberts said she is now raising her young grandson and asked whether the government could provide any help.

President Bush seldom faces such challenges. Demonstrators usually are kept far from him when he delivers public remarks. (Guttless coward!)

Rumsfeld has been interrupted by anti-war demonstrators in congressional hearing rooms as he has delivered testimony to lawmakers in recent months, and at some speeches around the country.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has had direct confrontations overseas. These include demonstrators who called her a murderer and war criminal in Australia in March, and throngs of anti-war protesters who dogged her every move in northern England in April.

Demonstrators were kept far away from Rice during a visit last week to Greece, where riot police confronted a violent street mob that smashed shop windows in protest of U.S. policies and Rice's role in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

More than half of Americans say the war in Iraq was not worth the cost financially or in loss of life, recent public polling has found. Just over one-third of those surveyed say they approve of Bush's handing of the war. Public sentiment about the war has been at those low levels since fall.

Just over one-third of the public says Rumsfeld is doing an excellent or pretty good job, according to polling in March, while six in 10 said fair or poor.

In the run-up to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration repeatedly spoke of evidence that Saddam Hussein had acquired weapons of mass destruction. No such armaments have been found. Officials also spoke about connections between Saddam and al-Qaida that critics say remain unproven.

In recent weeks, at least a half dozen retired generals have called for Rumsfeld's resignation, saying he has ignored advice offered by military officers and made strategic errors in the Iraq war, including committing too few troops. But he has received strong backing by Bush, who repeatedly has indicated he will keep Rumsfeld at the Pentagon.

"There is no question our country is facing difficulties in Iraq and difficulties in Afghanistan," he said. (No S***!)

From Jerry Holbert

2006-04-26T22:18:00.000-07:00

Bush's Fortune Rests With GOP Congress

2006-04-26T22:11:00.000-07:00

President Bush is not on the ballot in November, but he might as well be. Republican losses could make an already difficult situation in Congress almost untenable for him.

If his party loses control of one, or both chambers of Congress, the next two years could be a political nightmare for Bush and his GOP allies on Capitol Hill.

With poll numbers at the lowest of his presidency, Bush has had trouble enough winning support for his priorities in his second term even with a Republican-led Congress. That helped lead to a recent reshuffling of the White House staff.

Democratic control of either chamber could rearrange priorities. Bush's programs and spending requests would come under increased scrutiny. Congress could even take tentative steps toward bringing troops home from Iraq or reducing funds.

Democratic control of committees in either chamber could lead to investigative hearings on Iraq, awarding of government contracts, the role of lobbyists, fraud and abuse, Pentagon divisions, any number of activities.

History suggests the party holding the White House will loose congressional seats this year, even without Bush's basement poll ratings. Strategists in both parties are keenly aware of this trend.

Thus Democrats are portraying the November elections as a referendum on Bush, while Republicans are insisting it's a series of state and local races, each with different issues.

In a recent poll by the Pew Research Center, some 56 percent of voters said the issue of party control would be a factor in their vote in the midterm congressional elections. "More independents, in particular, say partisan control will be a factor," said Carroll Doherty, Pew's associate director.

The Iraq war has become a drag on all Republican candidates. Bush seems less able to correct his listing presidency or rebound from a loss of the House or Senate as either Reagan or Clinton, analysts in both parties suggest.

Republicans hold 231 of the 435 House seats. Democrats have 201. There is one independent and two vacancies. In the Senate, Republicans have 55 seats to 44 for Democrats. There is one independent.

Ed Rogers, a GOP consultant, recognizes a GOP vulnerability this year. But he said Democrats "would have to draw an inside straight" to win back the Senate "when you look at it race by race." House races, meanwhile, are usually settled on local issues, although sometimes a national economic downturn can have an impact, Rogers said.

With gasoline prices recently rising to over $3 a gallon in some areas, it may be only a matter of time before soaring energy costs drag down other well-performing parts of the economy. And the summer driving season has yet to begin.

Democrats have seized on this to mount a new attack on Republican rule.

"It's very clear that it's America's number one issue today," said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

Bush's political reserve, meanwhile, is almost empty, even for many Republicans unhappy about his strained dealings with Congress, suggested Ross Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University.

The time to act is now. Register to vote and send the Republicans packing. There is a better way... vote Democrat for a stronger America.

Graffiti, Free Speech and Air Force One

2006-04-22T10:27:00.000-07:00

Most of us know that Free Speech is a protected right as per the Constitution and Bill of Rights. However, not all of us have the ability to take advantage of this right and some of us over exploit what we have. For example, the President has Air Force One - the big plane that tax payers pay for and only a few of us ever get near too much less invited aboard. All the President has to do is show up in Air Force One and he has an instant backdrop of power. (Sadly, these power trips cost millions in fuel and other expenses, but that is a different story.)

Young people, on the other hand, do not have Air Force Ones but do have things they wish to express. They have as much right to express what they have to say as much as the President. As a result, some turn to less than legal avenues such as graffiti. Graffiti damage to public and personal property is illegal and should be punished. However, there are venues such as approved public advertising and solicited art where graffiti is legal. Graffiti is legal at home on walls of homes and fences provided that the property owners approve of it. However, the tools to create graffiti art and personal expression there from are in many cases legal to those only aged 21 or over. It's legal for an 18 year old to buy cigarrrets, drive a car and join the army but not to purchase cans of spray paint and broad tipped markers. What this tells teens is that it's ok to kill yourself with cigarettes and fight for your country but you cannot legally express yourself through graffiti. This is hardly fair.

To this end, Marc Ecko, an advocate of expression through graffiti art, created an elaborate hoax of him "tagging" Air Force One. He also created a video explaining the hoax and what it represents. The links below have the hoax and the explanation.

Marc Ecko Tagging Air Force One

Marc's Statement

From Robert Ariail

2006-04-12T21:43:00.000-07:00

Sen. Clinton Blasts Bush's Budget Policies

2006-04-12T21:32:00.000-07:00

The New York Democrat, a regular critic of President Bush's economic policies, frequently reminds audiences that her husband left the White House boasting of a budget surplus and that under Bush the country is running record budget deficits.

Clinton said Tuesday that she supports pay-as-you-go budget rules in the Congress where taxes can't be cut or money spent unless there are funds to pay for it. "A very old-fashioned idea but one which I hope we can begin to return to," she said.

"Over the long term ... red-ink fiscal policies will undermine America's competitiveness," she said.

Republican National Committee spokeswoman Ann Marie Hauser said in statement Tuesday night that "only Hillary Clinton would try to make lemons out of lemonade."

"Her eagerness to paint a negative picture of the economy despite the creation of five million jobs in three years is indicative of her willingness to manipulate an issue to her favor, without regard to the facts," Hauser said.

Clinton said the nation needs a better energy policy to reduce its dependence on foreign oil, increase technology into alternative energy resources and ultimately create more jobs. She also said that health care reform is "worth wading in again," and that the private sector should demand more accountability from the insurance industry.

Often mentioned as a possible presidential candidate in 2008, Clinton didn't give a hint about whether she would run. When asked if she thought the country would see a woman president, she replied: "I hope so."

Earlier Tuesday, New York's Republican Party chairman suggested the former first lady could perhaps do better creating jobs in Chicago — she grew up in its suburbs — than she has in her adopted state of New York.

DeLay Supporters Crash Democrat's Event

2006-04-06T22:37:00.000-07:00

Supporters of U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay protested at an event Thursday held by the Democratic candidate for the congressman's seat, and the event quickly dissolved into a shouting and shoving match. Police were called, but made no arrests.

"I got pushed. I got hit. I got a sign wadded up in my face and my hat pulled down over my eyes," said Marsha Rovai, 69, a supporter of Nick Lampson. "They just did it to be nasty."

DeLay campaign manager Chris Homan said he organized the protest but DeLay, a Republican, didn't know about it.

"Mr. Lampson is going to have to get used to being confronted about his voting record the next seven months," Homan said.

DeLay, who is under indictment on campaign finance charges, announced this week that he will resign from Congress sometime before mid-June.

At the news conference, Lampson called on the governor to set a May 13 special election so the district would be represented after DeLay leaves.

But moments after the event began in DeLay's home town, Lampson and his supporters were surrounded by protesters who held up hand-written signs. Lampson was silenced by their chanting.

Republican Gov. Rick Perry later said that, unless DeLay offers him his resignation letter by the end of the week, the seat would not be filled until the November general election. The election of a Democrat now could give the Democratic Party a leg up in November.

Lampson represented an adjacent district for eight years until DeLay-engineered redistricting cost him re-election in 2004. He said the protest was nothing new.

Comment... The ugly side of the GOP raises its head again. These people have no shame if they are attacking 69 year old men. Shame on them. This is goes way beyond sour grapes... it's criminal. Then again, it was done for DeLay.

From Jerry Holbert

2006-04-06T11:52:00.000-07:00

Bush Authorized CIA Intelligence Leak

2006-04-06T11:45:00.000-07:00

Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide told prosecutors President Bush authorized the leak of sensitive intelligence information about Iraq, according to court papers filed by prosecutors in the CIA leak case.

Before his indictment, I. Lewis Libby testified to the grand jury investigating the CIA leak that Cheney told him to pass on information and that it was Bush who authorized the disclosure, the court papers say. According to the documents, the authorization led to the July 8, 2003, conversation between Libby and New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Valerie Plame's CIA identity.

The disclosure in documents filed Wednesday means that the president and the vice president put Libby in play as a secret provider of information to reporters about prewar intelligence on Iraq.

The authorization came as the Bush administration faced mounting criticism about its failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the main reason the president and his aides had given for going to war.

Libby's participation in a critical conversation with Miller on July 8, 2003 "occurred only after the vice president advised defendant that the president specifically had authorized defendant to disclose certain information in the National Intelligence Estimate," the papers by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald stated. The filing did not specify the "certain information."

"Defendant testified that the circumstances of his conversation with reporter Miller — getting approval from the president through the vice president to discuss material that would be classified but for that approval — were unique in his recollection," the papers added.

Libby is asking for voluminous amounts of classified information from the government in order to defend himself against five counts of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI in the Plame affair.

He is accused of making false statements about how he learned of Plame's CIA employment and what he told reporters about it.

Her (Valerie Plame's) CIA status was publicly disclosed eight days after her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, accused the Bush administration of twisting prewar intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat from weapons of mass destruction.

In 2002, Wilson had been dispatched to Africa by the CIA to check out intelligence that Iraq had an agreement to acquire uranium yellowcake from Niger, and Wilson had concluded that there was no such arrangement.

Libby says he needs extensive classified files from the government to demonstrate that Plame's CIA connection was a peripheral matter that he never focused on, and that the role of Wilson's wife was a small piece in a building public controversy over the failure to find WMD in Iraq.

Fitzgerald said in the new court filing that Libby's requests for information go too far and the prosecutor cited Libby's own statements to investigators in an attempt to limit the amount of information the government must turn over to Cheney's former chief of staff for his criminal defense.

According to Miller's grand jury testimony, Libby told her about Plame's CIA status in the July 8, 2003 conversation that took place shortly after the White House aide — according to the new court filing — was authorized by Bush through Cheney to disclose sensitive intelligence about Iraq and WMD contained in a National Intelligence Estimate.

The court filing was first disclosed by The New York Sun.

Has McCain Sold Out?

2006-04-05T20:09:00.000-07:00

As Sen. John McCain prepares for a likely 2008 presidential race, Democratic and Republican critics are watching McCain's every move for signs he is forsaking his image as an independent-thinking maverick who named his 2000 campaign bus "The Straight Talk Express."

Some called it pandering when he campaigned on Bush's behalf in 2004 just four years after their bitter nomination fight. McCain said he was simply backing his party's leader.

Skeptics called it a flip-flop when the Arizona senator voted in February to extend Bush's tax cuts on dividends and capital gains, which he once had opposed. McCain said ending the tax cuts would be tantamount to raising taxes, something he has never done.

More recently, he made peace with Jerry Falwell, the controversial evangelist whom he had lumped in with other "agents of intolerance" in a 2000 campaign speech. "We agreed to disagree on certain issues," McCain said Sunday on NBC-TV's "Meet the Press" program.

Dismissing the broader pandering charges, McCain said Tuesday: "People will continue to see I stand up for what I believe."

While his voting record is clearly right-of-center, McCain has not been afraid to tick off conservatives. His positions on immigration, torture and a political reform put him at odds with the GOP base.

He supports the war in Iraq, but has criticized Bush's handling of it.

The scrutiny is a far cry from 2000 nomination fight when McCain was an underdog candidate who emerged from below the radar to give Bush — that year's GOP front-runner — a scare. The difference this time is that McCain's plan for securing the GOP nomination in 2008 hinges on selling himself as the establishment candidate.

That means he needs to win the approval of conservative voters he alienated in 2000 and who never have quite trusted him.

The trick is doing so without destroying the one thing that sets McCain apart from most other politicians: his reputation for authenticity.

As conservative voters decide whether he's really one of them, the rest of the electorate will want to know whether McCain actually is a straight shooter.

"He's under a lot of pressure this time to appeal to the right," said Charles Franklin, a University of Wisconsin political science professor. "But the danger is he could go from the Straight Talk Express to the same old obfuscation — to use a nice word for a barnyard epithet."

The actual epithet was hurled at McCain on Tuesday from a crowd of union activists who challenged him on immigration, Iraq and his support of organized labor.

His appearance before the AFL-CIO's Building and Construction Trades Department was a colorful and contentious session, producing as many laughs as boos, that tested the limits of straight talk.

It began with a chorus of boos when McCain mentioned his support of California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a fellow Republican. Shrugging off the reaction, McCain said somebody came up to him at the Schwarzenegger event and said, "Do people tell you look like John McCain?"

"Yes, they do."

"Doesn't that make you madder than hell?"

Later, the senator outlined his position on the Senate immigration debate, saying tougher border enforcement must be accompanied by guest-worker provisions that give illegal immigrants a legal path toward citizenship.

Murmurs from the crowd turned to booing. "Pay a decent wage!" one audience member shouted. McCain curtly threatened to cut the speech short, which quieted the crowd.
In the speech, McCain also argued that withdrawing U.S. troops prematurely from Iraq would turn terrorists loose on the United States.

That's when one audience member unleashed the barnyard epithet.

McCain got another laugh when he finished the speech and asked whether anybody had "questions, comments or insults." One audience member obliged with a pointed question on his immigration plan.

McCain responded by saying immigrants were taking jobs nobody else wanted. He offered anybody in the crowd $50 an hour to pick lettuce in Arizona.

Shouts of protest rose from the crowd, with some accepting McCain's job offer.
"I'll take it!" one man shouted.

McCain insisted none of them would do such menial labor for a complete season. "You can't do it, my friends."

Some in the crowd said they didn't appreciate McCain questioning their work ethic.

"I was impressed with his comedy routine and ability to tap dance without music. But I was impressed with nothing else about him," said John Wasniewski of Milwaukee.
"He's supposed to be Mr. Straight Talk?"

Others said McCain showed some moxie, if not the best political judgment.

"Most of us don't agree with him on immigration," said another man from Milwaukee, Chris Schoenbeck. "But I give him credit for trying."

Comment... As a Zonie I would very much like to be a McCain supporter. However, he is a GOP leader and has often backed up Bush on things that are just plain wrong. Bush campaigned as one who could bring all together. If you call bringing almost all together against him I would say he lived up to his promise. Would McCain as president result in 4 more years of the same? It sure is starting to look like that.

Republicans Increasingly Critical of Bush

2006-04-03T10:04:00.000-07:00

From Iraq to deficits, from immigration to port security, some of the most pointed criticism leveled at President Bush is coming from within his own party. The rising GOP angst stems from Bush's deep slump in the polls and the growing unpopularity of the Iraq war.

But it also reflects a political reawakening as Republicans follow their own political interests in this midterm election year and as would-be 2008 presidential contenders seek ways to set themselves apart — from each other and from Bush.

"It's open season on him. George Bush has lost trust on too many issues," said presidential historian Thomas E. Cronin of Colorado College. "We saw it happen with Johnson, we saw it with Nixon. And now, sadly, we're seeing it with Bush."

Listening to some of the recent GOP criticism, Bush has moved to reach out to Republicans in Congress. Last week, he accepted the resignation of Andrew Card as his chief of staff and gave the job to his budget director, Josh Bolten, who is popular on Capitol Hill.

Other staff changes were expected, including a possible reorganization of the White House congressional liaison office.

Bush also is doing more to keep GOP lawmakers informed, after they were blind-sided in February by the administration's support of a deal — since abandoned — to hand over management of six major U.S. ports to a company owned by the government of Dubai, part of the United Arab Emirates.

The Senate resumes work this week on a contentious immigration bill that pits Republican against Republican.

The bill would offer an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants an opportunity for citizenship and expand guest-worker programs for an estimated 400,000 immigrants each year. The president has said such a guest worker program is central.

But many conservatives favor a more restrictive measure passed by the House last December that would make it a federal felony to live in this country illegally and calling for a wall to be built along the border with Mexico. It does not contain a guest-worker provision.

While acknowledging the difficulty faced by lawmakers, Bush told reporters in Mexico on Friday: "I expect the debate to bring dignity to America, in recognition that America is a land of immigrants."

Some conservatives contend he really isn't really one of them.

They point to Bush's immigration stance, mushrooming government spending and soaring deficits on his watch and his failed attempt to put White House lawyer Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court. Some complain about the growing cost and attempted "nation building" of wartime Iraq.

"A lot of conservatives have had reservations about him for a long time, but have been afraid to speak out for fear that it would help liberals and the Democrats," said Bruce Bartlett, a Treasury official in the Reagan administration. Such concerns are no longer very relevant, he said.

"I think there are growing misgivings about the conduct of the Iraq operation, and how that relates to a general incompetence his administration seems to have about doing basic things," said Bartlett, author of a scathing book titled, "Impostor: How George Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy."

Recent polls suggest the Republicans are losing their long-held lead over Democrats on national security.

Sectarian violence continues unabated in Iraq. The victory of Hamas militants in Palestinian elections raises questions about Bush's goal to spread democracy in the Middle East. And the administration seems short on options for keeping Iran from building nuclear weapons.

Republican leaders are still openly supportive, but they recognize there are limitations in such an overcharged political environment.

"Like any relationship, it's not going to be a honeymoon every day," says House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

Some Bush supporters try to put the best face on the recent discontent.

"There have been some mistakes, but every administration makes mistakes," said veteran GOP consultant Charles Black. "The biggest problem the White House has, 90 percent of their problem, is Iraq.

"People don't see the war going well. And the president's got to keep going out virtually every day, talking about it and putting it in context. Personnel changes won't affect that. He's got to do that himself," Black said.

Democrats: Bush's Land Sales for Schools Unneeded

2006-03-31T15:26:00.000-07:00

Two Democratic senators said Thursday they have found a way to pay for a program to fund rural schools without selling 300,000 acres of national forests, as the Bush administration has proposed. Sens. Max Baucus of Montana and Ron Wyden of Oregon said their plan would raise $2.6 billion over the next 10 years for the rural schools program by closing a tax loophole they said allows some government contractors to avoid tax obligations.

The bill is intended to circumvent a Bush administration plan to sell 300,000 acres of Forest Service lands to raise about $800 million for rural schools in 41 states. A plan that is unnecessary and would result in the permanent loss of national public forests.

Lawmakers from both parties have denounced the plan, saying the permanent loss of public lands isn't worth the short-term gain to schools. They also say it wouldn't raise enough money to help rural governments pay for schools and other services.

The proposal by Baucus and Wyden would provide a steady revenue stream for the rural schools program, commonly known as the county payments law, by closing a tax loophole in federal contracts, the senators said.

Under current law, the federal government does not withhold taxes owed by federal contractors. The Democratic plan would withhold 3 percent upfront of federal payments for goods and services delivered by private contractors.

The money would be applied to taxes owed by the contractor, which in most cases far exceed 3 percent of the total contract. If the tax obligation is less than 3 percent, the contractor would be reimbursed, a Baucus spokesman said.

"This is not a new tax. It just makes sure we get the payments" from federal contractors, said Baucus spokesman Barrett Kaiser.

Wyden, who co-sponsored the original rural schools law in 2000, said rural communities throughout the country rely on the payments.

"We cannot abandon them, and this legislation finds a fiscally responsible way of extending this successful law," Wyden said.

Dave Tenny, deputy undersecretary of agriculture, said he had not seen the Democratic plan and could not comment. A spokeswoman for Senate Finance Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, could not be reached Thursday.

Democrats Offer National Security Strategy

2006-03-29T15:31:00.000-07:00

Democrats on Wednesday proposed a wide-ranging strategy for protecting Americans at home and abroad, an election-year effort aimed at changing public perception that Republicans are stronger on national security. Republicans, for their part, criticized the national security policy statement as a stunt. "We are uniting behind a national security agenda that is tough and smart, an agenda that will provide the real security President Bush has promised, but failed to deliver," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said.

His counterpart in the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Democrats were providing a fresh strategy — "one that is strong and smart, which understands the challenges America faces in a post 9/11 world, and one that demonstrates that Democrats are the party of real national security."

They spoke at a news conference at Union Station, near the Capitol, in front of banners reading "Real Security." They were flanked by some of the Democratic Party's top authorities on national security, including retired Gen. Wesley Clark and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

In the strategy, Democrats vowed to provide U.S. agents with the resources to "eliminate" Osama bin Laden and ensure a "responsible redeployment of U.S. forces" from Iraq in 2006.

They promised to rebuild the military, eliminate the United States' dependence on foreign oil by 2020 and implement the recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission. Those are many of the same proposals Democrats have offered before.

The latest in a series of party policy statements for 2006, the Democrats' national security platform comes seven months before voters decide who will control the House and Senate.

Bush's job approval ratings are in the mid- to high-30s, and Democrats consistently have about a 10 percentage point lead over Republicans when people are asked who they want to see in control of Congress.

With the public skeptical of the Iraq war and Republicans and Democrats alike questioning Bush's war policies, Democrats aim to force Republicans to distance themselves from the president on Iraq and national security or rubber-stamp what Democrats contend is a failed policy.

Democratic strategists say their polling shows Democrats leading in all other areas — such as the economy, health care, education and retirement security — and having closed a gap in polls with Republicans on national security.

Supreme Court Questions Military Trials

2006-03-29T15:18:00.000-07:00

Supreme Court justices appeared troubled Tuesday by President Bush's plans to hold war-crimes trials for foreigners held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

And several seemed outraged by the government's claim that a new law had stripped the high court of authority to hear a case brought by Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who once worked as a driver for Osama bin Laden.

Hamdan has spent nearly four years in the U.S. prison at Guantanamo, and the Supreme Court has been asked to decide if he can be put on trial with fewer legal protections before a type of military tribunal last used in the World War II-era.

The appeal could set the stage for a landmark ruling, and the courtroom atmosphere was tense.
Two years ago the Supreme Court ruled that "a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."

Without Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative Bush nominated last year, the argument seemed lopsided against the government. Roberts supported the Bush administration as a lower court judge and had to withdraw from participating.

Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito gave hints that they support the administration, both suggesting that the high court should delay a decision until after the trial is over — much like courts do with regular criminal defendants.

Roberts was on a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that signed off on the military trial for Hamdan.

Scalia had been asked by five retired generals to withdraw from participating in the case because of remarks he made in a recent speech in Switzerland about "enemy combatants." Scalia said foreigners waging war against the United States have no rights under the Constitution.

The outcome of the case will likely turn on moderate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. Kennedy said that historically, prisoners have been able to challenge their detentions in court.

The Bush administration has tried to scuttle the case on grounds that the new law stripped the justices' authority to consider it. The law passed late last year bars Guantanamo prisoners from filing petitions to fight their detentions, and the administration claims this law retroactively voided hundreds of lawsuits.

Justice David H. Souter said it would be "stupendously significant" for Congress to retroactively close courts to constitutional challenges.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said "it's an extraordinary act, I think, to withdraw jurisdiction from this court in a pending case."

The case is Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 05-184.

From Robert Ariail

2006-03-29T10:22:00.000-07:00

Democrats in Vermont to Weigh Impeachment

2006-03-28T18:14:00.000-07:00

Leading Democrats in Vermont plan to decide in April whether to urge state lawmakers to petition for President Bush's impeachment using a little-known provision in the rules of the U.S. House. Democratic committees in at least half of the state's 14 counties have passed resolutions calling for impeachment, citing a rule in "Jefferson's Manual," a book of parliamentary guidelines written by Thomas Jefferson that supplements U.S. House rules.

The anti-Bush movement is "genuinely bubbling up from the grass roots," said Jon Copans, the state party's executive director.

The state Democratic committee is scheduled to decide the issue in a special meeting April 8.
The resolutions accuse the Bush administration of lying about the case for war in Iraq and illegally engaging in electronic surveillance of Americans.

They rely on "Jefferson's Manual," which says impeachment proceedings can begin "by charges transmitted from the legislature of a state."

Now is the time for the rest of the states to follow the example set by Vermont. Use the links to the right to contact your Senators and Congresspersons.

From Robert Ariail

2006-03-27T19:24:00.000-07:00

Bush told Blair determined to invade Iraq without UN resolution or WMD

2006-03-27T19:12:00.000-07:00

President George W. Bush made clear to British Prime Minister Tony Blair in January 2003 that he (Bush) was determined to invade Iraq without a UN resolution and even if UN arms inspectors failed to find weapons of mass destruction in the country, The New York Times reported. Citing a confidential British memorandum, the newspaper said the president was certain that war was inevitable and made his view known during a private two-hour meeting with Blair in the Oval Office on January 31, 2003.

Information about the meeting was contained in the memo written by Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The Times.

"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," the paper quotes David Manning, Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, as noting in the memo.

" 'The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March,' Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. 'This was when the bombing would begin'," the paper continued.

Stamped "extremely sensitive," the five-page memorandum had not been made public, according to the report. Several highlights were first published in January in the book "Lawless World," which was written by British lawyer and international law professor Philippe Sands.

The document indicates the two leaders envisioned a quick victory and a transition to a new Iraqi government that would be complicated, but manageable, the paper said.

Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Blair agreed with that assessment.

The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq, The Times noted.

Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a US surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Iraqi president Saddam Hussein.

Comment... Bottom line here is that Bush no intention of peace with respect to Iraq. He even had assassination of president Saddam Hussein on the table as an option to provoke the war. If you are as upset as I am by this please use the links to the right and let your Senator and Congresspersons know.

Senate hearing set on move to censure Bush

2006-03-24T18:14:00.000-07:00

The Republican-led U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee announced on Friday it would hold a hearing next week on a call by a Democratic lawmaker to censure President George W. Bush for his domestic spy program.

Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin introduced a resolution last week calling for a Senate censure of the president, charging that Bush's warrantless domestic surveillance program was illegal. Revelation of the once-secret program has triggered a political uproar.

"Some Democrats in Congress have decided the president is the enemy and the terrorist surveillance program is grounds for censuring the president," Vice President Dick Cheney told a Republican fund-raiser in Orlando, Florida, on Friday, adding, "The American people have already made their decision. They agree with the president."

Given that less than 40% of the American voters support Bush I do not know how this "agree with the president" stuff is supported.

The Senate has censured a president, which amounts to a formal rebuke, only once before and that was Andrew Jackson in 1834 in a banking dispute.

Specter Takes Senate Lead on Eavesdropping

2006-03-23T10:00:00.000-07:00

A vocal Republican critic of the Bush administration's eavesdropping program will preside over Senate efforts to write the program into law, but he was pessimistic Wednesday that the White House wanted to listen.

"They want to do just as they please, for as long as they can get away with it," Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I think what is going on now without congressional intervention or judicial intervention is just plain wrong."

Specter was one of the first Republicans to publicly question the National Security Agency's authority to monitor international calls — when one party is inside the United States — without first getting court approval.

Under that approach, Specter said the administration can still "roam and roam and roam, and not find anything, and keep roaming. ... I think that's wrong."

"I think my position will prevail," Specter said, noting that he will have Democratic support.

Americans want Democrats to control Congress

2006-03-19T22:24:00.000-07:00

Most Americans want Democrats to take control of Congress in November mid-term elections, while 34 percent prefer a Republican Congress, a Newsweek Poll said. President George W. Bush's approval rating hit its lowest score in the Newsweek poll, the newsmagazine said in a statement, citing recent events, such as the Dubai ports controversy and the upcoming third anniversary of the Iraq war.

Only 36 percent of American adults approve of the way the president is handling his job, according to results of the survey conducted on Thursday and Friday.

Sixty-four percent are dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time, while only 30 percent are satisfied.

Sixty-five percent disapprove of Bush's handling of the situation in Iraq and 29 percent approve.

Forty-seven percent approve of Bush's appointments to the Supreme Court.

The poll results were based on a survey of 1,020 adults and has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.

It will be published in the March 27 issue of Newsweek.

From Lalo Alcaraz

2006-03-10T10:27:00.000-07:00

Bush's Approval Rating Falls to New Low

2006-03-10T10:20:00.000-07:00

More and more people, particularly Republicans, disapprove of President Bush's performance, question his character and no longer consider him a strong leader against terrorism, according to an AP-Ipsos poll documenting one of the bleakest points of his presidency.

Nearly four out of five Americans, including 70 percent of Republicans, believe civil war will break out in Iraq — the bloody hot spot upon which Bush has staked his presidency. Nearly 70 percent of people say the U.S. is on the wrong track, a 6-point jump since February.

"Obviously, it's the winter of our discontent," said Rep. Tom Cole , R-Okla.

Republican Party leaders said the survey explains why GOP lawmakers are rushing to distance themselves from Bush on a range of issues — port security, immigration, spending, warrantless eavesdropping and trade, for example.

The poll suggests that most Americans wonder whether Bush is up to the job. The survey, conducted Monday through Wednesday of 1,000 people, found that just 37 percent approve of his overall performance. That is the lowest of his presidency.

Bush's job approval among Republicans plummeted from 82 percent in February to 74 percent, a dangerous sign in a midterm election year when parties rely on enthusiasm from their most loyal voters. The biggest losses were among white males.

On issues, Bush's approval rating declined from 39 percent to 36 percent for his handling of domestic affairs and from 47 percent to 43 percent on foreign policy and terrorism. His approval ratings for dealing with the economy and Iraq held steady, but still hovered around 40 percent.

By comparison, Presidents Clinton and Reagan had public approval in the mid 60s at this stage of their second terms in office, while Eisenhower was close to 60 percent, according to Gallup polls. Nixon, who was increasingly tangled up in the Watergate scandal, was in the high 20s in early 1974.

The AP-Ipsos poll, which has a margin of error of 3 percentage points, gives Republicans reason to worry that they may inherit Bush's political woes. Two-thirds of the public disapproves of how the GOP-led Congress is handling its job and a surprising 53 percent of Republicans give Congress poor marks.

By a 47-36 margin, people favor Democrats over Republicans when they are asked who should control Congress.

Stung by criticism, senior officials at the White House and the RNC are reminding GOP members of Congress that Bush's approval ratings may be low, but theirs is lower and have declined at the same pace as Bush's. The message to GOP lawmakers is that criticizing the president weakens him — and them — politically.

Bowing to ferocious opposition in Congress, a Dubai-owned company on Thursday abandoned its quest to take over operations at several U.S. ports.

Bush had pledged to veto any attempt to block the transaction, pitting him against Republicans in Congress and most voters.

All this has Republican voters like Walter Wright of Fairfax Station, Va., worried for their party.
"We've gotten so carried away I wouldn't be surprised to see the Democrats take it because of discontent," he said. "People vote for change and hope for the best."

Ariz. Governor Orders Troops to Border

2006-03-08T16:12:00.000-07:00

Gov. Janet Napolitano on Wednesday ordered more National Guardsmen posted at the Mexican border to help stop illegal immigrants and curb related crimes.

National Guard troops have worked at the border since 1988, but Napolitano signed an order authorizing commanders to station an unspecified number of additional soldiers there to help federal agents.

"They are not there to militarize the border," the governor said. "We are not at war with Mexico."

Napolitano did not say how many additional troops would be stationed at the border and referred questions to the National Guard, which did not immediately return a call.

Napolitano has asked the military to pay for her plan, but said she would commit state dollars if necessary.

The governor declared an immigration emergency last summer in Arizona's four border counties, citing security shortcomings by the federal government.

This is another example of states having to the job of the Federal government. Perhaps Bush could hire the UAE to protect the AZ boarder along with managing the six ports?

Four Vermont Towns Back Bush Impeachment

2006-03-07T22:49:00.000-07:00

In a white-clapboard town hall, built circa 1832, voters gathered Tuesday to conduct their community's business and to call for the impeachment of President Bush. "In the U.S. presently there are only a few places where citizens can act in this fashion and have a say in our nation," said select board member Dan DeWalt, who drafted the impeachment article that was placed on the warning - or official agenda - for the annual town meeting, a proud Yankee tradition in New England.

"It absolutely affects us locally," Dewalt said. "It's our sons and daughters, our mothers and fathers, who are dying" in the war in Iraq.

The article, approved 121-29 in balloting by paper, calls on Vermont's lone member of the House, independent Rep. Bernie Sanders, to file articles of impeachment against the president, alleging that Bush misled the nation into the Iraq war and engaged in illegal domestic spying.

Other cities nationwide have taken up resolutions calling for Bush's impeachment, notably San Francisco.

At least three other southern Vermont towns, spurred by publicity about Newfane's resolution, endorsed similar resolutions during Tuesday's meetings: Dummerston, Marlboro and Putney.

In Newfane, the impeachment item came at the end of a roughly four-hour meeting Tuesday morning that was devoted mostly to the local affairs of the town of 1,600.

Former Republican Congressman Gets Eight-Plus Years in Prison

2006-03-03T16:57:00.000-07:00

Former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, who collected $2.4 million in homes, yachts, antique furnishings and other bribes on a scale unparalleled in the history of Congress, was sentenced Friday to eight years and four months in prison, the longest term meted out to a congressman in decades.

Cunningham, who resigned from Congress in disgrace last year, was spared the 10-year maximum by U.S. District Judge Larry Burns. He also was ordered to pay $1.8 million in restitution for back taxes.

Cunningham, a Republican who resigned last year in disgrace, accepted money from defense contractors and others in exchange for steering government contracts their way and other favors.

Federal prosecutors sought the maximum and his attorneys asked for mercy, but Cunningham, choking up as he addressed the judge, focused on accepting blame. "Your honor I have ripped my life to shreds due to my actions, my actions that I did to myself," he said.
"I made a very wrong turn. I rationalized decisions I knew were wrong. I did that, sir," Cunningham said.

The judge questioned why he felt compelled to betray his constituents and his colleagues for luxuries such as a Rolls-Royce, a yacht and $40,000 Persian rugs.

"You weren't wet. You weren't cold. You weren't hungry and yet you did these things," Burns said. "I think what you've done is you've undermined the opportunity that honest politicians have to do a good job."

Prosecutor Phil Halpern told the judge that while Cunningham was living the good life "he was squandering precious tax dollars for, among other things, systems the military didn't ask for, didn't need and frequently didn't use."

Prosecutor Jason A. Forge said Cunningham should not get a break for committing crimes late in life, and doubted his apparent remorse, pointing out that after the allegations emerged he spent months falsely denying them.

"The fact of the matter is Mr. Cunningham went down kicking and screaming. He did not plead guilty until his indictment was imminent," Forge said.

The staggering details of Cunningham's wrongdoing surpass anything in the history of Congress, Senate and House historians said. "In the sheer dollar amount, he is the most corrupt," said Deputy House Historian Fred W. Beuttler.

Cunningham pleaded guilty Nov. 28 to tax evasion and a conspiracy involving four others. Defense contractor Mitchell Wade pleaded guilty last month to plying Cunningham with more than $1 million in gifts over four years.

The Republican Culture of Corruption seems to have no end. This is just another sad chapter.

From Jeff Danziger

2006-03-01T18:06:00.000-07:00

Senators Balk at Bush Plan to Sell Public Land

2006-03-01T18:03:00.000-07:00

Senators from both parties on Tuesday challenged a Bush administration plan to sell more than 300,000 acres of national forest to help pay for rural schools in 41 states.

Lawmakers said the short-term gains would be offset by the permanent loss of public lands. They also said profits from the proposed sales would fall far short of what's needed to help rural governments pay for schools and other basic services.

"I just don't think we can play Russian roulette with these local communities," said Sen. Ron Wyden (news, bio, voting record), D-Ore., who vowed to "do everything I can" to stop the plan.

Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, had a more visceral reaction: "No, heck no," he told Bush administration officials at a Senate hearing Tuesday.

"To propose selling off public lands we will lose forever, in exchange for a program we can pay for by other more prudent means, is simply irresponsible," said Sen. Craig Thomas (news, bio, voting record), R-Wyo.

"The Bush administration wants to eliminate a proven, balanced initiative in favor of a public lands fire sale," added Sen. Maria Cantwell (news, bio, voting record), D-Wash.

Sen. Jim Talent (news, bio, voting record), R-Mo., said he was not opposed to the land sale in principle, but was concerned about how much revenue would go to Missouri schools. The Bush plan would sell 21,566 acres in Missouri's Mark Twain National Forest — the third-largest land sale in the country — but would result in a likely cut in funding for Missouri schools.

"Our schools need the money," Talent said.

Bush Job Rating Falls to All-time Low: Poll

2006-02-28T11:24:00.000-07:00

President George W. Bush's job rating has fallen to an all-time low of 34 percent, amid strong opposition to the Dubai Ports World deal and increasing pessimism over the war in Iraq, according to a CBS News poll released on Monday.

Bush's overall job approval fell eight points from 42 percent last month. Fifty-nine percent of respondents said they disapproved of Bush's performance on the job, the poll found.

Bush's previous low job approval rating of 35 percent came last October, a month after Hurricane Katrina laid waste to the Gulf Coast and shortly after the U.S. death toll in Iraq reached the 2,000 mark, CBS said.

Long among his strongest suits, ratings for Bush's handling of Iraq fell to a new low of 30 percent, down from 37 percent in January, the poll found.

In addition, 62 percent of Americans said they think U.S. efforts to bring stability and order to Iraq were going badly compared with 36 percent who said things were going well.

In recent days, the Bush administration has faced increasing sectarian violence and fears of civil war in Iraq as well as strong bipartisan congressional opposition to a deal allowing an Arab state-owned company to operate six key U.S. ports.

According to the poll, 70 percent believe the Dubai Ports World transaction should not be allowed to go through while only 21 percent did not see the ports deal as a problem.

One surprising bright spot for the administration in the polls was that Americans appeared ready to move on after Vice President Dick Cheney's hunting accident. Seventy-six percent said it was understandable that the accident could happen.

However media coverage of the accident may have made the public's generally negative view of Cheney a bit more so, CBS said. The poll found that 46 percent hold a negative view of Cheney and 18 percent hold a favorable view, down from a 23 percent favorable rating in January.

The telephone poll of 1,018 adults was conducted February 22-26 and had a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.

From Robert Ariail

2006-02-27T09:54:00.000-07:00

Is Bush a Lame Duck President?

2006-02-27T09:51:00.000-07:00

President Bush has been buffeted by one calamity after another. Try what he may, he just can't seem to find traction for his second-term agenda.

With midterm congressional elections approaching, it won't get any easier.

The bad news has been coming in waves, from furors over Hurricane Katrina and warrantless wiretapping to the error-plagued rollout of the new Medicare prescription drug program, Vice President Dick Cheney's hunting accident, growing civil strife in Iraq, and now the Republican revolt over the administration's Dubai port decision.

The controversies have rocked the White House and caused alarm among Republican strategists. Their party's electoral hopes in November may depend on whether Bush is able to right his troubled presidency.

Some of Bush's recent difficulties were aggravated by the White House failure to consult earlier and more frequently on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers are easily offended by perceived presidential slights.

This failure to communicate was most pronounced in the current dispute over who should manage America's seaports, but earlier surfaced in Bush's decision to direct the National Security Agency to engage in warrantless domestic electronic spying as part of the war on terror.

Republicans, who showed near unequivocal support during Bush's first term, have been backing away as they weigh their own political situations.

Since his State of the Union address Jan. 30, the president has traveled several days a week to promote his agenda, especially proposals on health care, U.S. competitiveness and energy self-reliance. His 2005 proposals to revamp Social Security and the tax code remain, but on a back burner.

Yet most of this time, his message has been eclipsed by the controversies raging in Washington.
White House officials were stunned by the most recent developments — the Cheney shooting accident and then the seaport deal. Aides ruefully wondered out loud, What's next?

In a week that began with a veto threat, Bush lost the support of his top two congressional lieutenants. House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist threatened to freeze the agreement to hand over management of six U.S. ports to a state-owned company based in the United Arab Emirates.

By week's end, some of the fury had ebbed as DP World voluntarily agreed to briefly postpone its American operations. The White House supported the delay for a security review — and acknowledged it could have done a better job in briefing Congress.

But the controversy threatened to jeopardize what has been the president's strongest suit in the polls — fighting terrorism. A chorus of Democratic and Republican lawmakers suggested the deal would give a company with ties to a government with a mixed anti-terrorism record a distressing level of access to U.S. ports.

Bush's approval was at 40 percent in an AP-Ipsos poll conducted in early February, and most recent polling has shown it at about the same level.

Last week, it was hard to find any U.S. political figure outside the administration, other than former President Carter, ready to defend the port deal.

Presidents often see their ratings improve when abroad. Even if he doesn't get a bump from this week's trip to India and Pakistan, Bush may welcome the diversion from the unrelenting bad news at home.

Most of the disputes will still be around when he returns.

From Robert Ariail

2006-02-23T18:21:00.000-07:00

Dubai Ports Deal: Is Bush Lying or Out of Touch?

2006-02-23T11:56:00.000-07:00

Bush faces a potential rebellion over the sale from leaders of his own party, as well as a fight from Democrats. It puts Dubai Ports in charge of major terminal operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

The Deal Has Been in the Works for Three Months...
In Lebanon, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday that the agreement was thoroughly vetted in a review process that took approximately three months. "This is supposed to be a process that raises security concerns, if they are there, but does not presume that a country in the Middle East should not be capable of doing a deal like this." She described the United Arab Emirates as "a very good ally" and said "if more details need to be made available then I'm sure they will be."

...But Bush Just Found Out About It.
The White House said President Bush did not know about the agreement until recently. The AP first reported U.S. approval of the sale to Dubai Ports on Feb. 11, and many members of Congress have said they learned about it from the AP.

So which is it? Is the Secretary of State doing rogue deals or is Bush lying?

Bush Trusts the UEA the Same As the British.
Bush said he was struck by the fact that people were not concerned about port security when a British company was running the port operation, but they felt differently about an Arab company at the helm.

Is he nuts???

Brushing aside Bush's assurances that security concerns have been addressed by his administration, Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record) of Michigan, the panel's ranking Democrat, said the UAE backed the Taliban and allowed financial support for al-Qaida.
Levin also charged that the UAE has an "uneven history" as "one of only a handful of countries in the world to recognize the Taliban regime in Afghanistan." He added that millions of dollars in al-Qaida funds went through UAE financial institutions.

"I think somebody dropped the ball," said Rep. Vito Fossella (news, bio, voting record), R-N.Y. "Information should have flowed more freely and more quickly up into the White House. I think it has been mishandled in terms of coming forward with adequate information."

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., also was critical, calling the approval process "a failure of judgment" because officials "did not alert the president, the secretary of the treasury and the secretary of defense" that several of our critical ports would be turned over to a foreign country.

Now is the time for action!
Use the links to contact your Senators and Representative to let them know that you want this deal sunk.

Bush's "Scandalous" Budget Sparks Bipartisan Protest

2006-02-07T08:27:00.000-07:00

President Bush has sent Congress a 2007 spending plan that is garnering howls of pain from farmers, teachers, doctors and a wide array of other groups with special interests.

Democrats, as expected, pronounced the Republican president's budget plan dead on arrival. But many Republicans were equally sharp in their reservations about the $2.77 trillion spending blueprint the administration unveiled on Monday.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., called Bush's proposed cuts in education and health "scandalous" while Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, said she was "disappointed and even surprised" at the extent of the administration's proposed cuts in Medicaid and Medicare.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., said Bush's budget was sending a clear message "that the most important thing to this administration are tax cuts being made permanent for the wealthiest of Americans."

The targeted programs included 42 in the area of education ranging from drug-free schools to federal support for the arts, technology and parent-resource centers.

ven previously favored agencies such as the National Institutes of Health were not immune from the budget knife with overall funding essentially frozen and many individual programs seeing budget cuts. That brought objections from groups ranging from the American Heart Association to the American Diabetes Association.

Robert A. Rizza, president for medicine and science of the American Diabetes Association, said Bush's proposed cuts in diabetes research and prevention "would weaken the federal resources needed to fight this national epidemic."

"The president's budget slashes resources for exactly the priorities we should be supporting — groundbreaking medical research, health care for our seniors, and education for our kids," said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa.

Bush Proposes to Make the Budget Disaster Worse

2006-02-06T22:26:00.000-07:00

President George W. Bush on Monday proposed a $2.77 trillion budget that cuts programs from Medicare to education, prompting Democratic criticism that the elderly and working Americans were bearing the brunt of his fiscal mismanagement.

Bush proposed a record $439.3 billion defense budget aimed at fighting unconventional terrorism and major conflicts with other nations if necessary.

The president renewed his call for Republican-led Congress to make his tax cuts permanent even as his blueprint projected a surge in the federal deficit to $423 billion this year, up more than $100 billion from fiscal 2005.

Sen. Kent Conrad, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, said the budget was misleading because it did not fully account for costs of Iraq war or for other anticipated expenses such as shielding middle-class Americans from the costs of the alternative minimum tax.

"It represents the same reckless fiscal course the Bush administration has followed for the last five years," Conrad said.

Among those targeted by the budget knife are community policing and a program to combat violence against women. Education spending would be down 3.8 percent, partially through the elimination of programs like vocational education and college preparation for poor students.

Bush also hopes to squeeze $65 billion in savings over five years from mandatory programs, including Medicare, the nation's health insurance program for the elderly and disabled, farm supports and pension and other labor-related programs. Medicare is slated to take a $36 billion hit through such measures as slower growth in hospital payments.

Bush inherited surpluses from former Democratic President Bill Clinton but that quickly turned around and the deficit soared on his watch, reaching a record $413 billion in fiscal 2004.

Bottom line here is that we have a president who came into office with a record $413 billion dollar surplus and has turned it into a multi-trillion dollar deficit. How does he propose to cut it? He plans to do so by cutting back spending on law enforcement and education. All this while spending billions rebuilding a country that he invaded under false pretenses.

Folks... there IS a better way. Use the links to the right to contact your senator and representative. Tell them that you have had enough and to not tolerate Bush's mismanagement any longer and just say NO to his proposed budget. It's time to bring our troops home and start taking care of U.S.

From Bill Day

2006-02-01T16:48:00.000-07:00

Not happy with the direction of America? You are not alone.

2006-02-01T09:41:00.000-07:00

Last night's speech by Bush was well delivered, but that was good about it. He gave a very clear message that he plans to continue with his present agenda... tax cuts for the rich, eliminating benefits and entitlements for those who were promised them and rejecting cloning - a potentially life saving technology. He also plans to continue to fight a war that was begun on false pretenses, a false report that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, with no exit plan.

So what do Americans think?

Here are some numbers from the Washington Post...

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling (ITEM)? - 1/26/06

Approve Disapprove No op.
a. The situation in Iraq: Approve 39/ Disapprove 60/ No op. 1
b. The US campaign against terrorism: Approve 52/ Disapprove 45/ No op. 2
c. The federal budget deficit: Approve 32/ Disapprove 64/ No op. 4
d. Ethics in government: Approve 42/ Disapprove 56/ No op. 2
e. Prescription drug benefits for the elderly: Approve 38/ Disapprove 51/ No op. 11
f. The economy: Approve 46/ Disapprove 52/ No op. 1
g. Immigration issues: Approve 34/ Disapprove 57/ No op. 9
h. Health care: Approve 37/ Disapprove 60/ No op. 3
i. Taxes: Approve 45/ Disapprove 52/ No op. 3

Bottom line... the majority of Americans do not approve of the way Bush is managing America. There is a better way. We need to reset our priorities. We need to take care of our seniors by providing them healthcare. We need to say no to private health insurance accounts and make sure that all who work have healthcare. We need to fix our borders. We need to balance and simplify the tax code. We need to pay off the U.S. deficit. This is the better way!

To the right you will find links that will allow you to contact your Senator and Representatives. Let them know you are not happy and that there is a better way to manage America.

Coulter Jokes About Poisoning Justice

2006-01-27T10:41:00.000-07:00

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - Conservative commentator Ann Coulter, speaking at a traditionally black college, joked that Justice John Paul Stevens should be poisoned.

Coulter had told the Philander Smith College audience Thursday that more conservative justices were needed on the Supreme Court to change the current law on abortion. Stevens is one of the court's most liberal members.

"We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee," Coulter said. "That's just a joke, for you in the media."

Coulter has made a career of writing and lecturing on her strongly conservative views.
At one point during her address, which was part of a lecture series, some audience members booed when she cut off two questioners. "I'm not going to be lectured to," Coulter told one man in a raised voice.

She drew more boos when she said the crack cocaine problem "has pretty much gone away."

I'm sure that Jesus and Pat Robertson are working on this. Unfortunately, neither would return my calls so I'll have to check back at another time. All jokes aside, this is yet another example of conservative/ evangelical compassion typical of the right wing GOP membership.

From Bill Day

2006-01-27T10:09:00.000-07:00

McCain Still Concerned About Guantanamo

2006-01-27T10:01:00.000-07:00

Sen. John McCain said Friday that interrogation techniques at the U.S. prison camp in Guantanamo Bay are still of concern, and the prisoners held there should have their cases processed after spending up to four years in detention without charge.

The remote prison camp in eastern Cuba, where some 500 men accused of links to Afghanistan's ousted Taliban regime or al-Qaida are held, crept into debates at the World Economic Forum on Friday. Only a handful of the prisoners have been charged.

"What I was concerned about and continue to be concerned about is interrogation methods," McCain, R-Ariz., told The Associated Press on the sidelines of the forum.

"Now, if they want to keep them in Guantanamo or Des Moines, Iowa, that's not a critical issue to me. What is critical is that we adhere to treaties that we are signatories to and observe basic human rights and obey the law that we just passed concerning cruel and inhumane and degrading treatment."

McCain was the chief sponsor of a bill that President Bush signed last month banning cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of foreign detainees.

The former Vietnam War POW called for more congressional involvement concerning Guantanamo and said the prisoners' cases should be processed and heard.

"All human beings, no matter how evil they are, have the right to some kind of adjudication ... There should be some kind of system set up so their cases can be decided," he said.

FBI documents sent to The Associated Press in 2003 showed cases of prisoner abuse shortly after the camp opened in January 2001. Additional documents showed other cases as the detention mission grew, specifically with the use of female guards and interrogators using aggressive and sexually charged techniques with the detainees, most of whom are Muslim.

Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, who ran the Guantanamo camp from October 2002 to March 2004 and has been linked to the abuse scandal, is declining to answer questions in two courts-martial cases involving the use of dogs during interrogations at the camp.

Former Presidents Clinton and Carter have called for the prison camp to be closed, and British Prime Minister Tony Blair has called the prison an "anomaly."

An anomaly... what a nice way of saying that the existence of a U.S. interrogation/ torture facility is hypocritical to very principles the U.S. was founded on.

State of the Union? Not so good, most say

2006-01-27T09:42:00.000-07:00

A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken last weekend and interviews across the country this week found most Americans pessimistic about the economy, divided on the war and doubtful that Bush has the best plan to address the issues that matter most to them - among them health care and corruption. (Related: Poll results)

By more than 2-to-1, those surveyed say things have gotten worse in the United States over the past five years. "I love my country, but we're going the wrong way for sure," says Faye Sherer, 59, of Salinas, Calif., who helps run a family produce company and was among those polled. "I don't see the point in Iraq, when there were other countries going through worse atrocities and we did nothing to help them."

Still, even conservatives divide 47%-44% on whether things have gotten better or worse.
The country's downbeat mood poses a challenge for the president as he tries to command support for the legislative agenda he'll unveil for his sixth year in office. With a 43% approval rating, he is in "a weakened position trying to convince Congress to do whatever it is in the State of the Union that he wants them to do," says Charles Franklin of the University of Wisconsin.

Those surveyed:

• Said the country has gotten off track. By 62%-35%, they were dissatisfied with the way things are going in the USA. That's the most pessimistic view at the start of a year since Bush took office.

• Rated the economy as faltering. Six in 10 said the current economy was only fair or poor, and 54% said economic conditions were getting worse. Views differed by party: 68% of Republicans but just 16% of Democrats called the economy excellent or good.

• Questioned Bush's leadership. By 64%-34%, they said Bush didn't have a clear plan for solving the country's problems. The president received his strongest approval rating, 52%, on fighting terrorism. But on health care - ranked as an issue equal to the economy - congressional Democrats were more trusted, 54%-35%.

The poll of 1,006 adults Jan. 20-22 has a margin of error of +/-3 percentage points.

"I'm too old to be worrying about much," said Bernice Tabor, 76, of Cleveland. But she frets about casualties in Iraq and layoffs at Ford Motor Co. "We're going backward instead of forward."

I, like most, agree with Bernice in that we are going backward instead of forward. Unlike Bernice, I am in my late-30's and will have to help clean up the mess Bush is making for us. You can help minimize the mess be contacting your Senator and Representative (see links to the right) and tell him or her how you feel.

Swagger Less and Show More Honesty and Humility

2006-01-24T18:02:00.000-07:00

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid on Tuesday urged President George W. Bush to "swagger" less and show more honesty and humility in his annual State of the Union speech to the nation next week.

"Republicans run good campaigns, but when it comes to actually governing and protecting Americans, they have a record of incompetence," Reid told an audience at the Center for American Progress.

Reid accused Bush of making promises in past State of the Union speeches and doing the opposite. In 2003, Reid said, Bush promised not to pass the nation's current bills on to the next generation.

Noting that the government will breach the $8.184 trillion debt limit next month, Reid accused Bush of "bankrupting our country and placing an enormous tax on our children and grandchildren, simply so he can hand out tax breaks to special interests and the wealthy."

Reid also urged Bush to offer a plan to fix the new Medicare prescription drug program for the elderly. Since the plan was launched on January 1, many poor and elderly people have been snagged by problems that have made it difficult for them to get their prescription costs covered.

About half of the states have stepped in to pay the costs of people who have run into problems. The drug plan relies on private insurers, pharmacies and healthcare companies to provide coverage to Medicare's 42 million beneficiaries.

It is hope that Bush listens to this advice and provides answers instead of more swagger.

The White House Is Stalling the Senate's Katrina Probe

2006-01-24T17:52:00.000-07:00

"No one believes that the government responded adequately," said Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn. "And we can't put that story together if people feel they're under a gag order from the White House."

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, the committee's Republican chair, said she respects the White House's reluctance to reveal advice to President Bush from his top aides, which is generally covered by executive privilege.

Still, she criticized the dearth of information from agency officials about their contacts with the White House.

"We are entitled to know if someone from the Department of Homeland Security calls someone at the White House during this whole crisis period," Collins said. "So I think the White House has gone too far in restricting basic information about who called whom on what day."

She added, "It is completely inappropriate" for the White House to bar agency officials from talking to the Senate committee.

Lieberman said the Justice and Health and Human Services departments "have essentially ignored our document requests for months" while HHS has refused to allow interviews of its staff. He described the Homeland Security response as "too little, too late."

House panel of lawyers and activists discuss whether Bush had committed an impeachable offense

2006-01-20T20:32:00.000-07:00

On Tuesday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is delivering a speech on the program in Washington.

Gonzales also plans to testify Feb. 6 about the secret program before the Senate Judiciary Committee where Kennedy and Leahy are members.

House Democrats said Bush has committed a crime in authorizing the spying and that House Republicans have abdicated their responsibilities by refusing to hold hearings.
Rep. John Conyers (news, bio, voting record), the House Judiciary Committee's top Democrat, and other Democrats met in a basement room of a House office building Friday to hear a panel of lawyers and activists discuss whether Bush had committed an impeachable offense.
Meanwhile, the Justice Department on Wednesday issued a 42-page legal justification for the eavesdropping program, an expanded version of a document the agency sent Congress last month.

"Making their argument longer didn't make it any better," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (news, bio, voting record), D-Md., a Judiciary Committee member. He said Bush's secret approval of warrantless eavesdropping had made congressional debate on the Patriot Act meaningless.
The NSA's warrantless eavesdropping program is "an intelligence operation in search of a legal rationale," said George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley.

"What the president ordered in this case was a crime," added Turley, who said House Republicans are establishing a terrible precedent by not holding oversight hearings.

From Bill Schorr

2006-01-19T10:30:00.000-07:00

Feds Seek Google Records in Porn Probe

2006-01-19T10:25:00.000-07:00

SAN JOSE, Calif. - The Bush administration, seeking to revive an online pornography law struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, has subpoenaed Google Inc. for details on what its users have been looking for through its popular search engine.

Google has refused to comply with the subpoena, issued last year, for a broad range of material from its databases, including a request for 1 million random Web addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period, lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department said in papers filed Wednesday in federal court in San Jose.

Although Google pledges to protect personal information, the company's privacy policy says it complies with legal and government requests. Google also has no stated guidelines on how long it keeps data, leading critics to warn that retention is potentially forever given cheap storage costs.

The Mountain View-based company told The San Jose Mercury News that it opposes releasing the information because it would violate the privacy rights of its users and would reveal company trade secrets.

Nicole Wong, an associate general counsel for Google, said the company will fight the government's efforts "vigorously."

"Google is not a party to this lawsuit, and the demand for the information is overreaching," Wong said.

As I see it, this is yet another invasion of personal privacy. While I am firmly against child pornography, I think that people should be able at pretty much anything else online. If King George gets his way, not only will our phone calls and emails be monitored, but now what we look at online.

Google this George... I am not alone in the movement to impeach you and help bring an end to the GOP culture of corruption. Google this... the present GOP run congress and White House is the most corrupt ever. Google this... the Bush administration is and will go down in history as the most corrupt Presidency in the history of the United States.

Ex-EPA Chiefs (5 GOP and 1 Democrat) Blame Bush in Global Warming

2006-01-18T18:27:00.000-07:00

WASHINGTON - Six former heads of the Environmental Protection Agency — five Republicans and one Democrat - accused the Bush administration Wednesday of neglecting global warming and other environmental problems.

"I don't think there's a commitment in this administration," said Bill Ruckelshaus, who was EPA's first administrator when the agency opened its doors in 1970 under President Nixon and headed it again under President Reagan in the 1980s.

Russell Train, who succeeded Ruckelshaus in the Nixon and Ford administrations, said slowing the growth of "greenhouse" gases isn't enough.

"We need leadership, and I don't think we're getting it," he said at an EPA-sponsored symposium centered around the agency's 35th anniversary. "To sit back and just push it away and say we'll deal with it sometime down the road is dishonest to the people and self-destructive."

All of the former administrators raised their hands when EPA's current chief, Stephen Johnson, asked whether they believe global warming is a real problem, and again when he asked if humans bear significant blame.

Agency heads during five Republican administrations, including the current one, criticized the Bush White House for what they described as a failure of leadership.

Defending his boss, Johnson said the current administration has spent $20 billion on research and technology to combat climate change after President Bush rejected mandatory controls on carbon dioxide, the chief gas blamed for trapping heat in the atmosphere like a greenhouse.

Bush also kept the United States out of the Kyoto international treaty to reduce greenhouse gases globally, saying it would harm the U.S. economy, after many of the accord's terms were negotiated by the Clinton administration.

As I see it... this is clearly a case of Bush selling out to corporate interests. It is rather sickening to know that this "Christian" President cares more about his political career than the word his God created. I am not surprised though. The Republican culture of corruption and hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Bush Refuses to Join Fellow GOPers and Return Abramoff's Tainted Cash

2006-01-17T22:49:00.000-07:00

According to Karen Finney of the Democratic National Committee...

As the Republican culture of corruption continues to grow and more is learned about the misdeeds of Washington Republicans and their relationships with indicted former GOP super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, 30 Republican members of Congress and even the Republican Governors Association have decided to return dirty campaign cash that Abramoff personally directed or raised for them. One notable exception is President Bush, who still refuses to return the more than $120,000 that Abramoff personally raised and bundled for his re-election campaign. While raising the money, Abramoff bragged about his access to the White House and used his deep ties with the Bush Administration to attract business and help his eventual clients.

In my (Max's) opinion, this is yet another example of how King George touts his "above the law" status. As long as Congress is dominated by the corrupt GOP, this will remain the situation. Only by tipping the scales to the public's favor by electing Democrats will this change. A Democratic Congress and should impeach Bush.

From Jerry Holbert

2006-01-16T12:23:00.000-07:00

Bush Marks MLK Day With Gospel Performance

2006-01-16T12:13:00.000-07:00

He also got in a photo-op at the national archives where he gazed at the Emancipation Proclamation - I'm sure someone had to tell him what it was.

Given Bush's abuse of human right's - illegal wiretaps, willingness to torture, willingness to hold individual in war prisons without out trial and groundless invasion of a foreign nation - I find this an interesting way for him to spend a few moments of his time. After all, the proclamation does uphold the concept of all men are created equal. If Bush felt this way, why would he support torture? Why would he invade a country before being sure there really was a threat? Why would he hold U.S. civilian citizens in military prisons? He's a corrupt hypocrite... that's why. Enjoy the Jesusfest Mr. President!

Israeli Envoy Accepts Robertson's Apology

2006-01-16T11:59:00.000-07:00

According to an article in Yahoo posted today...

After Robertson's written letter to the Sharon family, Ambassador Daniel Ayalon said, "Israel respects Rev. Robertson and accepts his apology, which reflects his true friendship and support for the state of Israel."

In a letter dated Wednesday and marked for hand delivery to Omri Sharon, the prime minister's son, Robertson called Sharon a "kind, gracious and gentle man" who was "carrying an almost insurmountable burden of making decisions for his nation."

"My concern for the future safety of your nation led me to make remarks which I can now view in retrospect as inappropriate and insensitive in light of a national grief experienced because of your father's illness," said the letter.

In my opinion this is very gracious on the part of the Sharon family. Perhaps Pat Robertson will learn from this. It is also good to know that God is not in the business of smiting heads of state for making unpopular decisions.

Poll: DeLay Losing Support in Own District

2006-01-16T11:56:00.000-07:00

According to an article in Yahoo, barley 1 in 5 registered voters in Tom DeLay's home district claim they will vote for him. As much as one has to wonder what those holdouts are thinking (or if they are thinking) it is good to know that most conservatives faced with enough proof will "get it."

From Rob Rogers

2006-01-05T17:57:00.000-07:00

Pat Robertson - God is Killing Sharon

2006-01-05T17:44:00.000-07:00

Just when you think that Pat cannot sound any dumber...
According to this from Yahoo, click for story, Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson suggested Thursday that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's stroke was divine punishment for "dividing God's land." Talk about kicking a man when he is down. I'm not a Christian and quite often I find the terms Christian and compassion to be mutually exclusive. However, attacking a dying man in the press is just wrong.

Pat quotes some scripture, blah, blah, blah, and comes to the conclusion that if you divide God's land (aka Israel) that God is going to get pissed and smite you. I wonder what punishment I'll get for writing and posting this. If I'm lucky just a broken arm perhaps... no wait... God will push me down in the street and back over my hands with truck. That way I'll suffer and not be able to type.

Keep in mind this is the same Pat Robertson who the leader of a Christian cult with thousands of members, the same Pat Robertson who said the United States should murder a foreign president, and the same Pat Robertson who ran for President of the United States as a GOP candidate.

Supreme Court Says U.S. Can Move Padilla

2006-01-04T15:03:00.000-07:00

The justices overruled a lower court and now Jose Padilla, a US civilian citizen, will be transferred to a military prison and held with non-Americans. Hats off to King George for taking us another step along the path to a police state.

It seems that it is up to the King/ President to decide if an individual can be held and tried as a civilian or not. Naturally, evidence to be used to help make this decision can be obtained via the NSA without a warrant. Somehow I do not think this is what the founding fathers of this nation had in mind when they wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

To the right of this post are some links that will show you how to contact your Senator and Representatives. Please do so and let them know what you think about having a King instead of an accountable President. Soon, Congress will go back to work on the Patriot Act. Don't miss this important opportunity to let your voice be heard.

Etta Hulme on Torture

2006-01-03T16:47:00.000-07:00

Amen!

Abramoff Pleads Guilty

2006-01-03T16:37:00.000-07:00

According to an AP article released today, Jack Abramoff, a former $100,000-plus fundraiser for President Bush with close ties to former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, pleaded guilty on Tuesday to conspiracy, tax evasion and mail fraud.

The last time I heard a list of charges like this it was attached to a crime family like Gambino. It seems the GOP is now in the same league as the MOB - very scary.

The article continued to say that as many as 20 members of congress and possibly several administrations officials are involved too. If this is true this could be the biggest scandal since the 1992 banking scandal that resulted the 77 members leaving the House one way or another.

If this is not a wake-up call for the evangelicals and other hard core right wing GOP followers I don't know what is. How many trials and convictions will it take before the Joe GOP voter realizes he has been taken for a ride on the Republican Culture of Corruption express?

My Wishes For 2006

2005-12-31T19:24:00.000-07:00

2005 has been quite a year and one I must say good riddance too. Between King George's authorizing illegal NSA spying on Americans at home, the number of dead American service men and women rising above 2100, the failure of the Bush administration with the Katrina disaster - not to mention the discovery of the illegal Halliburton/ CIA torture camps and the DeLay scandal(s). 'Nuff said about all of that. In a few hours 2005 will be in the past and we can look forward to 2006.

I think things are looking up for 2006. For starters it looks like the Senate plans to put a leash on King George and take a serious look at the Patriot Act as well as to what grounds the President has to use the NSA (no warrants required) to spy on Americans in America. The drilling in Alaska bill was killed and Congress forced Bush to sign a no exceptions no torture bill into law (in spite of very heavy opposition from the VP.) All in all things are looking up. In addition, both houses are feeling mounting pressure to bring the troops home - finally. After all, they do want to keep their seats in Congress. For those who do not listen to the people I expect to see them replaced by those who are more compassionate and responsive to the needs of the American people of their jurisdictions.

Bottom line... I am very much looking forward to 2006 given the progress that is being made and the mid-term elections just around the corner.

I also wish all, and I really do mean all, a very safe, fun and Happy New Year!!!

Oh... if you are not registered to vote, please make a New Year resolution to get registered.

From Ed Stein

2005-12-30T13:50:00.000-07:00

Gee George... I bet that hurt!

How the GOP Fights Dirty

2005-12-30T12:49:00.000-07:00

In a nutshell, the GOP in Georgia is trying to make a law stick, despite a federal judge saying it's an illegal poll tax, that states that those who do not have driver's licenses must have a state issue ID card. These ID cards cost as much as $35. If you are trying to save enough money to pay for heat or food, a $35 ID card is just not in the budget. As a result, most poor in Georgia in this sad predicament will not have a voice in the polls. Since many, dare I say most, poor folks vote for Democrats, the GOP will in effect be forcing the poor to stay away from the polls. Talk about low... The last time I checked this was still a government of the people, by the people, for the people - not just the ones that can afford to pay to vote.

If you live in GA, contact your local congressman where he or she stands on this issue. Should he or she be for this horrible law, ask him or her if she has ever heard of a poll tax and something called the American Revolution that opposed it.

Register To Vote

2005-12-30T12:25:00.000-07:00

I know... you have heard that a bunch of times... but have you? If not then why not? I have heard a lot of reasons why libs do not register.
1) We will never win the House and/ or Senate back
2) There are too many folks who think we need a conservative President
3) I am just one person, what does it matter.

The fact is that all of the above is false. WE must win the House, Senate and Oval Office back. Why?
1) There are too many of us who think a multi-trillion dollar debt is a bad thing.
2) There are too many of us who think that it is wrong for the President to illegally spy on Americans in America.
3) There are too many of us who think that the war has no end in sight and that it is time to let Iraq run itself. It's their country, not ours. We got the bad guy already.
4) There are too many of us who think that Bush lied and/ or misrepresented the facts about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Now that you have some reasons to vote, here is where to get registered (if you are a 'zonie) https://az.gov/webapp/evoter/

What are you waiting for???