It's the fight that counts

Crossposted on Dailykos:

We've been told over and over again that the odds are against us - that there's no way to get 41 votes and block the Confirmation of Judge Alito to the Supreme Court.

But I think that those on Dkos and elsewhere among the Netroots movement have come to realize that it's not about the ends, it's about the means. It's about whether we truly have the power to spur our Representatives to Fight the Good Fight.

We've been joined by Senator Kerry and by Senator Kennedy in the last few days. The momentum is on our side, the tide is behind us -- it's time to put your backs into it lads.

This is a critical moment in American History. The founding fathers clearly envisioned this day when they created the Senate.

Madison in Federalist #51

It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil:

Ultimately the method developed in government to protect against the tyranny of majority factions was the creation o f the Super-majority and tools such as the Filibuster. It must be remembered that these tools exist precisely to protect the rights of the minority, of the disenfranchised and the disaffected from the will of a powerful majority faction.

More from Madison.

Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradnally induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful.

Judge Alito clearly represents the power of the (financial) majority against those of the minority, and threatens to tip the balance distinctly away from individual rights for the next several decades.

Whether he can or can't be defeated, Democrats, Liberterians and Consciencious Republicans who care about civil Liberties alike, must take a stand or we will all likely suffer the long-term consequencss of this nomination.

It is also quite ironic the Judges such as Alito call themselves "Federalists" and join groups such as the "James Madison Society" - when it appears they know little of either subject.

Alito has character issues, which have come out in his relationship to CAP and to Vanguard. Either he truly supported the repressive goals of CAP, or doesn't and he commited fraud by listing his membership with that organization on his DOJ job application.

Either he is incredibly absent-minded, or he commited perjury when he claimed during his first judicial confirmation that he would recuse himself from cases in which he held a personal financial interest.

He refused to answer questions about Roe arguing that there are upcoming cases related to Roe currently before the court, yet he did comment on Reapportionment - despite the fact that there are several Redistricting Cases which will also soon be before the court. (Including the Texas Case involving Indicted Former House Majority leader Tom DeLay) Ultimately, with a lifetime appointment, just about any case might come before the court. We have to refurm the confirmation process so that the nominee has to answer questions. Answer that not neccesarily show how they plan to rule of future cases, but that make their method of thinking known, rather than play hide and seek with the Senate.

Besides his integrity, there is also his judgement to consider.

Alito on Federal Power and Responsibility from from the ACLU:

While in the Solicitor General's office, in a brief before the Supreme Court in Mitchell v. Forsyth, Alito advocated that the Attorney General, who had authorized illegal wiretaps of Americans, was entitled to absolute immunity for any personal liability.9

In addition to the extremely broad view of executive authority taken in his earlier writings, Alito has also taken a narrow view on congressional power in his judicial opinions. For example, in United States v. Rybar, Alito argued in dissent that Congress had exceeded its power under the Commerce Clause by making it a federal crime to possess a submachine gun, despite the federal government's long history of regulating firearms.

In another example of ruling to limit congressional authority, Alito wrote the majority opinion in Chittister v. Department of Community & Economic Development. In that case, Alito held that a provision of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) entitling employees to leave when they or family members are seriously ill could not be applied against the states. Doing so, he wrote, exceeded Congress' authority under the Fourteenth Amendment.

There is every indication from Alito's record that his confirmation to the Supreme Court would tip the Court away from a balancing of powers toward undue deference to presidential and executive power. The basic civics lesson here is that there are three co-equal branches of government hat should provide checks and balances to the others.
This concept is being fundamentally rejected by this Administration, the same Administration that now has nominated a jurist to the Supreme Court who not only agrees with its philosophy, but also has been instrumental in developing this approach.

Alito on Individual and Civil Rights:

There is often considerable room to interpret Supreme Court decisions and congressional statutes, and Alito has regularly used that room as an opportunity to narrow and restrict civil rights and civil liberties protections. For example, Alito:

• Wrote a dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey arguing that a state's spousal notification requirement did not unduly burden a woman's right to privacy, a position later rejected by the Supreme Court;
  
• Joined a dissent arguing that a student-led prayer at a high school graduation ceremony did not violate the Establishment Clause;
  
• Wrote several dissents arguing for higher standards for plaintiffs seeking trial on their race, gender and disability discrimination claims;
  
• Dissented from a decision ruling that the strip search of a suspect's wife and ten-year-old daughter exceeded the scope of the search warrant and was therefore unconstitutional;
  
• Rejected a death row inmate's ineffective assistance of counsel claim where the trial counsel had failed to uncover substantial mitigating evidence - a decision later reversed by the Supreme Court;
  
• Dissented from an en banc ruling in a death penalty case arguing that the prosecution had unconstitutionally used its peremptory challenges to exclude all the black prospective jurors;
  
• Wrote a dissent arguing that a policy prohibiting all prisoners in long-term segregation from possessing newspapers, magazines or photographs unless they were religious or legal did not violate the First Amendment.
  

The wrap-up:

It is, of course, impossible to summarize a fifteen-year judicial career in a few bullet points or with a few cases. But it is also fair to say that these highlighted decisions illustrate a broader pattern of judicial decision-making privileging governmental power over individual rights. What is critically important to remember is that while Alito may state that he would be guided by stare decisis - the principle of following prior case law - as a Supreme Court Justice, unlike a court of appeals judge, Alito would create precedent according to his own interpretations, not be bound by it. [Ed. The very definition of an "Activist Judge"]

Recent revelations about presidential authorization of domestic spying, in defiance of the law, make it clear that the Senate cannot, and must not, approve a nominee who has little regard for the constitutional system of checks and balances. The Supreme Court is the final guardian of our liberties, and Alito has all too often taken a hostile position toward our fundamental civil liberties and civil rights.

The end (goal) of government is to protect the weakest of among us - not to pile on and crush those who stumble and fall as would a Judge like Alito. It is now high noon - time for those who may be in the numerical minority to stand up and fight the good fight against overwhelming odds. Win or lose - the battle must be waged.

Vyan

The Bush Legacy in Pictures

From dbnk on Dkos : The Bush Presidency in Images.

A Broken Army
A Drowned City
A National Disgrace
Ending Saddam's Torture and Rape Rooms
We Listen to You, America
Extraordinary Rendition
Cheap Oil
Jobs, Jobs, Jobs
Global Warming? What Global Warming?
Defending the Constitution & Bill of Rights
Honor and Integrity Restored
Crony Capitalism
Crony Appointees
"Take Charge" Leadership
The Stunt Pilot
2,237 Homecomings (and counting)

Bush Admin debunking itself

And the Corporate Media ignores it - From Media Matters:

On January 26, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and Knight Ridder reported that a 2002 Department of Justice (DOJ) statement, in which the department explained its refusal to support a bill proposed by Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH) to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) appears to undermine several of the Bush administration's key arguments for bypassing FISA to conduct warrantless domestic surveillance.

According to the Post's report, DOJ now seeks to defend its refusal to support the DeWine bill by drawing a distinction between that legislation, which it claims would have lowered the standard for conducting surveillance, and the National Security Agency's (NSA) warrantless surveillance, which DOJ claims complies with the stricter standard. But while the Post report cited one remark by Gen. Michael V. Hayden that contradicted DOJ's distinction, though without explicitly noting that contradiction, other media have yet to report that this latest defense of the administration's domestic spy program contradicts recent statements by Hayden, White House spokesman Scott McClellan, and President Bush himself -- each of whom has defended the program in the last week.

Hayden remark contradicts DOJ suggestion that "probable cause" and "reasonable basis" are "essentially the same"

According to the Post, DOJ spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos explained the administration did not support DeWine's bill because it would have lowered the standard for obtaining warrants to "reasonable suspicion." By contrast, Scolinos said, the operative standard for NSA surveillance is "reasonable basis," which she said was "essentially the same" standard as FISA's requirement for "probable cause."

Scolinos's assertion directly contradicts a statement made by Hayden earlier in the week. In a January 23 press conference, Hayden, the former head of the NSA who was the first official put forth by the administration to defend the program, acknowledged that the "reasonable basis" standard employed by the NSA is "a bit softer than it is for a FISA warrant." Hayden then directly acknowledged that the warrantless domestic surveillance had adopted a "lower standard" than required under FISA in response to a question from a reporter. The reports by the Post and the Los Angeles Times noted Hayden's "a bit softer" remark, but the Times did not report the DOJ defense.

Bush, McClellan comments blur distinction between "reasonable basis" and "reasonable suspicion"

Moreover, any distinction between the "reasonable basis" standard of the Bush administration's domestic spy program and the "reasonable suspicion" standard of the DeWine amendment was already blurred by Bush and McClellan, who each adopted a near-identical formulation to the "reasonable suspicion" standard while describing the administration's warrantless surveillance program. In a January 23 speech, Bush said: "What I'm talking about is the intercept of certain communications emanating between somebody inside the United States and outside the United States; and one of the [phone] numbers would be reasonably suspected to be an Al Qaeda link or affiliate" [emphasis added]. In a press briefing the next day, McClellan similarly said that the program "is focused only on communications in which one person is reasonably suspected of links to al Qaeda or affiliated terrorist organizations" [emphasis added].

Will the media report the administration's latest contradictions in defending program's legality?

Now that they have reported on the 2002 DOJ statement, will the Post, the Los Angeles Times, and Knight Ridder -- as well as other media who have not yet reported on the topic -- explore the veracity of the administration's response?

Vyan

Kerry calls for Filibuster of Alito

by georgia10 on Dkos.

Senator Kerry has officially called for a filibuster of Samuel Alito the Supreme Court. CNN reports the Senator will be making a statement shortly.

Three Democrats (Nelson, Johnson and Byrd) will vote for Alito. Senators Landrieu and Salazar have stated their opposition to a filibuster, and Senator Feinstein, if you'll recall, was also hesitant.

41 votes are needed to sustain a filibuster. CNN's congressional correspondent reports Kerry is calling on party and internet activists to support the filibuster. "I can't do this alone," he's telling them.

Update [2006-1-26 16:33:51 by georgia10]:: CNN story is up. Apparently, Senator Kennedy is joining Kerry in calling for a filibuster. The White House says it has the necessary votes to invoke cloture.

Personally I'm glad and proud that Kerry's done this. It may or may not work (block the confirmation), but it's important that someone steps up to the plate and tries. It's important that someone does the right thing to protect all of our individual rights - yes, there's a woman's right to control and determine what happens to her own body, but also there's the issue of Overeraching Executive Power, and Accountability for Corporate Malfeasance, Discrimination and so many other issues.

Bill Frist has already said "Alito is the Liberal's worst Nightmare" - well, I say it's time to share the pain and give the Republicans a matching set of night-sweats.

Vyan

C&L: 4th Amendment and Wrong

Olberman (via Crooks and Liars) hits another one out of the park. Gen. Hayden: "4th Amendment and wrong" Keith Olbermann posted this video clip of Gen. Hayden botching the fourth amendment- which Keith says: OLBERMANN: To quote the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States in its entirety, the one the general and the NSA folks are so familiar with and know is about reasonableness and not about probable cause, quote, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Well, maybe they have a different Constitution over there at the NSA. Video-WMP Video-QT (hat tip Arnie) This also helped to open the door for Glenn Greenwald to expose them on FISA. Glenn: "In other words, DeWine's bill, had it become law, would have eliminated the "probable cause" barrier (at least for non-U.S. persons) which the Administration is now pointing to as the reason why it had to circumvent FISA...read on"

Why I love David Gregory (MSNBC)

Crossposted on Dailykos

In yesterday's White House press gaggle, David Gregory (MSNBC) just stepped up and Cleaned-Scotty's-Clock and it was a wonderful thing to witness - and it should be remembered, therefore I am presenting it here as well as my own appropriately snarky commentary and background info.

First the Party-line From The White House

MR. McCLELLAN: We've already talked about the FISA court. That is a very important tool, as well, and we make very good use of the FISA tool. But FISA was created in a different time period for longer-term monitoring. This program is for a shorter period of time aimed at detection and prevention. And so that's what it's focus is.

And I think we have to step back and remember that -- and I think the Attorney General talked about this in his remarks yesterday -- there is a longtime tradition in war of engaging in surveillance of the enemy.

Overseas? Yes. Domestically, well yes too if you include COINTELPRO, but I wouldn't recommend using that as your example, Scotty.

That's what this is. We are a nation at war, and there is an enemy that is deadly and determined to strike us again and inflict even greater damage. And we saw the problem highlighted in the 9/11 Commission report when we learned too late about communications that were taking place from two hijackers that were in the United States talking to people outside the United States.

But the problem there wasn't that the couldn't pick up the communications - they did. The problem with some of the most daming communictions was that they didn't translate them soon enough. The 9/11 Commission Report also said this...

In May 2001, the drumbeat of reporting grew louder with reports to top officials that "Bin Ladin public profile may presage attack" and "Bin Ladin network's plans advancing." In early May, a walk-in to the FBI claimed there was a plan to launch attacks on London, Boston, and New York. Attorney General John Ashcroft was briefed by the CIA on May 15 regarding al Qaeda generally and the current threat reporting specifically. The next day brought a report that a phone call to a U.S. embassy had warned that Bin Ladin supporters were planning an attack in the United States using "high explosives." On May 17, based on the previous day's report, the first item on the CSG's agenda was "UBL: Operation Planned in U.S."9 The anonymous caller's tip could not be corroborated.

Why do you need to tap the phones of Americans without a warrant when you have people calling you direcly, and walking in the front door telling you "Osama Bin Ladin is going to attack" - and you don't listen?

Ok, Rant over....back to Scotty.

MCCLENNAN: That's the kind of problem this is designed to detect, and then be able to act and prevent attacks. It's about connecting the dots. That's what the 9/11 Commission said we need to do.

So the President not only had the authority to do what he's doing, but he has the responsibility to do what he is doing, because it's about saving lives. It's about preventing attacks. It's very limited in nature, and it's focused on international communications involving al Qaeda members or affiliated terrorist organizations from either communicating inside the United States to someone outside, or communicating from outside the United States to someone inside. And I think the American people expect us to do everything within our lawful power to protect them. And the President made it very clear that as long as he is President, he will continue acting to do everything he can within his powers and within the law to protect the American people.

But we work very closely with Congress. We have briefed members of Congress on this vital tool over the course of the law few years, and we'll continue to work closely with Congress.

So they've prevented attacks, eh? Which attacks? Who whom? Where? During his Presidency the Clinton Administration prevented attacks on LAX, the UN, the Holland Tunnel, the Lincoln Tunnel, CIA Headquarters and 11 simultaneuos airliner bombs over the pacific. Just what you done for us lately Scotty?

This is where David steps up to the plate.

DAVID GREGORY Q I think that -- I mean, the way I read this question, he's asking, will you ask the FISA court for approval of this program -- not specific instances, but will you ask the FISA court if this is -- if this program, the overall program, is sanctioned under the law. And that's the -- MR. McCLELLAN: Well, if the FISA court wants to talk any more about any communications that they have had with administration officials, that's up to them. It is a highly classified court, for good reasons.

Q They won't talk about it.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that's why I leave it up to them. If there's anything more they want to say, then I would leave it up to them.

So basically, the court can't talk about it for security reasons and the President, Attorney General and General Hayden are talking about it, but Scotty won't answer questions about whether they've considered amending the law? Huh?

Q Can I just follow on this point, because let's be clear about a couple of things. First of all, the President argues, asserts, that he has the power to unilaterally authorize this wiretapping, okay? It's not -- he doesn't have the monopoly on the truth of how --

MR. McCLELLAN: The courts have upheld it and previous administrations have asserted it, as well.

Q Well, that was different, and that is, again -- this is your position --

MR. McCLELLAN: Same authority. Same authority, David.

Q -- that's in dispute.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, that's not -- hang on -- that's not in dispute. And look at the Associate Attorney General under the Clinton administration. The courts have upheld this authority in the past. Look at the federal courts. The President talked about it and we provided it in a document. So that's wrong.

Q No, I don't think that's wrong, and we can go into that, but I don't -- our time is not best spent doing that.

No, Scotty it's not the same authority and it's not wrong.. McClellan it would appear is referring to the congressional testimony made in 1993 by Clinton Admin official Jamie Gorelick during the Aldrige Ames case where his home was physically searched without a warrant. At that time, the FISA Law didn't cover physical searches - but was amended to do so in 1995. The Clinton Administration assertion that they had an inherent right to warrantless physical searches of foreign intelligence did not violate FISA. Bush's warrantless electronic surveillance does.

MR. McCLELLAN: That the courts haven't upheld it.

No, the courts have not upheld this authority in the past. The "document" that Scotty is referring too is certainly the 40-page DOJ defense of the extra-FISA program. That document notes the Hamdi case where the court found that an American Citizen could be held as an "Enemy Combatant". It said nothing about surveillance, and further the court insisted on judicial review of the case prior to the designation being assigned to that prisoner. Transfering the rules in Hamdi to the NSA situation would clearly indicate that judicial review and a warrant are still required before subjecting American citizens to the same treatment as foreign terrorist targets.

One of the other cases mentioned by the DOJ, Youngstown v Sawyer involved President Truman taking control of the nations steel mills in order to prevent a strikes in the midst of the Korean War. The court held that the President did not have that power under Article II of the Constitution and his "Command in Chief" duties. The DOJ, bizarrely, argues the reverse. I'm a layman, not a lawyer and I could figure this out, as apparently has David Gregory, what's Scotty's excuse?

Q My question is, instead of spending time trying to fine-tune the rhetoric over what you want to call this program for political purposes, why not seek to amend FISA so that it can better suit your purposes, which is another thing the previous administration did when it wasn't considered to be agile enough? So why not, if you want the program to be more responsive, to be more agile, why not seek to amend FISA?

Seems a perfectly reasonable question to me. If you need this authority, why not ask for it? What was the Patriot Act all about anyway?

MR. McCLELLAN: Let's look at a practical example. Do you expect our commanders, in a time of war, to go to a court while they're trying to surveil the enemy? I don't think so. This is a time of war. This is about wartime surveillance of the enemy. That's what this is about. And we don't ask our commanders to go to the court and ask for approval while they're trying to gain intelligence on the enemy. So I think that's a real practical term to look at it in when you're talking about this issue, because that's what this is about.

Well, gee - do you expect that the "enemy" just might sometimes include the American people? If yes, and you assert that we are now doing law enforcement via the Military you have a problem with the Posse Comitatus Act now don't you? (NSA is a part of DOD btw)

"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

The PCA generally prohibits U.S. military personnel from direct participation in law enforcement activities. Some of those law enforcement activities would include interdicting vehicles, vessels, and aircraft; conducting surveillance, searches, pursuit and seizures; or making arrests on behalf of civilian law enforcement authorities. Prohibiting direct military involvement in law enforcement is in keeping with long-standing U.S. law and policy limiting the military's role in domestic affairs.

And if the Military is not doing law enforcement, then basically - we are under Martial Law. But then that's exactly what these guys are really thinking isn't it - with their Signing Statements and all. It doesn't matter what the law is if the President simply chooses to ignore the law and make up a quasi-Constitutional Justification that is in direct contradiction to "previous administrations and the courts".

Q There's no way to amend --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, no, let me back up, because I talked about this the last couple days. I mean, it's a very good question and an important question. FISA is an important tool. We use it. General Hayden talked about that. When we were briefing members of Congress over the course of the last few years -

No, you briefed the "Gang of Eight" and they had no advisory capacity nor could they share the information with anyone else, including their own staff due to security. The Congressional Research Service has noted that failing to notify all of Congress (not just the Gang of Eight) may have broken the law.

MCCLENNAN - I think it was more recently, over, maybe, the last couple years -- I think the Attorney General talked about it -- we talked with congressional leaders, bipartisan congressional leaders, about this very issue: Should we go and get legislation that would reflect the authority the President already has?

Why not? Particularly since FISA is currently the sole and exclusive controlling legal authorization for Foreign (International) Surveilance under Under 18 USC § 2511?

MCCLENNAN - cllAnd those leaders felt that it could compromise our national security interest and this program if we were to go and get legislation passed. Because we don't want to let the enemy know about our play book, and the more you talk about this program, the more potential it has to harm our national security interest. That's why we don't get into talking about the operational aspects about it.

Oh, so you think Al-Qaeda is out there reading the Congressional Record, becoming versed in U.S. Federal Law and would like stop calling the U.S. if they knew you might be listening in? Yeah, right. Logic dictates that they've long ago adapted to the possibility of NSA phone taps on "international" calls and are using code-words and phrases to mask what's really going on. Why stop doing that when calling the U.S.?

Btw, the FISA court is already Secret - so why are you expecting al-Qaeda to get your "play book" and know who we're tapping, when and where? Roving Wiretaps were approved under the Clinton Administration in 1995 weren't they?

MCCLENNAN: But it is important for the American people to understand exactly what this program is and how limited it is and what its purpose is. There's been some misrepresentations. Now, with that said, as I pointed out, we work very closely with Congress. We'll continue to work closely with Congress as we move forward. But the President has the authority and the responsibility to do what he's doing and he's going to keep doing it.

You'll work closely with Congress,eh? Well it seems they don't have the security clearance to even listen to a whistleblower like Russell Tice, and they won't even share information about Katrina which isn't classified in any way shape or form. Tell us another one, Scotty...


Vyan

Domestic or International Spying - you decide?

Countdown, Keith Olberman's excellent segment last night in response to Scotty McClennan desperate dance to gloss over the fact that people are being spied upon domestically by the NSA.

Video-WMP Video-QT

Courtesy of Crooks and Liars.com

Time to Start Playing Offense

By the time of, or at least soon after the State of the Union, Democrats -- not just the party, but we the rank and file - need to realize it's time to stop playing Defense and start playing Offense.

Simply complaining endlessly about the failings and foibles of the Bush Administration isn't enough (Although it's fun and theraputic). We also, vitally, need to point out how and why our path and philosophy is better. Some of this is obvious - Curruption and Lies:Bad, Honesty:Good - but on some issues we still need some work (Taxation, Governments Role in our lives, Being comfortable in our own faith, Support nearly for unlimited Abortion).

Well past the point where we made everyone understand who we really and where we stand rather than let Bully O'Reilly's repeatedly define us as the Far-Left Secular-Progressives who with to put porn in your homss 24/7, take God out of your lives, and homosexualize your teenagers.

We'll never get Bush's true poll numbers down to just those who actually believe in the policies he implements - as opposed to the policies he exposes - to finally show up as the 12-15% of hard-core bat-crazed wing-nuts that they are.

We have to realize that what we have staring us in the face - is a completely golden oppurtunity to completely repudiate the policies and practicies of the neo-conservative movement and set them back for decades, if not completely run them out of politics.

I know that seems like a tall order, but bear with me. The truth is the neo-cons who currently control the Republican party are hell-bent on self-destruction. They're like deeply addicted power-junkies who don't know when or how to restrain themselves. Just look at Jack Abramoff's behavior - openly scorning his own clients with epithets and insults in email, after email. Everyday we hear about another scandal, another hotbed of curruption and incompetence.

• The Bush Administration failed to head the numerous warnings, and crunch the intelligence to prevent 9-11.
• Osama Bin Laden got away at Tora Bora.
• Koran Desecration, Humiliation, Stress positions and Waterboarding at Guantanemo Bay. One prisoner, al-Libi, claims under duress that Iraq still has Nuclear aims - he's Wrong.
• We go to War with Iraq, but all the WMD and Nuclear intelligence, our justification for going to war, is all Wrong.
• We didn't have enough troops to secure the nation allowing a deadly Iraqi insurgency to grow and spread, we still don't properly equip them with proper armor or helmets - if they try to equip themselves they get threatened, and we've cut their benefits while locking them into perpetual service with "Stop-loss" policies. All the Pentagon's expectations and plans are just plain Wrong.
• Vice-Presidential Chief of Staff "Scooter" Libby Indicted, Rove implicated in Plame Affair.
• Abu Graib gets Gitmo-ized, and photos of prisons in humiliating poses and stress positions begin to appear. Repubs claim it was just "frat styled hazing" on the night shift - they're Wrong.
• Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay Indicted for Money Laundering.
• $8.8 Billion just plain disappears in Iraq under the Coalition Provisional Authority.
• 2000 U.S. Soldiers dead since "Mission Accomplished", 50,000 wounded. Another estimated 100,000 Iraqi casualties, President Bush only admits to 30,000.
  
• Secret Detention Centers and the Extraordinary Rendition program.
• Terry Schiavo gets her own personal Congressional Legislation and a Grandstanding Red-Eye flight by the President to sign it. Republican Heart surgeon and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist gives her a video diagnosis, "She seems responsive to light". She dies anyway as per her wishes, and the autopsy shows that she was blind.
• The levees break in New Orleans - Bush remains on vacation and in avoidance of Cindy Sheehan.
• Republican Congressman "Duke" Cunningham pleads guilty to bribery.
• Republican Lobbyists Mike Scanlon and Jack Abramoff plead guilty to bribery of Congressmen. Tom Delay and Bob Ney implicated. Repubs and Corporate Media try to implicate Dems also, but they're Wrong.
• The NSA has been spying on American's without a warrant for over four years and causing the FBI to be flooded with makeshift busy-work instead of focusing on legitimate threats. Bush Admin claims they could've stopped 9-11 if they'd already been doing this, except that they were and they are still Wrong.
  

And just in the last couple days you also have.

• Halliburton allowed our troops to drink contaminated water in Iraq, meanwhile $Millions of rebuilding funds were lost and squandered,
• The White House was specifically informed that the levees could fail before Katrina hit, and did nothing.

Just look around, these guys are crashing and burning all on their own steam. Democrats have had almost nothing to do with any of it. Yes, a few voted for the Iraq War - but that was based on intelligence that the Bush Administation gave them, and it was Wrong. The blame belongs where on the people who provided the information, not those who were duped by it.

Yet, there are those who simply refuse to believe all the above. They live in a world of pseudo-reality, swamped by denial and self-deception. They know and suspect the truth, but can't bring themselves to admit it -like a junkie who can't put down the Fundie/Wingnut crack-pipe. They get bogged down in semantics - "How can you say Bush lied", and we get bogged down with them - arguing irrelevancies.

Truth is, it doesn't matter whether Bush lied or not - he was Wrong, and that's the point. We can't afford a President who makes this many bone-head mistakes and is wrong this often, deliberate or not. If he lied, well then he simply knew he was wrong, so he's a bastard - but if he didn't, he was just plain ignorant now wasn't he? Just which is really worse? I vote being a bastard is better than being a deluded dumb-ass, but maybe that's just me.

Bush personally shouldn't be the target anyway IMO, he's a lame duck President. The target needs to be the Bush Administration as a non-functioning organization, Cheney, Rove and all of Bush's political appointees like Brownie need to be the target - and of course their lackeys in Congress.

What people need to know, is just what Dems will do about all this?

Can we Dems seriously give them - particularly those who continue to support the President and Republican Party against their own best interests - a sense that we won't make the kinds of gross (deliberate?) mistakes that the Bush administration has made? Sadly, probably not.

But that doesn't mean we can't get there. People, we have some work to do. It's not enough just to let the Repubs implode if people fail to recognize that all the above is a direct result of the Republican Philosophy of Government - which is a Government that Doesn't Work. Their main campaign arguement since Ronald Reagan has been that "Government can't solve your problems, Government is the problem", and they've worked long and hard to make sure that axiom is true. Right now, with Repubs in charge - They are the problem.

We need to hang that sound bite around their neck like a scarlet letter. Their government doesn't work - but Dems in power have and will make Government limited, but effective.

We have to stop running away from Monica, and learn to crow about the great things we've already accomplished. A Democratic President Balanced the U.S. Budget, reduced the size of government by 15% while preventing drastic unneccesary cuts in Medicaid and Medicare. A Democratic President and Administration, brought peace to Northern Ireland, ended the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo saving the lives of Millions from Ethnic Cleansing, and at the same time prevented al-Qaeda Jihadist from starting an anti-American insurgency in the region. (Now that, was a noble cause^tm). A Democratic Administration prevented the Millenium Bomb Plot, the attempted bombing of LAX, the Lincoln Tunnel and the Holland Tunnel. A Democratic Administration caught Aldridge Ames, caught Eric Robert Rudolph and executed Timothy McVeigh.

We have to make it clear that the Democratic vision is one that isn't for unneccesary government intrusion into our personal lives or the operation of our businesses without due and probable cause. We have to learn some consistency on this - it shouldn't matter if it's guns or pornagraphy. People have an equal freedom to own either, as long as they show the personally responsibility [yes, that's right - Steal those soundbytes and turn them around] not to let either fall into the wrong hands or be used irresponsibly. It should be about what you do and how it impacts those around you - not what you possess.

Our primary objective has to be election reform and accountability. We can't have a government "by and of the people" if we can't verify what the people actually voted for. At the moment this needs to be a state-level initiative, as various states have begun to test and challenge the security of Diebold and other automatically voting equipment. WIthout this, we have nothing.

Our secondary objective needs to be a revamping of our tax policy. Dems are also being accused of "taxing and spending", when the truth is that Republicans are Super-spending (with the debt approaching $8 Trillion) and tax-shifting the burden from us onto our children, and their children. A tax-cut doesn't really cut anything if all it does is explode the defecit, rather it simply forces those same taxes to be paid years later with interest.

Government isn't a surrogate Mommy or Daddy - but it can and should be a tool to help us get back up when we fall down as a result of medical problems, natural disasters or other tragedies. The axiom should be that government provides a platform where the strong can pool their resources and help those who need aid the most, simply because if they don't - no one else can without the neccesary resources.

Dems needs to allay the fears of Conservatives - No, not cynically shift to the right DLC style - but make it clear that they have a plan to address the deficit and welfare of America in new and innovative ways such as John Kerry campaign suggestion of a tax credit to businesses who provide for American jobs rather than overseas jobs.

I think this idea should be expanded and ceased upon.

Rather than simply rollback the Bush Tax cuts and thereby "raising taxes" (although the truth is that a full rollback would simply put the taxes back where they were when we were running surpluses) another idea would be to offer public service tax credits.

A Public service tax credit should be available anytime that an individual or corporation chooses to spend money to meet public service goals, for example television stations that provide for campaign ads to candidates free of charge (thereby removing the need to develop complex campaign finance laws and schemes to catch people who try to "game the system" like Abramoff and co.), or provide for books, materials and facilities donated to public schools, or add more employees to your health-care rolls. etc. The point being that the more that private citizens and companies do to take care of themselves and each other -- the less government has to spend doing it for them. Conservatives like to crow that people always know better than government. Well, sure sometimes they do - and sometimes they don't. Either way government taxes should NOT disable them from trying to do the best they can on their own before it the guvmint comes in afterward to pick of the left-over peices for all those who are -- to borrow a phrase - left behind. Public Service Tax Credits should be offered as an alternative to a straight repeal of the Bush Tax-Cuts.

Under this plan It's possible that the overall tax burden might go down even further than Bush's cuts if enough people and companies embrace the credit option, the end goal is on eliminating the need for government spending by having as many people as possible able to stand on their own without government assistance. This strategy would completely destroy the old "Tax and Spend Liberal" canard.

We also need to re-address not just tax issues, but moral ones. Issues of faith and values. A recent episode of West Wing contained a scene where the Ambassador stated the following to the American representative...

With "Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happiness". All the aspirations of your people are financial - not ethical.

And the chilling truth of that statement was palpable. We equate the "greatness" of America not with our character or values, but with or individual financial circumstances. The size of our SUV and the strength of our economy. Dems certainly need to take this bull by the horns.

It goes without saying that bribery, corruption and cronyism are wrong. But it also needs to be said that abortion is great moral issue as well, and that we Dems certainly do not celebrate in the destruction of human life. Rather, we must seek policy which supports personal ethics that make abortion unneccesary. We must support comprehensive sex education,since almost 90% of teens indoctrinated into abstinence-only programs break their vows and have unprotected sex within 18 months (since they are discouraged and withheld knowledge of effective contraception). Abstinence is a good choice - but so is Safe-sex. Our foster system care needs to be serious reformed. Adoption should be cheaper and far more open. We should encourage the formation of extended families for child care, as well as family support from the corporate world as well such as on-site day care. Our schools need deep and serious reform using innovation rather than rote test teaching..

Being "Pro-Choice" need to include all the choices, all of the positive things that people can say "Yes" too, rather than simply say "No" to an embryo.

There are just a couple examples of what we need to allow people to be able to comfortably say "Yes" to the Democratic party, rather than simply say "No" to Repubs. Those that only say "No" are likely to sit-out the 2006 mid-term or even the 2008 elections, and we need them - we need them on our side if we're going to save this country from itself.

We need them as part of the Reality-based community, not neccesarily as Democrats - True Conservatism can function within our reality, I firmly believe this is true, but they still need to be in the same reality as the rest of us to start with.

The Conservative movement has been hijacked by Neo-cons, who are just exploiting the "wackos" with anti-Liberal rhetoric. Just remember, A Balanced Budget Amendment was included in the GOP's Contract on America a decade ago. Where did those Conservatives go? Just think, if the Neo-cons can pull all this crap, fail at so much of it this badly and still not be held accountable, just what will stop them from going even further next time?

Vyan