** As a majority of Americans increasingly turn against the Iraq war, hawks in both parties still refuse to change their warped pro-war tune. Over the weekend both John McCain and Joe Biden once again called for more troops on the ground. Where the additional forces will come from, the hawks can't reliably say. But without hesitation they continue to dismiss reasonable calls for withdrawal. "The day that I can land at the airport in Baghdad and ride in an unarmed car down the highway to the green zone is the day that I'll start considering withdrawals from Iraq," McCain told Fox News. The longer the US stays, the less likely it is that that day will come.

** Don Young, chairman of the House Transportation Committee, wants to become chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. So he gave $1.8 billion in special projects to 19 members of the House Steering Committee, which decides the chairmanship next month. As part of the $286 billion transportation bill Congress passed recently--the most expensive public works legislation ever--Young doled out $499 million in pork projects to Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, and $867 million to three influential congressmen from Southern California. (Rank-and-file members received $12.8 million on average.) But Young saved the best for himself, allocating $1 billion for his home state of Alaska, a fourth of which will go toward a massive bridge connecting a town of 8,000 with an island of 50. Another $230 million will build a bridge in Anchorage, aptly titled "Don Young's Way."

** Amid the orgy of swine-barrel politics, lobbyists on K Street continue to drown in record profits. Number one lobbying firm Patton Boggs saw a $2 million increase in revenue over the past six months, while all-Republican firms flourished across the board. Barbour, Griffith & Rogers, started by Mississippi's Republican Governor Haley Barbour, grew by 21 percent, with $9 million in revenues. "More companies are recognizing a political and government risk to doing business," says Federalist Group lobbyist Drew Maloney, a former legislative director for Tom DeLay. Only Greenberg Traurig, the recent home of indicted uber-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, saw a drop in business.

** Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham made the mistake of selling his California home for $700,000 more than it was worth to Mitchell Wade of defense contractor MZM, and then steering contracts to MZM from his perch on the Defense Appropriations Committee. Facing a federal grand jury probe, Duke decided against running for re-election. Now he's using campaign donations, including those from MZM, to pay for his legal defense. Seems the campaign and the legal fund are now one and the same for embattled Republicans--just ask DeLay.

** Big telecom companies Verizon, Time Warner and Cablevision are overcharging consumers in New York by $480 million, thanks to hidden taxes, dominant monopolies and outdated technology, says New York City public advocate candidate Andrew Rasiej. But what's happening in New York is part of a much larger trend: Verizon, Time Warner and Cablevision spent $20 million on federal campaign contributions over the last six years, and $70 million on lobbying. Companies pushing for Wi-Fi access have been outspent by the telecom dinosaurs 27-1. "So the next time Verizon asks, 'Can you hear me now,'" Rasiej says, "you can tell them, 'Yes, and I want you to stop gouging me now!'"

Comments (49)

1. "Young doled out $499 million in pork projects to Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert"

   What do "pork projects" have to do with transportation?

   This whole $1 billion to build a bridge connecting 8,000 to a town of 50 must have a long-term plan of drilling oil over in the town with 50.

   No surprise on the New York monopoly by Time Warner, Verizon, etc. Trouble is, no legislators are going to stop it because of payoffs.

   Posted by ChiroDoc at 08/19/2005 @ 3:53pm

2. Ari, you are making me depressed! This is why I am an on-again, off-again subscriber to The Nation - it is too depressing to keep up with how ugly our political system has become. I have to take frequent breaks.

   Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/19/2005 @ 3:55pm

3. And yet the myth still pervades from conservatives that Democrats are the wasteful government spenders.

   Posted by Hman23 at 08/19/2005 @ 4:11pm

4. Yeah, 'ol Don Young is one of those many hypocrtitical Alaskans who are always griping that they hate government, yet, golly gee, he sure doesn't have a problem getting his hands on a billion dollars of federal-government money for this pet project. And, I agree, this bridge probably has something to do with Arctic drilling in the future. Speaking of which, another thing these I-hate-government Alaskans don't have a problem with: collecting $1500 a year for every family member from the Alaskan Permanent Fund -- which is funded by oil that's pumped on federal-government land in Alaska -- when filing their taxes every year. This is why so many of them are practically salivating over Arctic drilling: their take from the Fund will be, what, ten to twenty times what they're getting now? Maybe more.

   But I forgot -- they hate government. (rolls eyes)

   Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/19/2005 @ 4:19pm

5. Pondering the national government is enough to make one want to move to someplace warm and coastal and take a job leading tourist dives while working on your windsurfing habit. You won't stop corruption, wars, greed, extortion, blood feuds, plutocracy, or corporate welfare, but you'll get a nice tan, keep yourself in shape, and have a calm outlook on the world.

   (Until some jerky boy imperialist orders his army to invade your island because you and the locals are having too much fun and besides, American sugar companies want cheap access to your cane fields with no requirements that they create any local wealth.)

   Posted by Zero at 08/19/2005 @ 4:46pm

6. im actually from anchorage, and this bridge is supposed to cross the knik arm which would probably make the trip from wasilla to anchorage much quicker. the thing is this bridge is going to be built over a water body that gets very very large tides, with a substrate that is not condusive to building. i highly doubt it will ever happen, but you never know. all i can say is i would never drive over it.

   Posted by simonak at 08/19/2005 @ 4:58pm

7. CHIRODOC writes, "What do "pork projects" have to do with transportation?"

   Buuuhhhwwwaaaahhhaaahhhaaahhhaaahhhaaa! You ARE joking, right?

   Posted by AnonymousDog at 08/19/2005 @ 5:14pm

8. dont ya just love the spectical of "american style democracy"?

   Posted by FreeDumb at 08/19/2005 @ 5:21pm

9. Sorry to offend, Freedumb,

   Usually I take a more long-winded, intellectual approach, but I figured I didn't really have to link pork to transportation projects (for most people, it's just understood, isnt' it?).

   Posted by AnonymousDog at 08/19/2005 @ 6:06pm

10. What is funny that the socialist wackos actually oppose things that are unanimously passed in the Senate, by both parties.

    The Patriot Act : Passed 98-1. That doesn't sound controversial.

    The Iraq War : Passed 77-23 (with yes votes from Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, etc.) Go figure.

    The Tax Cut of 1997 : Passed 92-8. This, like all tax cuts, created an economic boom. Clinton was wise to cut taxes on capital gains (which are skewed to the rich).

    Condi Rice Confirmation : Passed 85-13. Too bad for the racist leftists who do not believe a black woman should have to option of being a Republican.

    The low-intelligence lefties actually think all of the above issues are 'controversial'. In reality, they are not. The vast majority of the Senate passed them easily. That also reflects that 80% of the US population still has common sense, and the 20% or so that are low-intelligence leftists are baffled as to how their 'wisdom' has been summarily rejected by the sane majority.

    It is actually funny to see leftists continue to be frustrated. heh heh

    Posted by kmg4 at 08/19/2005 @ 6:48pm

11. Here is a question for leftists :

    Why is it that more and more Republicans now support abortion?

    Is it a triumph of 'reproductive freedom'? No Is it a triumph for those who hate Christianity? No? Is it because abortion has greatly reduced the number of new liberals born into the world? BINGO!!

    Read this article from the WSJ : http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005277

    Leftists have caused the abortion of million of new leftists who would otherwise have been born. The left would have so many more voters if not for abortion! Lefitsts want more and more rights to kill late-term babies, yet at the same time are frustrated that fewer and fewer people vote for their leftist causes. The leftist obsession in aborting more and more babies is an irony totally lost on them.. tee hee..

    Well, if leftists understood numbers, they would be smart enough not to be leftists. Ha ha.

    Hence, I am a Republican that supports abortion rights.

    Posted by kmg4 at 08/19/2005 @ 6:56pm

12. KMG4,

    What is funny that the socialist wackos actually oppose things that are unanimously passed in the Senate, by both parties.

    "Unanimously", huh?

    The Patriot Act : Passed 98-1. That doesn't sound controversial.

    The Iraq War : Passed 77-23 (with yes votes from Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, etc.) Go figure.

    The Tax Cut of 1997 : Passed 92-8. This, like all tax cuts, created an economic boom. Clinton was wise to cut taxes on capital gains (which are skewed to the rich).

    Condi Rice Confirmation : Passed 85-13. Too bad for the racist leftists who do not believe a black woman should have to option of being a Republican.

    (Hmmmmm, racist? I'd say opposing affirmative action at universities yet favoring universities giving children of an alumnus extra points smacks of the big R-word to me.)

    The low-intelligence lefties

    I'm confused: I believe it's your rightie self who apparently doesn't know what the word "unanimously" means.

    The vast majority of the Senate passed them easily.

    You're definitely a rightie in your flip-flopping from "unanimously" to "vast majority". You'd go great in flip-flopping Bush's administration, that's for sure!

    That also reflects that 80% of the US population still has common sense

    Like the 70% of Americans who thought Hussein had a hand in 9/11 even after the evidence stated otherwise? I'd aver: the higher the percentage, the lower the common sense these days.

    and the 20% or so that are low-intelligence leftists are baffled as to how their 'wisdom' has been summarily rejected by the sane majority.

    Yet I'm a leftie who said before the war that Hussein didn't have WMD and that Bush was sending this country into war under false pretenses, and, golly gee, looks like my low-IQ self was right, wasn't I? (Let me guess: You went and scrambled for duct tape nanoseconds after Bush & Co. told you to.)

    It is actually funny to see leftists continue to be frustrated.

    It's actually sad to see toe-the-line/head-in-the-sand Bushies continue to ignore that George "You Disarm Or We Will" Bush lied this country into an illegal, unnecessary war that's maiming and killing the soldiers you only purport to support.

    Why is it that more and more Republicans now support abortion?

    Is it a triumph of 'reproductive freedom'?

    Can't be. That and Republicanism is an oxymoron.

    Is it a triumph for those who hate Christianity?

    http://globalresearch.ca/articles/NAT304A.html

    Is it because abortion has greatly reduced the number of new liberals born into the world? BINGO!!

    Why the reduced number of babaies and children in Iraq? it is because Bush's politically- and monetarily-motivated war has killed thousands of them. BINGO!!

    The left would have so many more voters if not for abortion!

    Looks, then, that we're not willing to sell out a woman's right to choose to appease hypocrites who if their white daughter were raped and impregnated by a non-white man would be shoving after-morning pills down her throat or getting her an abortion quicker than you can say Roe vs. Wade.

    Lefitsts want more and more rights to kill late-term babies

    And hard-right Bushies want more and more illegal wars to kill babies and children in foreign countries.

    The leftist obsession in aborting more and more babies is an irony totally lost on them

    The rightie obsession with hypocritically opposing abortion yet opposing taxpayer-funded social programs to care for the baby once born is totally lost on them.

    Well, if leftists understood numbers, they would be smart enough not to be leftists.

    And if Bushies like yourself actually had consciences, they wouldn't let deficit-contrinuting tax cuts and bigoted policy agendas make an illegal war A-OK.

    Hence, I am a Republican that supports abortion rights.

    I can tell.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/19/2005 @ 7:22pm

13. You didn't deny any of my points, instead changing the subject in an all-out retreat from the topic at hand - evidence of rout. I don't care about your other opinions, as you are in the small minority and I am in the vast majority. Who cares what you think?

    Anyway, to summarize:

    The majority of common-sense issues passed by overwhelming margins in the Senate, including the votes of most Democrat Senators, like Clinton, Kerry, Feinsten, Kennedy, klansman Byrd, etc.

    The Patriot Act : Passed 98-1. That doesn't sound controversial.

    The Iraq War : Passed 77-23 (with yes votes from Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, etc.) Go figure.

    The Tax Cut of 1997 : Passed 92-8. This, like all tax cuts, created an economic boom. Clinton was wise to cut taxes on capital gains (which are skewed to the rich).

    Condi Rice Confirmation : Passed 85-13. Too bad for the racist leftists who do not believe a black woman should have to option of being a Republican. Leftist racism is becoming more palpable.

    ____________________________

    You are also devastated to learn taht abortion is the reason there is a shrinking number of left-wing woters. The leftists have aborted most of their babies, hence preventing new leftists from entering the world.

    Read this article from the WSJ : http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005277

    This is a classic cas of an obsolete, uncompetitive species being sent to extinction by nature. Darwinian evolution does work, after all.

    Posted by kmg4 at 08/19/2005 @ 7:36pm

14. You didn't deny any of my points, instead changing the subject in an all-out retreat from the topic at hand - evidence of a rout. I don't care about your other opinions, as you are in the small minority and I am in the vast majority. Why would the majority have any interest in your totally disproven lies?

    Anyway, to summarize:

    The majority of common-sense issues passed by overwhelming margins in the Senate, including the votes of most Democrat Senators, like Clinton, Kerry, Feinsten, Kennedy, klansman Byrd, etc.

    The Patriot Act : Passed 98-1. That doesn't sound controversial.

    The Iraq War : Passed 77-23 (with yes votes from Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, etc.) Go figure.

    The Tax Cut of 1997 : Passed 92-8. This, like all tax cuts, created an economic boom. Clinton was wise to cut taxes on capital gains (which are skewed to the rich).

    Condi Rice Confirmation : Passed 85-13. Too bad for the racist leftists who do not believe a black woman should have to option of being a Republican. Leftist racism is becoming more palpable.

    ____________________________

    You are also devastated to learn that abortion is the reason there is a shrinking number of left-wing woters. The leftists have aborted most of their babies, hence preventing new leftists from entering the world.

    Read this article from the WSJ : http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005277

    This is a classic case of an obsolete, uncompetitive species being sent to extinction by nature. Darwinian evolution does work, after all. tee hee...

    Posted by kmg4 at 08/19/2005 @ 7:42pm

15. KMG4, I would encourage you, in the case of the Patriot Act, to educate yourself on the circumstances of its passage. It was cobbled together by Ashcroft and others at Justice and then delivered to the leadership of the Senate not long before the vote on the legislation was to take place. The rank and file got it about 1 hour before voting, if memory serves me, but I may be off an hour or two on that. Therefore most senators had to vote on it without even reading it.

    No one wanted to look "weak on terrorism", so naturally all but one of them voted for it. Without knowing what was in it. It was a case of political survival, NOT lack of controversy.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/19/2005 @ 7:50pm

16. KMG4, In response to your second post, of 7:42. Wrong again, dude. Sorry to break the news to you.

    This is a classic case of an obsolete, uncompetitive species being sent to extinction by nature. Darwinian evolution does work, after all. tee hee...

    Uh, no, it is a classic case of the historical fact that the political leanings of the majority of people in this nation SWING BACK AND FORTH like a pendulum, albeit slowly. If you manage to live a few more decades, you will see. I am patient - I don't mind waiting. My day will come...

    He who laughs last, laughs loudest.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/19/2005 @ 7:53pm

17. ILOVEPHYSICS,

    So it appears you take whatever Michael Moore says at face value. This is unsurprising.

    But do you truly belive that all 98 Senators were so thoroughly duped in one shot?

    Also, why did they vote recently, in 2005, to renew almost all of the provisions of the Patriot Act?

    Plus, I notice you didn't address the tax cut, Iraq War Resolution, or Rice confirmation - all passed with 77-92 votes in favor. The next big vote - the Roberts confirmation - will also pass with 90+ Senators, including Democrats, voting for him.

    Are so many Democratic Senators always misled, as a group, each time?

    Or is it possible that even they actually think the above decisions make sense? Even Democrat Senators like Kerry, CLinton, etc. are voting in a pattern that is the opposite of what fringe leftists want.

    Posted by kmg4 at 08/19/2005 @ 7:55pm

18. ILOVEPHYSICS said :'Uh, no, it is a classic case of the historical fact that the political leanings of the majority of people in this nation SWING BACK AND FORTH like a pendulum, albeit slowly. If you manage to live a few more decades, you will see. I am patient - I don't mind waiting. My day will come... '

    It may swing back and forth, but it NEVER swings to the fringes, where readers of 'The Nation' are at. No Democrat has gotten 50% of the vote since 1964, and before that, JFK was someone who actually cut taxes and engaged in pre-emptive military action, sorta like Bush.....

    Clinton cut taxes, reformed welfare, and launched pre-emptive wars without UN approval too. He even approves of the Iraq war to this day. Doesn't sound like a hard-core leftist to me..

    No socialist leftists who wants the rich to may 75% taxes, who wants to kill babies after birth, and who wants to make it easier for Al-Qaeda to conduct terrorism, will ever be elected.

    Posted by kmg4 at 08/19/2005 @ 8:00pm

19. You didn't deny any of my points

    What points? That liberals support abortion? Well, uh yeah, we do.

    instead changing the subject

    More like showing you the hypocritical flip-side of righties: opposing abortion to protect the fetus yet railing against social programs that protect the baby; and knowing that if a righie who was a racist had a white daughter raped and impregnated by a non-white that they'd be getting her an abortion.

    in an all-out retreat from the topic at hand - evidence of a rout.

    Nah; weakness is evident when one has to copy and paste what they just wrote above.

    I don't care about your other opinions

    Translation: I can't counter any of these valid points with validity, so I'll just ignore them (just like you are Bush's lies about Iraq).

    as you are in the small minority and I am in the vast majority.

    Bush got 52% of the vote. You call that "vast"? I hope your kids aren't home-schooled.

    Why would the majority have any interest in your totally disproven lies?

    Please list these "discredited lies", if you'll be so kind. Or does backing up what you write a malady?

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/19/2005 @ 8:07pm

20. Clinton cut taxes, reformed welfare, and launched pre-emptive wars without UN approval too.

    Yeah, so it makes you wonder why Repubs despises him even when he was doing this.

    He even approves of the Iraq war to this day. Doesn't sound like a hard-core leftist to me

    Well, duh.

    No socialist leftists who wants the rich to may 75% taxes

    Please show me where a leftist on this site supported 75%.

    who wants to kill babies after birth

    Uh, how does backing social programs equate into killing babies after birth. I'd say cutting the programs will do just that -- and, hey, that's your side's goal, isn't it?

    and who wants to make it easier for Al-Qaeda to conduct terrorism

    Hmmm, so proposing and backing the Homeland Security Department (which Bush flip-flopped on by opposing then supporting) and supporting attacking Afghanistan is making it "easier" for al Qaeda to operate. On the other hand, attacking a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and is now a breeding ground for terrorists strikes me as a heck of a good thing for al Qaeda -- but that was a rightie's doing, not a leftie's.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/19/2005 @ 8:14pm

21. Apparently, Kevin Collins cannot answer questions directed tohim. Typical of humiliated leftists.

    Answer the following questions :

    1) Why did the Pat. Act, the Rice confimation, Iraq War, and Tax Cuts all pass with 77-98 'yes' votes? Do you admit or deny that most Democratic Senators do NOT side with fringe lefties like you? If you disagree, explain why they voted against what you, their 'base', wants?

    2) Do you agree that abortion has reduced the number of new leftists born in America?

    3) You yourself said Bush got 52% of the vote. That is a MAJORITY. Do you claim this is not a majority? I thought you leftist crybabies were the ones who cried ad nauseum that Gore got more popular votes than Bush in 2000, after your attempts to steal the Florida election failed.

    Be a man and answer these simple questions.

    Posted by kmg4 at 08/19/2005 @ 8:16pm

22. So it appears you take whatever Michael Moore says at face value. This is unsurprising.

    ILP never wrote such a thing yet a rightie spews something his little boy king's side has trained him like a dog to spew. This is unsurprising.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/19/2005 @ 8:16pm

23. Apparently, Kevin Collins cannot answer questions directed tohim.

    Go back to the top and read your own post, genius. These weren't questions. You see, a question ends with a "?". Too much info for ya.

    Typical of humiliated leftists.

    Humiliated? In your dreams. I moved to Missoula, Montana, and when someone I was talking to learned I was from Texas they asked me if I was a Republican, and I cringed.

    1) Why did the Pat. Act, the Rice confimation, Iraq War, and Tax Cuts all pass with 77-98 'yes' votes?

    Because too many of these Democrats are a bunch of gutless pussies who are too afraid to adequately oppose "war president" Bush.

    Do you admit or deny that most Democratic Senators do NOT side with fringe lefties like you?

    Hmmmm, I supported welfare reform, bombing Afghanistan, the Homeland Security Department....so how does this make me a "fringe lefty"? If you want to address one, call Dennis Kucinich. And you forgot to mention that many of the senators who voted for the Patriot Act are now opposed to provisions in it, thus furthering my point that they were gutless when they voted for it and their votes were not reflective of their true colors.

    Do you agree that abortion has reduced the number of new leftists born in America?

    Of course. Just like it's reduced the number of new righties, as well. After all, Republicans get abortions, too. Also, just because a fetus is aborted from a Democrat doesn't mean that when she gave birth to a baby doesn't mean the baby would have grown up to be a Democrat.

    You yourself said Bush got 52% of the vote. That is a MAJORITY. Do you claim this is not a majority?

    (sighs)

    This is why I love debating hard-righties like yourself; you leave yourself so open to attack. Go back and read your above post. You wrote "vast majority" not "majority". I clearly attacked your using "vast". (rolls eyes)

    I thought you leftist crybabies

    "Mommy, he started it, he started it." is the intellectual discourse to set with your crybaby rhetoric.

    were the ones who cried ad nauseum that Gore got more popular votes than Bush in 2000

    We didn't say "vast" majority.

    after your attempts to steal the Florida election failed.

    Hmmm, I'd say "stolen" is more appropriately attached to the Bush being that the judges made clear that the Bush vs. Gore case was never to be used as a precedent -- which is, well, unprecedented.

    Be a man and answer these simple questions.

    Be a non-head-in-the-sand-Bushie and counter my counterings to your above points that you've ignored with a bright yellow streak in your wake.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/19/2005 @ 8:43pm

24. Now KMG4

    You have some points.

    But it isn't very effective, as far as I can see, to try and badger people. Especially Kevin Collins, and ILOVEPHYSICS, who are quite able to hold their ome in that sort of altercation.

    It is hard to play "King of the Hill" and win, in this sort of forum.

    Posted by jonb at 08/19/2005 @ 9:31pm

25. I hate to agree with Ari, but he is right, to some extent.

    He picks and chooses, though, to make it sound worse. So while the towns on either side may be small, it may shorten the drive for a lot of people. So there may be some use for the bridge.

    (I know of a bridge in Northern Minnesota that joins a town of 900 to a town of 150. But to get across otherwise, you would need to drive more than 150 miles.)

    This I don't like. Tell the whole story. I agree there is pork. Lots of it.

    The problem is, really, the voters.

    People want a congressman who brings home the bacon. Have you ever heard of someone voting against appropriations for his home district? (1 guy, the senator from Ill. who Obama replaced.)

    Quick way to become a one term wonder.

    People are the problem. They are funamentally selfish, greedy, and wicked. And the one thing they are really good at is seeing that about other people.

    Posted by jonb at 08/19/2005 @ 9:33pm

26. KMG4, I answered the point about the Patriot Act because that is what I was interested in writing about at the time. Sorry I don't have unlimited free time to discuss every pointless thing you bring up.

    As for where I got my information about that, well, it wasn't from Michael Moore. It was from a US Senator who voted for the Patriot Act. I heard him give an account of what transpired during a radio interview. Is that a credible source for you?

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/19/2005 @ 9:44pm

27. KMG4, It may swing back and forth, but it NEVER swings to the fringes, where readers of 'The Nation' are at.

    Do you mean readers like Mario Cuomo, formerly elected governor of one of the most populated states in the union?

    Do you have any idea what the tax rates were before JFK cut them? Do you know what they were after his cuts took effect? Do you have any clue as to why the rates were where they were when he cut them? Thought not...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/19/2005 @ 9:50pm

28. After you cut through KMG4's b.s. Michael Moore, socialist, baby killing, and abortion statistcal nonsense, he does raise something we should think about. Why is it that so many Democrats voted for those measures? Shit, there wasn't more than one Democratic senator who had the guts to stand up to the Patriot Act at the time? I think he raises a valid argument for the current failure of the Democratic Party. I do not think they were duped. I think they have been struggling to appease everyone instead of standing for what the party should be about. Kerry could not even take a stong stand against the war, other than to claim he would somehow run things better. Clinton and Biden are actually suggesting we should send more troops! I will likely vote for most any Democrat over a Republican, because I know what I am getting with a Republican and I am not taking that route. However, I cannot help but feel disappointed with some of the positions Democrats are taking - e.g. CAFTA vote. "You can't always get what you want," but jeez!

    The leaders of the Democratic party seem so scared by the conervative media and so desparate for power that they are willing to concede core values of their base. Sure there are a few out there fighting the cause like Rep. Conyers, but by and large I think special interests and corporate lobbying has infected the Democratic Party almost as much as the GOP. We need to define a separate party and not be Republican-lite. We need a coherent voice to distinguish the Democrats from the Republicans. Sure its easy to beat up Bush for the terrible job he has done, but what answers are we getting from the top Democrats? Frankly, I hear better ideas on this board. I am hopeful that Democrats running in 2006 will show they way and be emboldened by the public shift and have the guts to stand for something different than what we are getting.

    Maybe I am just having a down week, so someone shine some optimism my way.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/19/2005 @ 11:30pm

29. "Until some jerky boy imperialist orders his army to invade your island because you and the locals are having too much fun and besides, American sugar companies want cheap access to your cane fields with no requirements that they create any local wealth.)"

    Geez Zero, you can't even enjoy your own fantasy!

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/20/2005 @ 12:28am

30. Hman,

    "I think they have been struggling to appease everyone instead of standing for what the party should be about."

    No, I think they are more concerned with the ugly "P" word (power) and strive to be the national party in power again.

    To effectively do this, they realize the must move towards the center to get more mainstream American votes and those wishy washy Republicans who like the democratic platform for everything that has to do with money i.e. wage reform, health insurance, unions but vote republican only due to the social issues of abortion and marriage.

    The Dem's are rolling the dice that they can get enough votes to win nationally in '08 by distancing themselves somewhat from the Michael Moores, and the Al Frankens, as they rightfully have realized that those type of far left leaning people are not close enough to the main stream to make main streamers feel comfortable enough casting votes.

    It's all about getting back on top for the Dem's and becoming a national power again, I think in the months to come you will see them abandon more and more issues central to the true progressive movement.

    I certainly could be wrong, I mean hell I'm a dum konservative, but from what I can see, the writing is on the wall about the moves the Dem's are making.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/20/2005 @ 12:36am

31. To KMG4

    The Patriot Act : Passed 98-1. That doesn't sound controversial. Most Senators didn't read the act and those that did had no time to consider the implications.

    The Iraq War : Passed 77-23 (with yes votes from Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, etc.) Go figure. I would have voted for it as well if I'd believed the reasons given.

    The Tax Cut of 1997 : Passed 92-8. This, like all tax cuts, created an economic boom. Clinton was wise to cut taxes on capital gains (which are skewed to the rich). I doubt that any part of the boom was the result of the cuts as would most economists, in fact it is one of the few tax cuts that can't show a clear link. Most ordinary people I spoke to believed that they would be the benificiaries either directly or through creation of jobs and neither happened that can be indisputably the result of cuts.

    Condi Rice Confirmation : Passed 85-13. Too bad for the racist leftists who do not believe a black woman should have to option of being a Republican. Why is the race card thrown in just because the person who's policies you hate also coincidentally happens to be coloured? Here in my country most see Condi as more of Bush and many Americans I assume are seeing that as well.

    Another reason for the landslide vote is that you are assuming that the Democrats and Republicans are opposition parties politically when they are clearly not. America has no left of centre party. You have a right of centre (Dems) and a far right (Reps)who apart from some members views share many ideals.

    Posted by Aus at 08/20/2005 @ 04:16am

32. >Until some jerky boy imperialist orders his army to invade your island because you and the >locals are having too much fun and besides, American sugar companies want cheap access >to your cane fields with no requirements that they create any local wealth.)"

    >Geez Zero, you can't even enjoy your own fantasy!

    Actually, Todd, he's most likely referring to the 1898 conquest of Hawaii by US Marines. And his description of events is perfectly accurate, although the conquest was precipitated when the Dole Pineapple Company complained to the president that those pesky Hawaiians wanted to raise the rent on their plantations.

    Posted by Bob A at 08/20/2005 @ 04:49am

33. Several posts here and elsewhere point out that Bush won the election with 51+% of the votes cast. While the point is true, note that Bush and Kerry together garnered about 102 million votes - out of a population eligible to vote of over 210 million. The overwhelming majority of the citizenry chose to not participate, and that's been true for the past several elections.

    My position on US elections is that they're rigged: You have a choice between a Republicrook and a Democrook, the bottom line is that whichever one wins you're going to get a crook.

    Posted by Bob A at 08/20/2005 @ 04:58am

34. Bob,

    "Actually, Todd, he's most likely referring to the 1898 conquest of Hawaii by US Marines. And his description of events is perfectly accurate, although the conquest was precipitated when the Dole Pineapple Company complained to the president that those pesky Hawaiians wanted to raise the rent on their plantations."

    Ah, my apologies then, remember I'm the dum konservative. I thought he was using fiction to illustrate his point. I vaguely remember the events you are talking about from history 101.

    Interestingly since we are discussing Hawaii is the new Hawiian Federal Recognition Bill: http://www.nativehawaiians.com/fedrecindex.html

    We can't change the wrongs that we did in the past, but we can do right in the 21st century.

    Todd

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/20/2005 @ 10:10am

35. Bob,

    "My position on US elections is that they're rigged: You have a choice between a Republicrook and a Democrook, the bottom line is that whichever one wins you're going to get a crook."

    I couldn't agree with you more. As a conservative who "votes the Bible", I vote for the candidate that most closely has cast votes in the past similar to the way I would vote on issues such as abortion, definition of marriage, national defense (he's done well here as far as pro-actively dealing with terrorism, but has made many mistakes in the overall operation of the war and has no exit strategy) lower taxes, smaller government, decreasing the deficit (Bush has failed miserably here), incentives for small businesses (He's done an ok job here).

    Your point is very accurate though, in that I don't particularly like Bush, he is simply the much lessor of an evil when compared to Kerry in my book. As progressives would like to have a 3rd party that is "really" looking out for issues that are important to progressives, i.e. the patriot act, so do many conservatives, particularly conservative Christians who want a 3rd party that really will stand up for issues important to us, abortion, definition of marriage etc, and still be strong on national defense, small business etc..

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/20/2005 @ 10:20am

36. Kevin Collins, re: "Yeah 'ol Don Young..."

    There's no doubt that Alaskan politicians are the kings (and now queen) of pork. However, a few corrections are in order.

    1. The bridge from the town of 8,000 (Ketchikan) to one of 50 (a small enclave on Gravina Island just across Tongass Narrows from Ketchikan) is in extreme southeast AK and has nothing to do with oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in the northeast corner of the state. It may have to do with additional timber harvest on the Tongass National Forest, and, interestingly, it would provide access to a chunk of land owned by Senator Lisa Murkowski. It is also worth noting the Ketchikan's airport, because of local topography, is also located on Gravina Island and that residents currently take a ferry across the Narrows to get to the airport.

    2. True, any Alaskan resident who wishes to do so may collect a check from the permanent fund; however, this fund's primary source is oil development on State, not Federal, lands on the Arctic Coastal Plain. Some may argue that this is "blood money" from the oil industry, but others could argue that Alaskan legislators had the foresight to do what few in the lower 48 managed: to ensure that at least some of the wealth from the states oil resources benefitted the state's residents. Although to date most oil development has been on State lands, most of the rest of the North Slope, the coastal plain as well as the nearshore waters of the Beaufort Sea, has recently been opened to oil leasing, including much of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A). In fact, the coastal plain under federal ownership in the Arctic Refuge represents a little over 3% of the coastal plain on the Slope. Nearly all of the rest of the exploration and development

    Posted by jimz at 08/20/2005 @ 12:12pm

37. Ooops, posting error - continued: Kevin Collins, re: "Yeah 'ol Don Young..."

    There's no doubt that Alaskan politicians are the kings (and now queen) of pork. However, a few corrections are in order.

    1. The bridge from the town of 8,000 (Ketchikan) to one of 50 (a small enclave on Gravina Island just across Tongass Narrows from Ketchikan) is in extreme southeast AK and has nothing to do with oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in the northeast corner of the state. It may have to do with additional timber harvest on the Tongass National Forest, and, interestingly, it would provide access to a chunk of land owned by Senator Lisa Murkowski. It is also worth noting the Ketchikan's airport, because of local topography, is also located on Gravina Island and that residents currently take a ferry across the Narrows to get to the airport.

    2. True, any Alaskan resident who wishes to do so may collect a check from the permanent fund; however, this fund's primary source is oil development on State, not Federal, lands on the Arctic Coastal Plain. Some may argue that this is "blood money" from the oil industry, but others could argue that Alaskan legislators had the foresight to do what few in the lower 48 managed: to ensure that at least some of the wealth from the states oil resources benefitted the state's residents. Although to date most oil development has been on State lands, most of the rest of the North Slope, the coastal plain as well as the nearshore waters of the Beaufort Sea, has recently been opened to oil leasing, exploration and development,including much of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A). In fact, the coastal plain under federal ownership in the Arctic Refuge represents a little over 3% of the coastal plain on the Slope. Nearly all of the remaining 97% are now or will soon be available for oil activities. However, this does not mean all Alaskans are "salivating" over development of the Refuge. In fact, some contribute their permanent fund check to environmental advocacy groups who are trying to fight the hard, uphill battle to protect some of the North Slope while providing for reasonable development in some areas.

    3. Yes, there are many Alaskans who belong to the "get the dang gubmint off my back, except to subsidize my way of life or buy my house, which I foolishly built in a river floodplain", but not all of us are among this crowd.

    -jim

    Posted by jimz at 08/20/2005 @ 12:17pm

38. P.S. It is very unlikely that ALsakan permanent fund dividends would increase by "ten to twenty times" what it is now. The fund is managed like a mutual fund and is tied more to stock performance than to the price or amount of oil that comes off the North Slope.

    Posted by jimz at 08/20/2005 @ 12:27pm

39. Please correct. Congressman Randy (Duke) Cunningham didn't sell his DC home, he sold his California home to the the defense contractor Mitchel Wade. He also stayed on Wade's yacht, while paying him minimal rent, while in DC.

    Posted by gawking dogs at 08/20/2005 @ 12:33pm

40. JimZ,

    Thanks for the corrections. And I tried to make clear in my first post that I wasn't ragging on all Alaskans:

    "Yeah, 'ol Don Young is one of those many hypocrtitical Alaskans who are always griping that they hate government..."

    Sorry if I gave another impression.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/20/2005 @ 1:37pm

41. Bob and Todd....re: Hawai'i it wasn't so much "just" Dole (although he did position himself as "President" in the process) as it was the the "big 5" -- all businessmen with vested interest in the islands (sugar, pineapple, etc) That "plantation / rent thing" is a load of crap. It was an overthrow of the legitimate monarchy and Dole "crowned himself." The US then entered into an illegal treaty with him, and later annexed the island. (my wife is full Hawaiian and I lived there for 10+ years...a rather sad bit of history)

    http://www.hawaiiankingdom.org/us-occupation.shtml

    However, Bill Clinton did offically "apologize" in 1993

    http://www.hawaii-nation.org/publawsum.html

    Posted by leftofcenter at 08/20/2005 @ 10:28pm

42. The Iraq War : Passed 77-23 (with yes votes from Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, etc.) Go figure. Posted by KMG4 08/19/2005 @ 6:48pm

    Correction: They voted to give G Dub the power to go to war... Big difference.

    Posted by Er'c Funk at 08/20/2005 @ 11:36pm

43. I think that it is extremely humorous that many of the liberals on this site think that the transportation bill was aweful while conservatives crow about it. Hey everyone, WAKE UP, the transportation bill is socialist to its very core. I can't that the Republicans passed a bill that spends this much on infrastructure not directly related to the military (I know, Eishenhower's interstate system and such, but Republicans don't trumpet that anymore). My second thought about this bill is: can you really call it pork if every congressional precint benefits from it? I'd say no. I know that some benefit more then others, but seriously this is part of the infrastructure bill that the left has been calling for forever.

    Posted by MeanGreen at 08/21/2005 @ 02:10am

44. Oksportsguy, I really enjoy your posts. I find your open and honest perspectives refreshing. However, I must challenge that you "vote the bible." I have no problem with you voting based on religion (yours and the candidates); however, I don't believe that anything you listed as important issues is actually directly addressed in the bible. I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this and why you think the issues you listed are those important to people who "vote the bible."

    Posted by MeanGreen at 08/21/2005 @ 02:16am

45. Meangreen

    Thank you for the compliment on my posts, I have appreciated reading yours as well.

    The term and campaign to "vote the bible" is a grass roots efforts to get Christians, specifically Evangelical and Born Again Christians out from the inside of their big comfy mega churches and get active politically. The reasons for this are simple, particularly for the Republicans:

    According to Church statistician and Church membership Guru George Barna: www.barna.org

    Born agains are more likely than are non-Christians to be registered to vote (84% to 76%, respectively). (2001)

    Among born again adults, 33% said they were Democrats, 40% Republicans, and 14% Independents. (2001)

    71% of Republicans, 51% of Democrats, and 49% of Independents attend a Protestant church. (2001)

    14% of Republicans are evangelicals, compared to just 6% of Independents and 5% of Democrats. (2001)

    And.. the biggie....

    59% of evangelicals and 41% of born agains maintain that when it comes to political issues they are mostly conservative, compared to just 22% of non-Christians. (2001)

    Additionally:

    Republicans are more likely than any other political group to be married: 61% of Republicans are married, compared to 56% of Independents and 46% of Democrats. (2001) (hence supporting of traditional marriage, one man and one woman)

    as apposed to Democrats:

    Democrats are more likely than any other political group to be single: 55% of Democrats are single, compared to 44% of Independents, and 39% of Republicans. (2001)

    So a multi-organizational campaign was started to help push Christians to the polls.

    Most Christians (certainly not all), based on the statistic above that says 59% of Evangelicals and 41% of Born agains are conservative, interpret voting the bible means standing up for the conservation of innocent life (being against abortion).

    Most conservative Christians believe that marriage is Holy under God's eyes as long as the marriage is a union of one man and one woman in "Holy matrimony". And being that 11 states had started grass roots efforts to put amendment ballot initiatives on the ballot in November to amend their state constitutions to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman:

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/02/ballot.samesex.marriage/

    Being that Bush stated that he would support an amendment to the U.S. constitution to define marriage:

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.prez.bush.marriage/

    This was a definite plus for Bush and a reason to specifically target Christians for votes.

    I must say, I personally feel let down here, because after he won re-election he has conveniently put this issue on the back burner.

    I could pull up all of the scripture from the bible that backs up Christian belief in these things but I'm sure your educated and know what they are, additionally, I have gotten quit a bit of flack posting scripture on The Nation in the past.

    If you really want me too, let me know when you respond back and I will.

    Anyway there's a quick look at what the "vote the Bible" campaign was, the reasoning behind it, and I don't think you need to be briefed on it's effectiveness. Bush won, and this campaign was certainly a positive factor in him winning.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/21/2005 @ 09:56am

46. Meangreen,

    I reread your post and apparently you are asking for scripture to back up Christian beliefs, here they are:

    Commandment number (6) "Thou shalt not murder"

    Abortion is my mind, and most Christians results in the murdering of a baby.

    On the issue of same sex marriage

    1 Corinthians 6:9 "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders"

    and

    Leviticus 18:22 "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/21/2005 @ 10:06am

47. Tonight at 8pm on CNN, watch 'DEAD WRONG'. Colin Powell's prewar presentation on WMD's in Iraq to the UN. Mandatory viewing for all Republicans.

    Posted by frankgrits at 08/21/2005 @ 5:47pm

48. Oksportsguy, So, the term "vote the Bible" (one I am entirely unfamiliar with) refers to selecting candidates based on their stances on gay marriage and abortion, correct? It does not refer to the other issues that you listed above, correct? I was asking for you to point out the biblical evidence to me that abortion and gay marriage are prohibited by the bible. Just for the sake of discussion (I promise I'm not trying to change your mind, just understand you perspective and share mine) I will post my thoughts on biblical support for these prohibitions. As for the sixth commandment, which I was always taught was "thou shalt not kill," this becomes a tricky issue depending on the definition of life. This issue is much more complex then it first appears For many thousands of years it was assumed that the soul does not enter the body until it is born and therefore religious leaders and medical practitioners did not consider a fetus to be alive. That view is fairly unsophisticated in light of modern technology (ultra-sounds, etc.); however, in my opinion life does not begin until it is able to live (i.e. is viable). This brings me to my position of being opposed to aborting viable fetuses, but otherwise supporting the right to choose. As for gay marriage, the bible does not specifically prohibit this. The verse in Corinthians (using your translation) bans homosexual offenders, as in sexual offenders, i.e. homosexual rapists. The verse in Leviticus is located in the middle of a number of prohibitions that are cultural in context to the ancient Hebrew nation (e.g. kosher laws) and are not deemed applicable to practicing Christians, so why should this one be singled out. In conclusion, there are no biblical references to abortion and a half-dozen or so to homosexuality, yet that is the focus of "voting the bible?" This is very confusing to me. Perhaps we could start a new movement to "vote the bible" based on what the bible actually emphasises love, respect, honor, compassion, etc. What do you think?

    Posted by MeanGreen at 08/22/2005 @ 5:38pm

49. I don't mean to get too much off topic here but the following makes clearer Meangreens post. He covered the first commandment well. Here's the rest.

    "Leviticus 18:22 "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

    The Bibles original word To'ebah is usually translated as abomination or detestable but the literal translation is "foreign ritual practice" . Jewish clerics always did, and still do today, read this in it's literal sense so therfore observance although prefered is optional. Paul's epistles are often used to back the prohibition of Leviticus but Paul never actually uses the word that means homosexual. Paul instead uses several words which translate as specific crimes that homosexuals can commit which today are still crimes even in countries where homosexuality itself is legal..

    The same word is used in the Bible to describe women wearing mens clothes (jeans?) and also for getting your hair cut. Why is one use of the word considered binding while the others I mentioned totally ignored? Probably because some people in the past used their own personal bias to misinterpret God's intent. This is why there should always be a separation of church and state.

    Posted by Aus at 08/23/2005 @ 07:35am