Partisanship, Who Needs It?

Partisanship, Who Needs It?

Monday, August 13, 2007

Rove's Legecy



Andrew Sullivan is spot on:

"While he spins. The man's legacy is a conservative movement largely discredited and disunited, a president with lower consistent approval ratings than any in modern history, a generational shift to the Democrats, a resurgent al Qaeda, an endless catastrophe in Iraq, a long hard struggle in Afghanistan, a fiscal legacy that means bankrupting America within a decade, and the poisoning of American religion with politics and vice-versa. For this, he got two terms of power - which the GOP used mainly to enrich themselves, their clients and to expand government's reach and and drain on the productive sector. In the re-election, the president with a relatively strong economy, and a war in progress, managed to eke out 51 percent. Why? Because Rove preferred to divide the country and get his 51 percent, than unite it and get America's 60. In a time of grave danger and war, Rove picked party over country. Such a choice was and remains despicable.

Rove is one of the worst political strategists in recent times. He took a chance to realign the country and to unite it in a war - and threw it away in a binge of hate-filled niche campaigning, polarization and short-term expediency. His divisive politics and elevation of corrupt mediocrities to every branch of government has turned an entire generation off the conservative label. And rightly so. It will take another generation to recover from the toxins he has injected, with the president's eager approval, into the political culture and into the conservative soul."


This man was one of the Chief Architects/Archvillians of dividing our nation along partisan lines sacrificing the temendous spirit of unity following the 9-11 attacks for a politically partisan agenda. Seeing him depart is a relief and the day shuld be a national holiday.

Now if only we can remove the rest of these archvillians, David S. Addington, Alberto Gonzales, Dick Cheney.....

Thursday, August 9, 2007

An Unpatriotic Company


Johnson and Johnson has done the unimaginable, flied a lawsuit against the Red Cross.

Details here.

Excerpt:

Pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson, which uses a red cross as its trademark, filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the American Red Cross, demanding that the charity halt the use of the red cross symbol on products it sells to the public.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in New York, marked the breakdown of months of behind-the-scenes negotiations, and prompted an angry response from the Red Cross.

“For a multibillion dollar drug company to claim that the Red Cross violated a criminal statute ... simply so that J&J can make more money, is obscene,” said Mark Everson, the Red Cross president.



This is the organization that provides relief to Americans and folkes around the world in time of crisis and supports the efforts of our troops, and has provided care packages for our soldiers when captured by an enemy. For Johnson and Johnson to sue over the trademark is petty. I wont be buying any of their products until they issue a formal apology to the Red Cross and the American people. I call on anyone who reads this to do the same as your patriotic duty.

Until we see American soldiers getting a Johnson and Johnson care package in a war and Johnson and Johnson starts responding to natural disasters, I say to hell with their products.


Contact this unpatriotic company and let them know how you feel here.

http://www.jnj.com/contact_us/index.htm

Also I've begun contacting those that sale their products. Eckerd's, WalGreens, and CVS have been contacted so far, and I'll begin working on Grocery Store Chains as well.

UPDATE: More info about this can be found here.

Thursday, July 26, 2007

Greenwald lays into John Yoo





The Flip-Flopping partisanship of Yoo exposed here.

You get him Glenn.

Friday, June 29, 2007

The Last Real Reporter?


Gleen Greewald interviews with Helen Thomas

Excerpt:

HT: Two weeks after he became President in the first term, President Bush dropped into our press room, and held an impromptu news conference. He went down the front row, and I was sitting in the front row, and every reporter asked about his pending tax cuts.

But when he got to me, I said: "Mr. President, why don't you respect the wall between church and state?" And he said: "I do," and I said: "No, sir, you don't. Otherwise you would not establish, for the first time in history, a religious office in the White House." And he drew back, and I said: "you're secular." So we had this dialogue.

That afternoon, I got a call from Ari Fleisher, the White House Press Secretary, saying: "What's the idea of blindsiding the President"?


I like a reporter who will blindside the President, whether I agree with a President or not, they should be accountable for all their policies at all times, not just what they want to be held accountable for and when.

Thursday, June 28, 2007

A Conservative wants to Impeach Cheney


From Slate we have this story.

Excerpt:

Under Dick Cheney, the office of the vice president has been transformed from a tiny acorn into an unprecedented giant oak. In grasping and exercising presidential powers, Cheney has dulled political accountability and concocted theories for evading the law and Constitution that would have embarrassed King George III. The most recent invention we know of is the vice president's insistence that an executive order governing the handling of classified information in the executive branch does not reach his office because he also serves as president of the Senate. In other words, the vice president is a unique legislative-executive creature standing above and beyond the Constitution. The House judiciary committee should commence an impeachment inquiry. As Alexander Hamilton advised in the Federalist Papers, an impeachable offense is a political crime against the nation. Cheney's multiple crimes against the Constitution clearly qualify.


Personally an impeachment trail is not the one I really want to see Cheney brought to, I prefer a criminal one. But maybe its best if this doesn't happen while Bush still has the power to grant pardons.

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

The VP, his attorney and Presidential Power


This article from the Washington Post, is the best summation I've seen about these issues and the Executive branch process, figured I'd share. I thought even those here who don't share my views of these acts might want to read about the processes and workings of the Executive branch.

Thursday, May 24, 2007

I Agree Mr. President But.....



I agree with the President that it has been drug out for political reasons, but.... that has alot to do with DOJ footdragging and a lack of cooperation by the Whitehouse in providing documentation and witnesses to testify under oath. If the Whitehouse and DOJ had been more forthcoming and cooperative this affair may have already been concluded. Yet for political reasons this cooperation and disclosure has been denied. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.