The American people are way ahead of the
politicians on Iraq

The American people know that Bush's war in Iraq is a disaster. The punditry may fall for the Bush spin, but it's not working on most people. What Harry Reid said this week is what a lot of people are thinking. Congress is finally catching up with the American people on Iraq, Bush never will:

A fight between the U.S. Congress and President George W. Bush over the Iraq war is set to come to a head this week when Democrats are expected to send him $100 billion to pay for continuing combat while setting timetables for withdrawing troops.

Bush has promised to veto any bill setting dates for removing U.S. combat soldiers from the Iraq war, now in its fifth year.

But when a Democratic-controlled panel of Senate and House of Representatives members meets on Monday to iron out differences between their respective bills, the product is expected to contain 2008 withdrawal dates.

Many lawmakers have been speculating those dates might be nonbinding, as sketched out by a Senate-passed bill.

"The longer we continue down the president's path, the further we will be from responsibly ending this war," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who on Thursday said the war in Iraq was "lost."

On CNN this morning, Bill Schneider showed us this stat from their latest poll. The American people have had it:

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Americablog/~3/111046736/american-people-are-way-a
head-of.html

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Anger and Disgust at White Male Leadership Fuels
Contributions, Polling of Clinton, Obama

Cross-posted at the Francis L. Holland blog, in the Afrosphere.

Anger and disgust against white male leadership in America is fueling campaign contributions and poll numbers for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. In the first quarter of 2007, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama together raised 51 Million dollars for the presidential campaigns ? more than three times as much as their nearest white male competitor. Meanwhile, polls consistent show that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama combined are favored by two-thirds of the Democratic electorate while all of the white men ? Edwards, Biden and Gore ? have the support of only one third of the Democratic electorate.



Considering the traditional advantages that white men have had in presidential races (at one time, only they were eligible to vote and run for office), now political observers are at a loss for traditional explanations for the dominance of the not-white-male candidates. Why Has John Edwards Raised So Much Less Money Than Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama?



A theory is gaining support among Democrats, supported by polling numbers and campaign contribution tallies, that Americans are simply sick and tired of the leadership that white men have offered. The infant mortality rate is worse in America than in Cuba, and forty nations in the world have less infant mortality than does the United States.



The United States still does not have a program of national health care while every other industrialized nations and many ?Third World Countries? not only offer national health care but, consequently, many other countries? citizens are living longer and living better.



Under white male leadership, the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world AND still leads the world in gun deaths from murders, suicides and accidents.

The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths -- murders, suicides and accidents -- among the world's 36 richest nations, a government study found. The U.S. rate for gun deaths in 1994 was 14.24 per 100,000 people. Japan had the lowest rate, at .05 per 100,000. GunCite.Com

Americans overall are increasingly unwilling to accept that the Constitution?s Second Amendment, drafted two centuries ago exclusively by white men, should now condemn all of us to live in a perpetual gun-saturated shooting gallery.

In fact the ever-present absurdity of the Second Amendment in the context of today?s America, written by white men who pointedly rejected the wisdom of women and Blacks, casts doubt daily upon the wisdom of the traditional white male dominance of American political life.

In one poll of Americans, ?Sixty-one percent said they favored tighter restrictions while 37 percent opposed more stringent regulations.? WaPost. But with white male leadership in control of the National Rifle Association, the US Congress and the presidency, the killing continues and the government does nothing about it.

The fight over gun control reflects a battle of the sexes. American women say stricter weapon laws would curb violence while men want better enforcement of existing laws, an Associated Press poll finds.
The poll notes some erosion of overall support for tougher gun laws since the days immediately following the deadly school shootings last April in Colorado, but still offers plenty of ammunition to both sides of the debate in a divided Congress.



The telephone survey by ICR of Media, Pa., found 56 percent of American adults favored stricter gun laws and 39 percent opposed. Sixty-six percent of women favored the tougher laws, compared with 45 percent of men. Thirty percent of women and 49 percent of men were opposed.
"Women have the mother instinct and don't want guns around," said James Rowe, a 73-year-old semi-retired contractor and gun enthusiast from San Diego. ICRSURVEY

The white male minority who have run America thus far still disproportionately oppose gun control, leading campaigns against the very laws that make the rest of the world safer.

Traditionally, when Americans became sick and tired of the leadership that one political party offered, they see-sawed from the Democrats to the Republicans and back again, in the hopes that things would change. However, after 43-consecutive white male presidencies and no movement toward national health care, many Americans have abandoned the traditional belief that white male leadership was inevitable or inherently better. In fact, both the polling numbers and the campaign contribution numbers point to a new dynamic: Many Americans have concluded that as long as America is led at the highest levels exclusively by the white male minority of the population, the country will never change for the better.

Traditionally, to support their monopoly of political leadership, white men have insisted that the leadership offered by women and Blacks could make no difference in solving the world?s problems, and would be ?merely symbolic.? With no empirical data to support or refute this theory, even white women and minorities have sometimes accepted this historical brainwashing. Jackie Robinson and the Enduring Importance of ?Firsts?

White men have even resorted to sophistic arguments, arguing that a decision not to vote for a white man in 2008 would compel Democrats to vote for a Republican like Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice, even though two non-white male liberal Democratic candidates are running in the Democratic Primary. But, the polls say Democrats are rejecting absurd arguments whose only purpose is to perpetuate the white male supremacy paradigm. F.L.H. Blog What is a ?Phallacy?? Democrats are also analyzing and rejecting the paternalistic idea that the very white male leadership that ruled the country as the nation?s povery became so bad could be the only leadership that can deliver us from the poverty that has persisted through 43 consecutive white male presidencies. Why, Exactly, Will the Election of John Edwards Lead to Less Poverty Among Women and Minorities?



And so, Americans are promising their votes and their dollars to candidates who are not white men, hoping finally to achieve fundamental changes like national health care (Clinton) and an end to partisan gridlock (Obama).



Americans know that white men have led us into every war America has ever fought, but now instead of wanting better and bigger wars many Americans want to give peace a chance.



All the President?s White Men

After Vietnam, and Iraq, Panama, Grenada and the Contra War, with white male leadership inextricably linked to war in minds of Democrats, voters want to choose from among the candidates who have never led American into a futile and unnecessary war ? the female and Black candidates, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.



In a country where Blacks were once held as slaves and women were considered little more than the property of their husbands, it has taken a long time for women and Blacks to achieve the political prominence that would make them a viable alternative to white male political dominance.


video details and more



But now, with the war in Iraq dragging into its fourth year, global warming threatening the very survival of humanity and world poverty promising still more wars and suffering, Americans have concluded that white male leadership just don?t have what it takes to lead America and the world out of its malaise. Much to the contrary, Americans have seen that the more they elect white male leaders, the more our young people take bigger and better guns to school, to shoot their classmates and their teachers.

Although polls consistently show that Americans want fundamental changes like national health care, and they want an end to the Iraq war, America always ?voted against interest? supporting candidates from the demographic group that least supports national health care and that most supports the war in Iraq statistically ? white men.

In 2007, Americans are looking at basic, undeniable facts, like America?s utterly dysfunctional health care system and the endless war in Iraq, and they are demanding fundamental change. But now, instead of shifting merely from one party to another, they are challenging the very political monopoly of white men that got us into this mess in the first place. They are opposing with their votes and their dollars the very white male supremacy paradigm that guaranteed 43 consecutive white male presidencies. With Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama leading the white male candidates in the Democratic race 2 to 1, Americans are saying ?Enough of the white male leadership! It?s time for fundamental change!?

Narrator says: Polls show that by a two-to-one majority, Democratic voters prefer to elect Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, the candidates who are not white men. Meanwhile, Americans have contributed three times as much money to the campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as they have to their nearest white male competitor, John Edwards. After 43 consecutive white male presidencies, what?s going on? Americans seem to have concluded that white male leadership simply is not capable of bringing the fundamental change that America needs.

Forty nations in the world have lower infant mortality rates than the United States. After 43 consecutive white male presidencies, the United States still doesn?t have a program national health care. With the Vietnam and Iraq Wars universally recognized as failures, Americans are associating both warfulness and war-making incompetence with white male leadership and they are finally demanding fundamental change. With Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama leading in the polls for the Democratic presidential nomination, voters are saying, ?It?s time for change at the national level. It?s time to end the 43-term white male monopoly of the presidency.?

Read The Full Article:
http://francislholland.blogspot.com/2007/04/anger-and-disgust-at-white-male.html

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Anger and Disgust at White Male Leadership Fuel
Contributions and Polling of Clinton, Obama

Cross-posted at the Francis L. Holland blog, in the Afrosphere.

Anger and disgust against white male leadership in America is fueling campaign contributions and poll numbers for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. In the first quarter of 2007, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama together raised 51 Million dollars for the presidential campaigns ? more than three times as much as their nearest white male competitor. Meanwhile, polls consistent show that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama combined are favored by two-thirds of the Democratic electorate while all of the white men ? Edwards, Biden and Gore ? have the support of only one third of the Democratic electorate.



Considering the traditional advantages that white men have had in presidential races (at one time, only they were eligible to vote and run for office), now political observers are at a loss for traditional explanations for the dominance of the not-white-male candidates. Why Has John Edwards Raised So Much Less Money Than Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama?



A theory is gaining support among Democrats, supported by polling numbers and campaign contribution tallies, that Americans are simply sick and tired of the leadership that white men have offered. The infant mortality rate is worse in America than in Cuba, and forty nations in the world have less infant mortality than does the United States.



The United States still does not have a program of national health care while every other industrialized nations and many "Third World Countries" not only offer national health care but, consequently, many other countries? citizens are living longer and living better.



Gun Deaths Graphic

Under white male leadership, the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world AND still leads the world in gun deaths from murders, suicides and accidents.

The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths -- murders, suicides and accidents -- among the world's 36 richest nations, a government study found. The U.S. rate for gun deaths in 1994 was 14.24 per 100,000 people. Japan had the lowest rate, at .05 per 100,000. GunCite.Com

Americans overall are increasingly unwilling to accept that the Constitution?s Second Amendment, drafted two centuries ago exclusively by white men, should now condemn all of us to live in a perpetual gun-saturated shooting gallery.

In fact the ever-present absurdity of the Second Amendment in the context of today?s America, written by white men who pointedly rejected the wisdom of women and Blacks, casts doubt daily upon the wisdom of the traditional white male dominance of American political life.

In one poll of Americans, "Sixty-one percent said they favored tighter restrictions while 37 percent opposed more stringent regulations." WaPost. But with white male leadership in control of the National Rifle Association, the US Congress and the presidency, the killing continues and the government does nothing about it.

The fight over gun control reflects a battle of the sexes. American women say stricter weapon laws would curb violence while men want better enforcement of existing laws, an Associated Press poll finds.
The poll notes some erosion of overall support for tougher gun laws since the days immediately following the deadly school shootings last April in Colorado, but still offers plenty of ammunition to both sides of the debate in a divided Congress.



The telephone survey by ICR of Media, Pa., found 56 percent of American adults favored stricter gun laws and 39 percent opposed. Sixty-six percent of women favored the tougher laws, compared with 45 percent of men. Thirty percent of women and 49 percent of men were opposed.
"Women have the mother instinct and don't want guns around," said James Rowe, a 73-year-old semi-retired contractor and gun enthusiast from San Diego. ICRSURVEY

The white male minority who have run America thus far still disproportionately oppose gun control, leading campaigns against the very laws that make the rest of the world safer.

Traditionally, when Americans became sick and tired of the leadership that one political party offered, they see-sawed from the Democrats to the Republicans and back again, in the hopes that things would change. However, after 43-consecutive white male presidencies and no movement toward national health care, many Americans have abandoned the traditional belief that white male leadership was inevitable or inherently better. In fact, both the polling numbers and the campaign contribution numbers point to a new dynamic: Many Americans have concluded that as long as America is led at the highest levels exclusively by the white male minority of the population, the country will never change for the better.

Traditionally, to support their monopoly of political leadership, white men have insisted that the leadership offered by women and Blacks could make no difference in solving the world?s problems, and would be ?merely symbolic.? With no empirical data to support or refute this theory, even white women and minorities have sometimes accepted this historical brainwashing. Jackie Robinson and the Enduring Importance of "Firsts"

White men have even resorted to sophistic arguments, arguing that a decision not to vote for a white man in 2008 would compel Democrats to vote for a Republican like Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice, even though two non-white male liberal Democratic candidates are running in the Democratic Primary. But, the polls say Democrats are rejecting absurd arguments whose only purpose is to perpetuate the white male supremacy paradigm. F.L.H. Blog What is a ?Phallacy??

Democrats are also analyzing and rejecting the paternalistic idea that the very white male leadership that ruled the country as the nation?s povery became so bad could be the only leadership that can deliver us from the poverty that has persisted through 43 consecutive white male presidencies. Why, Exactly, Will the Election of John Edwards Lead to Less Poverty Among Women and Minorities?



And so, Americans are promising their votes and their dollars to candidates who are not white men, hoping finally to achieve fundamental changes like national health care (Clinton) and an end to partisan gridlock (Obama).



Americans know that white men have led us into every war America has ever fought, but now instead of wanting better and bigger wars many Americans want to give peace a chance.



All the President?s White Men

After Vietnam, and Iraq, Panama, Grenada and the Contra War, with white male leadership inextricably linked to war in minds of Democrats, voters want to choose from among the candidates who have never led American into a futile and unnecessary war ? the female and Black candidates, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.



In a country where Blacks were once held as slaves and women were considered little more than the property of their husbands, it has taken a long time for women and Blacks to achieve the political prominence that would make them a viable alternative to white male political dominance.

But now, with the war in Iraq dragging into its fourth year, global warming threatening the very survival of humanity and world poverty promising still more wars and suffering, Americans have concluded that white male leadership just don?t have what it takes to lead America and the world out of its malaise. Much to the contrary, Americans have seen that the more they elect white male leaders, the more our young people take bigger and better guns to school, to shoot their classmates and their teachers.

Although polls consistently show that Americans want fundamental changes like national health care, and they want an end to the Iraq war, America always ?voted against interest? supporting candidates from the demographic group that least supports national health care and that most supports the war in Iraq statistically ? white men.



Americans see health care crisis as international embarrassment, blame white male leadership.

In 2007, Americans are looking at basic, undeniable facts, like America?s utterly dysfunctional health care system and the endless war in Iraq, and they are demanding fundamental change. But now, instead of shifting merely from one party to another, they are challenging the very political monopoly of white men that got us into this mess in the first place. They are opposing with their votes and their dollars the very white male supremacy paradigm that guaranteed 43 consecutive white male presidencies. With Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama leading the white male candidates in the Democratic race 2 to 1, Americans are saying "Enough of the white male leadership! It?s time for fundamental change!"


video details and more



Narrator says: "Polls show that by a two-to-one majority, Democratic voters prefer to elect Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, the candidates who are not white men. Meanwhile, Americans have contributed three times as much money to the campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as they have to their nearest white male competitor, John Edwards. After 43 consecutive white male presidencies, what?s going on? Americans seem to have concluded that white male leadership simply is not capable of bringing the fundamental change that America needs.

Forty nations in the world have lower infant mortality rates than the United States. After 43 consecutive white male presidencies, the United States still doesn?t have a program national health care. With the Vietnam and Iraq Wars universally recognized as failures, Americans are associating both warfulness and war-making incompetence with white male leadership and they are finally demanding fundamental change. With Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama leading in the polls for the Democratic presidential nomination, voters are saying, "It?s time for change at the national level. It?s time to end the 43-term white male monopoly of the presidency." "

Read The Full Article:
http://francislholland.blogspot.com/2007/04/anger-and-disgust-at-white-male.html

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Sunday Afternoon on the Roof

Finally some nice weather returns to Philadelphia, otherwise known as Baghdad on the Delaware, and my cold recedes. The only pressing question for the day is which tasty meats to put on the grill for dinner.

As for those residing in our sister city, more pressing issues exist.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Two suicide car bombers attacked a police station Sunday in western Baghdad, killing at least 13 people and wounding 82, police said.

The bombs exploded as Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki arrived in Cairo, Egypt, on the first stop of a four-nation regional tour aimed at winning Arab support for his embattled government.

The first driver raced through a police checkpoint guarding the station and exploded his vehicle just outside the two-story building, police said. Moments later, a second suicide car bomber aimed for the checkpoint's concrete barriers and exploded just outside them, police said. (Watch why the Senate majority leader says the war is "lost" Video)

The blasts collapsed nearby buildings, smashing windows and burying at least four cars under piles of concrete. Metal roofs were peeled back by the force of the explosions. Pools of blood made red mud of a dusty driveway.

And, suddenly it occurs to me that only one man is truly qualified to be the Czar of All Iraq War Czar.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the moustache of understanding himself. Tom Friedman.

Read The Full Article:
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_04_22_archive.html#5655665615716976684

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Sunday Open Thread

"He who is cruel to animals becomes
hard also in his dealings with men.
We can judge the heart of a man
by his treatment of animals."

-- Immanuel Kant
Born April 22, 1724

Read The Full Article:
http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=16075

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

We live in a beautiful world

Today is Earth Day. So, no matter where you live, get out and take in a bit of the great outdoors. Go for a hike, a walk (in the park or around your neighborhood), or just sit outside for a little while watching the birds.

If you need some perspective, check out these quotes from people who have been privileged enough to see our little planet from space.

Here are a couple of my favorites:

It was the only color we could see in the universe. ... "We're living on a tiny little dust mote in left field on a rather insignificant galaxy. And basically this is it for humans. It strikes me that it's a shame that we're squabbling over oil and borders.

--Bill Anders, Apollo 8, whose photos of Earth became famous.

And

Up in space when you see a sunset or sunrise, the light is coming to you from the sun through that little shell of the Earth's atmosphere and back out to the spacecraft you're in. The atmosphere acts like a prism. So for a short period of time you see not only the reds, oranges and yellows, the luminous quality like you see on Earth, but you see the whole spectrum red-orange-yellow-blue-green-indigo-violet.

You come back impressed, once you've been up there, with how thin our little atmosphere is that supports all life here on Earth. So if we foul it up, there's no coming back from something like that.

--John Glenn, first American to orbit the Earth (1962) and former U.S. senator.

As for me, I?m leaving Arizona in a few weeks, so I?m going to go for a hike in one of the Phoenix area?s many nature preserves and enjoy this view while I can:



Read The Full Article:
http://www.epluribusonline.com/2007/04/we-live-in-beautiful-world.html

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Mothball the Electoral College

The current year-long and obscenely costly slog leading to the election of our president has become, well, ridiculous.

And that's just the primaries!

The subsequent bruising focused-saturation-advertising race between the nominated party candidates has become a statistician's joyride.... crunching the numbers to come up with the dozen or so "battleground" states, slotting states as red or blue.... with the end game being to secure the most Electoral College votes regardless of the national will of the majority of the voters.

This could change. And we have Maryland to thank for leading the way.

On April 10, Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley signed into law a measure that would circumvent the Electoral College by awarding the state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the most popular votes nationwide.

It's called the National Popular Vote plan. The idea is that once enough states have signed on to put together a majority of electoral votes (270) those states agree that their electors will always vote for the winner of the popular vote in all fifty states plus D.C. This would make presidential elections truly national, every citizen's vote would count.

No need for the Supremes to swoop down to award the presidency.... neither nine citizens nor a select few states would have such power over the outcome of a presidential election.

Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000. Imagine if the National Popular Vote plan had been in effect...an intelligent response after 9/11.... the ability to stem the runaway spending of the GOP-led Congress.... an action plan to reduce man's contribution to global warming.

An experienced leader with management skills and a proven interest in the advancement of us all, not just corporations, would have been at the helm.

Contact your state representatives, your governor. Find out if they are considering the National Popular Vote plan. Encourage and educate.

It's our best hope for reining in this presidential race lunacy, and for electing a leader who can unite because he represents the will of the majority.

Read The Full Article:
http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com/2007/04/mothball-electoral-college.ht
ml

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Doolittle's legal defense fund - a sign of
troubled times

Gus Thomson (Auburn Journal) reports that Doolittle hopes to quickly establish a legal defense fund to aid in the "fight to save his reputation."

Doolittle, who raised more than $2 million in the past election cycle, said he had spent well over $100,000 in the past three years for legal costs. His wife's legal fees are mounting too, he said.

"Our consciences are clear and we feel the truth will vindicate us but we're asking support to help us through," Doolittle said. (Read more...)

Speaking of Republicans with high legal expenses, the Billings Gazette reports on former Senator Conrad Burns, who, BTW has connections with Kevin Ring.

Former U.S. Sen. Conrad Burns has paid more than $150,000 this year to a Washington, D.C., lawyer who specializes in white-collar crime and congressional investigations, according to campaign finance reports filed this week.

Burns, defeated last year amid ties to convicted GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff, paid the Powell Goldstein law firm $88,029 on March 29 with money left over from his 2006 campaign. In January, he paid the law firm $72,347, according to the campaign finance report.

[...]

The Jack Abramoff scandal is still hot on Capitol Hill. On Wednesday, it was discovered FBI agents searched the home of Republican Rep. John Doolittle, another lawmaker with ties to the convicted lobbyist. And last week, a lobbyist tied to the Abramoff influence-peddling scandal resigned from the law firm where he worked.

That lobbyist, Kevin Ring, has connections to Montana through his work as a lobbyist hired by Carter County to help the county get federal money. Ring also donated to Burns' campaign, a donation that was part of the $150,000 in Abramoff-related gifts that Burns later returned. (Read more...)

After this past week's events, the Washington Post ponders the impact of the unfolding Abramoff scandal on the GOP's chances to chip away at the Democrat's control of congress in 08. Here's the mention of John Doolittle:

The ethics issue burst back into focus with the FBI raids involving Doolittle and Renzi.

Doolittle had been trying to retool his battered image when he disclosed that the FBI had raided his family's Northern Virginia home, where his wife runs her business. Both he and his wife have been tied to convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, and he has admitted obtaining funds for a defense contractor linked to the bribery conviction of then-Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif). Under pressure from GOP leaders, Doolittle quickly gave up his coveted seat on the House Appropriations Committee, while his attorneys said he has done nothing wrong. (Read more...)

Read The Full Article:
http://solongjohn.blogspot.com/2007/04/doolittles-legal-defense-fund-sign-of.html

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Must....Avoid...

...temptation...to...go...meta... Oh, what the hell.

I thought this reader poll at Daily Kos was fairly interesting. A significant (not a majority or most, but significant) number of respondents basically read the Daily Kos and not much else. Their view of blogging is Kos-centric. That is, it isn't really about liberal blogs generally it's all about the Home of the Great Orange Satan.

I'll avoid the temptation to go deeply into this, but I think a lot of the social dynamic that plays out there and elsewhere can be explained in part by this. Us outsiders see Kos as one blog among many, if a very highly trafficked blog, and his voice one among many many many voices on the blog (the other front pagers, the prominence of the recommended diaries, etc...). Insiders and former insiders see it as the center of the universe.

Read The Full Article:
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_04_22_archive.html#5351690970551788278

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Sunday Bobbleheads

Document the atrocities.

ABC?s ?This Week? ? Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich; Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and his wife, Jackie Marie Clegg.

???

CBS? ?Face the Nation? ? Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.; Jim and Sarah Brady of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence; former FBI profiler Gregg McCrary.

???

NBC?s ?Meet the Press? ? Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt; Education Secretary Margaret Spellings; Col. Gerald Massengill, former Virginia State Police superintendent; former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge.

???

CNN?s ?Late Edition? ? Sens. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., and Ron Wyden, D-Ore.; Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonnell; New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman; Lanny Davis, former special counsel to President Clinton; David Rivkin, former counsel to President George H.W. Bush.

???

?Fox News Sunday? ? Virginia Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling; Stephen Trachtenberg, George Washington University president; Sens. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

Read The Full Article:
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_04_22_archive.html#3194013286223117534

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!