Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Domenici's No-No

Sen. Pete Domenici's (R-N.M.) acknowledged on Sunday that he called a U.S. attorney last fall to inquire about the status of an investigation into several New Mexico Democrats, an error in judgment that could have serious repercussions on his re-election prospects in 2008.

"I regret making that call and I apologize," Domenici said in a statement. But, he quickly added that he had never "pressured" or "threatened" David Iglesias.

Iglesias was one of seven U.S attorneys fired on Dec. 7, 2006 despite generally solid performance ratings. The Justice Department initially said the decisions were based on performance but have since said they were primarily motivated by a desire to put in people more inclined to carry out the Bush administration's policies.

The firings have spawned a huge controversy in Washington, but until a few days ago it was not clear that specific members of Congress could pay a political price. That all changed a few days ago when Iglesias told reporters that two New Mexico lawmakers had called him last fall to pressure him to close the probe before the 2006 election. He is expected to testify on Capitol Hill on Tuesday.

Four of the five members of the New Mexico congressional delegation have spoken out on the issue. Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D) as well as Reps. Steve Pearce (R) and Tom Udall (D) have denied they had contact with Iglesias. Domenici has now acknowledged his contact. That leaves Rep. Heather Wilson (R) as the only member not to reveal whether she placed a call to Iglesias.

The political implications of the situation are potentially substantial. Domenici repeatedly has insisted he plans to seek re-election for a seventh term next November. But, he has remained on many observers "watch" list due to his past bouts with ill health and his age -- Domenici will be 76 on election day 2008.

Domenici remains extremely popular in New Mexico, but the Iglesias incident has the potential to do one of two things: force him to re-evaluate how badly he wants to stay in elected office or energize Democrats who believe Domenici's role in the incident can be used as a cudgel against him.

If Domenici chooses to retire (whatever his reasons), it remains to be seen whether the firing of Iglesias will remain a campaign issue. If Wilson is implicated, it could damage her chances of winning the Republican Senate nomination. She is widely seen as the heir to Domenici's political legacy. Pearce, too, has expressed interest in the Senate seat if it comes open.

An open Senate seat would be a major pickup opportunity for Democrats. The state is one of the most evenly divided along partisan lines in the country. Former Vice President Al Gore won it by just over 300 votes in 2000; four years later George Bushtriumphed by less than 6,000 votes.

The Democratic field is entirely unformed at the moment. But, if Domenici retires, considerable pressure would be brought to bear on Gov. Bill Richardson (D) to consider switching from the presidential race to a Senate contest. Udall also would consider the race in an open seat scenario.

The echoes of the investigation could filter down to the House as well. Wilson has shown a tremendous resilience since winning her 1st district seat in a 1998 special election. But if the controversy lingers and implicates Wilson, it could hamstring her re-election chances. The district was carried by Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts in 2004.

There's a lot of "ifs" and "coulds" in the scenarios we've outlined above, and it's important to remember that it is not yet clear how long this investigation will last and how damaging it will be. But there's little question that Domenici - and potentially Wilson - will be in the eye of this storm.

By Chris Cillizza  |  March 5, 2007; 8:58 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Gingrich Gets Serious at CPAC
Next: YouTube Clip Takes Aim at Breaux

Comments

US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarain: best major candidate.

Posted by: anonymous | March 17, 2007 12:07 AM | Report abuse

Hello -- I worked for Domenici way back when he was a newcomer to the Senate. I probably could not vote for him now, having transitioned from faithful Republican to rabid Democrat over the years, but I have nothing but the highest respect for him. He is a very good man. This was a mistake on his part, but we all make mistakes. I can't imagine the state of New Mexico turning him out of office over something like this. His age and the need for new blood in the office might be another matter entirely. Steve Pearce in the Senate? Please -- I'm eating lunch.

Posted by: Jon in Cleveland | March 7, 2007 12:47 PM | Report abuse

So the Iglesias plot thickens. The call from Wilson asked for him to talk about "sealed indictments," as if any indictment had yet been returned. As if prosecutors were free to discuss sealed indictments. As if they were free to discuss grand jury cases not yet indicted.

But no, Wilson wasn't pressuring Iglesias.

Then Iglesias gets a call at his house from the U.S. Senator. When are we going to see those indictments? November? It seems the constituents have been complaining. They want indictments, and NOW. And the Senator represents the constituents.

No pressure there either.

"I felt sick," Iglesias said.

So should we all.

Posted by: Harry Bosch | March 6, 2007 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Judge, Alberto Gonzalez stays until Jan. 09'. That was an outlandish wish, perhaps by you, that he be replaced but hardly has a place here in reality.

Posted by: reason | March 6, 2007 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Oh no, Heather Wilson wasn't pressuring the U.S. Attorney at all. She just thought she'd let him know what people thought of his slow pace, to "give him a chance to clear his name."

Say good night, Heather.

Posted by: Harry Bosch | March 6, 2007 11:24 AM | Report abuse

"When Ann made her offending comment on Friday, it wasn't greeted by boisterous laughter as many of you have suggested in your emails and comments." - koz

Zouk, you're an idiot and a liar. I watched the video. The entire audience LAUGHED AND APPLAUDED.

I HEARD IT. Go try to pass off your spin on some people stupid enough to swallow your bs.

Posted by: Ohio guy | March 6, 2007 1:05 AM | Report abuse

The question the neocon nutbags never answer--will you list the personal sacrifices you are making on behalf of this war? Speak up, I can't hear you.

Posted by: mikeasr | March 5, 2007 10:33 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk--"4. do you Dems ever think through to the consequences of your actions? what happens when you raise the min wage - low skilled workers become totally unemployed."

The studies made show that in the last few decades, federal or state-level minimum wage establishments or increases have *not* had this effect, in the U.S. or abroad. A quick search on Google will yield this information.

koz--"what happens when you leave a war unfinished - the enemy regoups and goes on the attack."

This would seem like common sense but may vary in individual cases. We will accept it as a blanket statement for now.

However, that statement is just empty soundbite rhetoric if you do not define your terms. The question is to ask WHICH war you are talking about?

The Iraq war? The Iraqis are not fighting the U.S. except incidentally since the troops happen to be there. Were we to retract the troops, it is very unlikely that Iraq would be mounting a war against the U.S. anytime soon.

The 'War on Terror'? First you would have to define how and where this war is fought and how we would be leaving it. Reasonable people can disagree with your implicit assertion that Iraq has something to do with this, going so far as saying that the Iraq debacle is distracting resources from it.

koz--"what happens when you care more about labor than children - the education system creates jobs but fails in teaching."

Yes, the U.S. education system is atrocious. However, many countries with public schooling regularly trump the U.S. where mandatory education is concerned.

"what happens when you claim to be fiscally responsible and then add $10 billion to a defense bill - apparantly nothing happens."

You have to elaborate for me to be able to answer to a particular allotment.

I am happy to agree that U.S. budgets are ridiculously full of unnecessary spending (recently mostly by the fiscally responsible Republicans) and that many, most, government programs and bureaucracies are terribly inefficient and could stand a massive overhaul.

"what happens when you promise seniors a certain level of income then are forced to renege on this pledge because of faulty actuarial assumptions - you demagouge and pretend it is someone else making trouble."

Refusing to accept a (fairly ill-conceived) privatisation scheme does not equate to what you are insinuating here.

"what happens when you let big bureacracies run your health care system - (See Army) please fill out the proper forms for service. come back in about 6 months."

Funny you should mention big bureaucracies. I trust you are familiar with the studies that show the administrative overheads for Medicare et al. are orders of magnitude lower than those of commercial HMOs and the like?

I eagerly await your responses, kingofzouk.

Posted by: roo | March 5, 2007 9:32 PM | Report abuse

Richardson is NOT going to opt for a Senate run. Look for him to benefit from the Hillary-Obama catfight.

Regarding Domemici, I think he will ultimately throw in the towel and leave an open seat. Something like this is hard to "aplogize and move on" for. And any higher ambitions Heather Wilson had may have been tossed out the window.

http://theseventen.blogspot.com

Posted by: The 7-10 | March 5, 2007 8:56 PM | Report abuse

tarheel--"Blarg, take it easy on Zouks. I hear what youre saying and appreciate many of your posts. But what KOZ is saying that he starts out posting a critique of policies and ends up in a war of words, often personal in nature."

Hardly true, he pretty much always STARTS with an insult and freely intermixes them with whatever content may be present. Certain other posters on both sides share this trait.

My biggest problem with him, though, is that he NEVER answers valid discussion points or rebuttals of his points (which he considers to be facts rather than opinions.)

This makes it frustrating to try to engage in reasoned debate with him and most have ceased trying. No other poster (including you) who I would consider adversarial to my position shares this trait with kingofzouk.

Posted by: roo | March 5, 2007 7:46 PM | Report abuse

Back to the subject, which in case people have forgotten is NM's Senator who is up for re-election...

I don't think Richardson would go for this. He's much better as a Governor, and is a very appealing prospect as either President or Vice President (or even Sec of State). The Senate would be a step back for him.

However, if he was on the Presidential ticket then any Repub candidate would struggle. Bound to be a trickle down affect assisting Udell against Dominici (or Wilson).

Posted by: JayPe | March 5, 2007 6:23 PM | Report abuse

We won three years ago. Why aren't the boys home yet?

The Administration changed the mission to suit its political and ideological needs, didn't it. Then when the need became "appearing not to lose", although we had already won militarily, the "return home" milestone just kept being moved further away.

You don't have to Re-Up boys (and girls), we do that for you by extending your enlistments. Get ready for your next rotation!

Ain't nothing like an Emperor's Army, always at the ready to do his bidding. Anybody seen the Emperor's (or King's) Clothes

Posted by: Anonymous | March 5, 2007 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Jan, I am taking your advice to make a point to follow:

From Obamas website:
We are failing too many of our children in public schools. Right now, six million middle and high school students read at levels significantly below their grade level. Unfortunately, the debate in Washington has been narrowed: either we need to pour more money into the system, or we need to reform it with more tests and standards. Senator Obama has worked on bills that cut through this false choice and recognize that good schools will require both structural reform and resources.

On another section he goes into some detail - summer school, more money and more money. his entire policy fits in three short paragraphs. Very efficient but not convincing.


Not all that encouraging. the rest of the stuff is likewise fluff with no umph (a technical term).

I forgive you Dems in the trenches for having no ideas and no way forward, even your wonder-boy is running on air.

The United States is one of the wealthiest nations in the world, yet more than 46 million Americans have no health insurance. Too many hard-working Americans cannot afford their medical bills, and health-related issues are the number one cause for personal bankruptcy. Promoting affordable, accessible, and high-quality health care is a priority for Senator Obama.

and the most precious, on the war:
a reduction in the number of U.S. troops; (2) a time frame for a phased withdrawal; (3) the Iraqi government to make progress on forming a political solution; (4) improved reconstruction efforts to restore basic services in Iraq; and (5) engaging the international community, particularly key neighboring states and Arab nations

Iraqis to make progress and engage other states. now why didn't I think of that.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 5, 2007 5:54 PM | Report abuse

You may be correct about being rid of Mr. Iglesias; however, that does not mitigate what appears to be improper, if not Criminal, conduct on the part of Rep. Wilson and Sen. Domenici.

Any call, other than a truly social call between existing friends, made directly by a Congressman or Senator to an Executive Branch official is almost by definition a "pressure" call.

Congressmen and Senators don't call personally just to ask "How 'ya doin'?" They want something, and Executive Branch officials know it.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | March 5, 2007 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Jan: As a teacher you should be able to appreciate this - a number of posters to The Fix are new to the Internet, and a number of posters are simply technologically challenged.

It helps when the other posters provide sources; especially links to websites to which they are referring, or where information can be obtained.

I hope that you are apprising the voters of the future [if they're in college already, most of them are 18 or older; why aren't they already voting?] that the a Republican President heads the Executive Branch and as such controls the day-to-day operations of the government and is still the Commander-In-Chief with all of the power that entails, that the Democrat's Senate majority is razor-thin and depends on two Independent Senators to vote with them, and that only Speaker Pelosi has a reasonable margin with which to work.

Republicans are in a position to make the Democrats look incompetent if 1) Democrats themselves open the door to the charge unintentionally, 2) those things which they can't control break the Republicans way, or 3) actually are incompetent.

The Democrats should feel good about 2006, but not delude themselves that they have a lot of work to do in 2008 and 2010.

Republicans are in no position to be smug. Their heads were in the sand in 2006, and it looks as if some of their heads may still be there. But, in Congress they have no responsibility now, only opportunity.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | March 5, 2007 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Jan, I hope for your students sake that you are not a mathematics or econ teacher and stick to social sciences where you can do no harm. you seem to have grasped the usual talking points but have not indicated any original thinking beyond that. (You must be an R since they don't think for themselves). I guess the low pay for teachers does get you what you might expect - unthinking teachers.

I will inform the stockholders of Walmart about your beliefs. I am sure they must be waiting to hear from you on employment policy. I should be cautious though, with those views being offered to your students, they will most likely be the next generation of wal-mart workers, at least initially, until thay can manage to shake off that "education".

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 5, 2007 5:21 PM | Report abuse

I listened to Iglesias' interview on NPR last week. Iglesias admitted to a glaring error in conduct stemming from this whole incident: he received two calls from seperate Members of Congress and neglected to inform his supervisors.

During the interview, Iglesias went so far as to explain that such notification is required in the US Attorney's manual, but that he didn't view the calls as significant enough to warrant a heads up to his boss.

Now Mr. Iglesias is claiming that he was feeling pressured by the calls. Which is it? A call so insignificant that it warranted ignoring the Manual, or a matter that was so high pressured he felt threatened?

If Mr. Iglesias public remarks on this matter are any indication of the quality of his work and judgement as an attorney, it may well be that we are well rid of him.

Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY

Posted by: robert chapman | March 5, 2007 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Oh, and if you are interested in Obama's policies, or Clinton's policies, or anyone's policies... try checking out their friggin' web sites. Yes, Democrats know the actual platform of Democrats.
What does NOT surprise me is that you are unable to find this information out for yourself. G-O-O-G-L-E

Posted by: Jan | March 5, 2007 5:07 PM | Report abuse

1. All Republicans spin because they have no idea how to think for themselves. Dominici's spin was, "I have no idea what he's talking about."

2. St. Pete? LMFAO

3. Bush brags about not having any attacks here after the first one (3000 dead) for 5 years. Clinton had no attacks after the first one (6 dead) for 8 years. Oh, and OBL is still loose.
Secrets to the Chinese? How about now being OWNED by the Chinese.
And lying to a Grand Jury? Can you prove that, because the Grand Jury decided he didn't. So witty bitty Ken Starr went cwying to the GOP Congress, and they became really, really, REALLY stupid with power.
GOP Congress with Clinton -- surpluses and smaller gov't; same GOP Congress with Bush -- deficits and gigantic gov't.
I could go on, but you're brainwashed and that condition is very difficult to reverse.

4. I think Wal-Mart can afford a little raise for the sake of family friendly wages. We've made our most immoral decisions as a nation when we've put our economy before people. Do you ever think about the consequences of greed?
And, to repeat a great entry, what happens when you invade another country without thinking about the consequences of losing? As far as teachers, pretty soon you won't have any. Enjoy!
And, what happens when you let the Bush Administration run large bureaucracies? You get Miserable Failure.

I teach at a local college. Here, sir, is what the voters of the future are wondering: "If the Democrats won the election, why the the Republicans keeping them from stopping Bush on Iraq?"

I believe the 2008 Senate is going to look very good, and not to Heather Wilson or Pete Dominici.

You can make up anything you want about Democrats, but here's the FACT -- ya got a Thumpin' in November and the voters think you're incompetent.

Posted by: Jan | March 5, 2007 4:59 PM | Report abuse

think that sufficiently proves my point today.
what point, that you didnt answer my question, what will america do if we stay and lose anyway?
stop avoiding the question

Posted by: Anonymous | March 5, 2007 3:12 PM | Report abuse

think that sufficiently proves my point today.
what point, that you didnt answer my question, what will america do if we stay and lose anyway?

Posted by: stop avoiding the quesion zouk! | March 5, 2007 3:11 PM | Report abuse

zouk doesn't discuss the issues, he posts lies and then insults anyone who points that out.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 5, 2007 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Blarg, take it easy on Zouks. I hear what youre saying and appreciate many of your posts. But what KOZ is saying that he starts out posting a critique of policies and ends up in a war of words, often personal in nature. I think KOZ and you are very much alike in that you both want to discuss the issues. But when people respond with personal attacks its our human nature to defend ourselves and respond accordingly. Unfortunatley some posters take someones disagreement with a policy or program personally. Welfare or workfare, universal government healthcare or free market healthcare, preemptive warfare or reactive warfare, global warming is a reoccurring natural process or man is causing global warming, and on and on. In any case, thanks blarg and KOZ for often actually discussing the issues.

Posted by: tarheel | March 5, 2007 3:05 PM | Report abuse

I think that sufficiently proves my point today.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 5, 2007 3:04 PM | Report abuse

there's no point taking him seriously. he's a clown with a 3rd class mind.

thats a insult to clowns with 3rd grade minds sir.

Posted by: zook=ann coulter | March 5, 2007 3:00 PM | Report abuse

there's no point taking him seriously. he's a clown with a 3rd class mind.

'clinton was handed OBL on a silver platter several times and didn't act. '

and he just can't help but try to flog these myths. he doesn't want to talk about how five years later the other clown, bush, still hasn't caught bin ladin, how he let him get away and get access to nukes.

worst presidetn in history -- and the only reason he's there is becuase his supporters or so poorly equipped to understand reality.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 5, 2007 2:58 PM | Report abuse

zook heres a question, if we stay in iraq and the govenment falls and a iranian friendly regime comes to power do we still stay? or are you going to call me a lib and present no ideals of your own? despite the cheering of the right of our iraq adventure, no one has really asked the one question, what happens if we stay and lose anyway? my predicion is we get shown the door or instead of 27 hostages back in 79, its 150k surrounded by millions of angry shia. but thats ok, i really dont take you seriously.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 5, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Good luck BaLANCE. Great post by the way. Domenici called and asked where an investigation stood. Whats its status. But, Hillary talked Bill into pardoning five people who gave money to her brothers, her campaign for senator, and the presidential library. Did you notice nobody who got pardoned who was so poor they couldnt pay the Clintons for their pardons? The Marc Rich pardon was even paid for in advance. Guess they did not trust the tax evader who fled the country to pay up after the pardon. Wise on their part. One thief knows not to trust another.

Posted by: IndyWasDem | March 5, 2007 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Have you ever met Pete Dominici?

A worthy successor to "Little Joe" Montoya in his final days as a Senator.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 5, 2007 2:36 PM | Report abuse

You can try to complicate the Lieberman election all you like. the simple fact is that contrary position were presented to the voters in a reliably Liberal state, with the significant difference being that one advocated a strong defense posture and the other wanted to give up right away. It was obvious that most all other issues were going to go down party lines. the rather liberal state of RI decided not to surrender immediately. those pesky voters interfering with your idealogy. now the rest of the congress has agreed. why, if this was the mandate from the public? Can't you Libs even stand up for one ideal that supposedly won you an election? Or maybe you are misreading the tea leaves (again). Seeing your understanding of economics on a daily basis I am not surprised you are totally clueless about war and foreign policy also. example. In 1979 we were attacked on our soverign territory by the country of Iran. they took hostages of our diplomats. the world was appalled. the sitting US president decided to talk, talk, talk his way out of this. he invaded the country with 4 helicopters. this is the spineless policy the current crop of Dems want to return to. If we had settled that problem then, we may not be in this mess now. but cowardice has a way of coming back to haunt you. what will happen if we leave Iraq unfinished? A simple question.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 5, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

"Are these insults?"

Posted by: "Deuphys" certainly is | March 5, 2007 2:30 PM | Report abuse

"RECYCLED pardon scandals" instead of "resurfaced pardon scandals"

Posted by: More accurate | March 5, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Deuphys - your ignorance of some basic facts is stunning. I will only touch on a few:
1. you presume to set the value of a teacher despite this magnificent market system we have which actually gathers information from interested parties and slowly finds a point at which buyer and seller can agree. Maybe you haven't taken econ 101 ever but setting prices based on the head socialists desire is a failure - see CCCP.
2. Have you ever met Pete Dominici? ever seem him speak? Know anything about his policies and accomplishments, his staff? It is clear the answer is "NO". do you think Teddy will ever lose an election in MASS? Are you from this planet?
3 . clinton was handed OBL on a silver platter several times and didn't act. Maybe he was waiting for the poll numbers to arrive. that is not called leadership.
4. Let's talk about social security on its own and not invoke a rescue from raising taxes. I know your generic response to all problems is to raise taxes but try to think up a new approach this time.

Tarheel - there is nothing that the clintons won't do to regain power. even most Dems are aware of the constant lying and manipulation by now. this coming election is thankfully a foregone conclusion with either hillary getting her 42% or Obama being landslided out for fear of a Carter repeat. Any GOPer will beat either of them quite easily. See how fast they gave up on their war demands once it became obvious that the general public wasn't wacko like the hard left is today. Yes we all agree war is bad, but losing one is worse. Duh!

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 5, 2007 2:24 PM | Report abuse

As for Lieberman: That election was anomalous in many ways, and says very little about the national political climate.

First, there was effectively no Republican in the race. Nearly all of the Republican voters who voted against Lieberman in 2000 (his opponent got 35%) voted for him. Incidentally, that says some strange things about the Republican voters of Connecticut, but that's not really the issue.

Second, Lamont wasn't supported by the Democrats. The Democratic leadership was worried that Lieberman would caucus with the Republicans. To avoid alientating him, they stayed out of the race. So very few prominent national Democrats campaigned for Lamont; he was basically on his own.

Basically, it wasn't a normal election, and you shouldn't bring it up if you're going to ignore the special circumstances. Similarly, Tom DeLay's seat is now held by a Democrat. That doesn't mean the district is now Democratic and Democratic ideals are sweeping the country. It means that was another anomalous election under special circumstances, and its long-term meaning is minimal.

Posted by: Blarg | March 5, 2007 2:20 PM | Report abuse

That was OK tarheel. Thanks. I'm new to this blog and was shocked no one responded to the resurfaced pardon scandals. Then I read the follow-up and just saw some, you started it, you said this about me, no you are, posts. I thought I was hearing someone's kids fight. Its a good trick to get away with not responding intelligently to pertinent questions or topics.


I suppose if I post enough Ill start getting verbally abused, too. Glad someone is reading about this ongoing pardon scandal that was just higlighted in the Boston Globe. I thought its appearance in the ultra-liberal Globe was important. Of course now someone will call the Barney Frank, Senator Kennedy supporting Globe just a tool of the right.

Posted by: BaLANCE | March 5, 2007 2:19 PM | Report abuse

lieberman won because, with the tacit approval of the g.o.p., he ran as an independent after being rejected by his own party in the primary. he lost the democratic vote, but got all the republican vote plus some independent.

Posted by: meuphys | March 5, 2007 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Tell me where I insulted you. Give me the quote. Because like I said, I can give plenty of quotes of you insulting Democrats and liberals.

You don't even understand what I'm saying. I don't mind you being rude, insulting, and partisan. (I'd prefer it if you weren't, but that doesn't look likely.) My problem is that you're acting all holier-than-thou about it. You criticize others for being partisan while being partisan yourself. You complain about being insulted while constantly insulting people. My complaint is that you're being hypocritical.

You can act like Ann Coulter, or you can be reasonable. But what you can't do is act like Ann Coulter and then complain when people are rude to you.

Posted by: Blarg | March 5, 2007 2:09 PM | Report abuse

all the weak-kneed Lib pols have stepped back from their cowardly demands to lose now. why? If the war was THE issue why did Lieberman win?

how tedious these cowardly tough-talking chickenhawks are.

lieberman won because he lied and lied and lied..he's a scumbag.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 5, 2007 2:08 PM | Report abuse

You want to talk about family crime syndiates you reeally just mention the Bushes. They've stolen more from the Anerican people than probaly any group in history.

'OK, nice and slow for you public school Libs who can't seem to follow an argument. '

LOL -- the guy with the worst grasp of history and reality on the board trashes people for going to public school. I thank god every day that I didn't go to a private school that wold create such a mediocre excuse for a mind.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 5, 2007 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Still ignoring the policies. My thesis - because your Lib views are indefensible and as long as you can continue to avoid any discussion of them you remain somewhat viable as an institution. Use Obama as exhibit #1. what are his policy beliefs? no one knows? what are hillary's - open to negotiation but always evolving based on polling and electability.
Just pick one of them and take your best shot at defending it. Or you could just continue to insult me. that seems to be the only thing you are capable of as I have clearly demonstrated once again. I expect your retort will be to ignore the points I have brought up and find a way to change the subject and insult me or conservatives in general. the sad part is with this MO, even the sleeping public is catching on. what happended to your election mandate for surrenduring? all the weak-kneed Lib pols have stepped back from their cowardly demands to lose now. why? If the war was THE issue why did Lieberman win? why retreat from the congressional battle. answer - retreat is all you know.

BTW - I didn't say I was non-partisan and my insults are significanlty different than the shallow baseless insults of your bretheren.
Maybe you can find another way to avoid the obvious but you seem to be losing this challenge.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 5, 2007 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Zouks, your back and forth with the name-callers obscured the best post of the day. I'll just repost it here -- from someone called BaLANCE. Hope thats OK BaLANCE?


Boston Globe, 2/28. Senator Hillary Clinton's brother Tony is battling an order to repay more than $100,000 he received from a couple pardoned by President Clinton. Tony Rodham, who acknowledged approaching the president about a pardon for the couple, is the second of Hillary Clinton's brothers to receive money from people who were eventually pardoned by President Clinton. Hugh Rodham received $400,000 from two people, one of whom was pardoned and one whose sentence was commuted.


In addition to the people who paid her brothers, those receiving pardons included commodities trader Marc Rich, a fugitive who was prosecuted for tax evasion by then-US Attorney Rudolph Giuliani and fled to Switzerland. Before Rich received the pardon in January 2001, his former wife, Denise Rich, contributed $70,000 to a fund supporting Hillary Clinton's Senate bid, and also made a large contribution to the Clinton presidential library.


"It is a legitimate campaign issue," said Stephen Gillers, professor of legal ethics at New York University School of Law. He said that Hillary Clinton should answer questions about her brothers' and her own involvement in the pardons because "the stench of the Marc Rich pardon still stinks and it has never been adequately explained."


Move over Sopranos. Here comes the Clinton/Rodham crime family syndicate. And we don't need to subscribe to HBO to watch. Priceless.

Posted by: tarheel | March 5, 2007 1:57 PM | Report abuse

ok, zouky zouk zouk, you want to talk about the "points" you made? dig in:

"1. Domenici is not subject to spin"

-every politician, being a public figure, is subject to spin. to suggest otherwise is to be willfully naive.

"he has always said things as they are"

-no, as "how he sees them." again, true of every politician.

"and does not have handlers, this makes his 'handlers' very nervous"

-time out. he does or he doesn't have handlers?

"2. St Pete, as he is called, has no fear of losing any election ever in NM."

-anyone who runs could possibly lose an election, otherwise why hold the election in the first place? this is not a 'fact' - this is your opinion... something you criticize others for daring to disagree with.

"3. the biggest scandel"

-"scandAL"

"from the clinton years is more likely selling secrets to the chinese, not getting OBL or perhaps even lying to a grand jury."

-1, clinton did not sell secrets to the chinese. 2, at that point, we knew bin laden was bad, but the rest of the world would not have sanctioned our violating the pakistani border without permission. unlike bush, clinton knew that he had to play by international rules. 3, lying to a grand jury about an embarrassing indiscretion is not like, say, deliberately leaking the name of a c.i.a. agent for political purposes and then lying about it. yes, i know the libby jury is still out. yes, i know cheney was not indicted. is anyone fooled by this? bush, dick, and co. are by orders of magnitude faster and looser with the law than clinton was.

"4. do you Dems ever think through to the consequences of your actions? what happens when you raise the min wage - low skilled workers become totally unemployed."

-i'm sure you would fire them. i'm not sure everyone else would. it has been long enough since a minimum wage hike that the employers could certainly suck it up with little or no pain.

"what happens when you leave a war unfinished"

-osama bin laden escapes from tora bora. next question?

"what happens when you care more about labor than children - the education system creates jobs but fails in teaching."

-so, your point here is what? that teachers should not be paid more, or that education should not be sufficiently funded because if it were, the quality of teaching would suffer? i don't see the logic here. it would seem obvious to me that if teachers were paid what they are worth, more would be attracted to the profession, and more would stay in it for a longer period of time.

"what happens when you claim to be fiscally responsible and then add $10 billion to a defense bill - apparantly nothing happens."

-what happens when you claim to be fiscally responsible and then add $2 trillion to the deficit? especially when you inherited a national budget that was in surplus?

"what happens when you promise seniors a certain level of income then are forced to renege on this pledge because of faulty actuarial assumptions - you demagouge"

-"demaGOGUE," your majesty. in any case, had the surplus been applied to the social security fund, or been used to further pay down the deficit, rather than squandered in fiscally irresponsible tax cuts for rich people, the economy would have been better able to meet its obligations to seniors.

"what happens when you let big bureacracies run your health care system"

- you mean, like HMOs? or perhaps you are referring to the pharmaceutical industry? the answer so far seems to be that you re-import drugs at lower cost from canada.

zouk, i have no hope that you will see the truth in any of this through your blinders... but i felt obliged to try.
______ ______ ______

Posted by: meuphys | March 5, 2007 1:55 PM | Report abuse

After those two posts, are you still claiming that you're non-partisan and don't insult people? Because I count 3-5 insults in just those two new posts.

Posted by: Blarg | March 5, 2007 1:48 PM | Report abuse

OK, nice and slow for you public school Libs who can't seem to follow an argument. Here is a sample of the intellectual force of the leftie bloggers just from today:
"HOW LONG ARE YOU GOING TO IGNORE THIS NEONAZI BEHAVIOR?
Alberto "Contempt of Congress" Gonzales and his master George W(orst President Ever)
lying about it--of course he would lie, he's a Republican-
Republicans when they are in power is that they tend to abuse power while trying to appear honest, just and decent
These rich pric*s lie awake at night thinking up ways to screw the middle class...

licked the toes of awol deserter gw bush
miserable excuse for a journalist howie kurtz"
This is what passes for Lib thought? If you had any sense it should be shame. Yet you try to compare what I composed to this? If your thought patterns are that skewed, there is no use having a so-called "reasoned debate". can you at least distance yourself from these particular moonbats. And you could always respond to my policy points. Unless you are hiding something.


Posted by: kingofzouk | March 5, 2007 1:43 PM | Report abuse

I digress due to some amount of density on some readers part:

"do you Dems ever think through to the consequences of your actions? what happens when you raise the min wage - low skilled workers become totally unemployed. what happens when you leave a war unfinished - the enemy regoups and goes on the attack. what happens when you care more about labor than children - the education system creates jobs but fails in teaching. what happens when you claim to be fiscally responsible and then add $10 billion to a defense bill - apparantly nothing happens. what happens when you promise seniors a certain level of income then are forced to renege on this pledge because of faulty actuarial assumptions - you demagouge and pretend it is someone else making trouble. what happens when you let big bureacracies run your health care system - (See Army) please fill out the proper forms for service. come back in about 6 months."

Are these insults?
Now deal with this without referring to my motivations, my history, my partisan views, my childhood, etc. Partisan or not, there are valid points here which you weak-kneed Libs refuse to confront. I have a theory why but will await a response.

you may note that I actually criticized ann Coulter above. this would be contrary to your most recent post. that wasn't hard to find. If I wanted to insult individual Dems there is plenty of ammunition which I leave undone. It couldn't be easier when you run clinton and Edwards. but I usually stick to announced policies. can you play that game or are you stuck in some drindlesque insulting nazification of the world.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 5, 2007 1:31 PM | Report abuse

'It is always amusing to see you nitwits talk about things you know nothing about and inject your assumed partisan ideas into everything you analyze.'

You have this odd habit of accusing others of doing precisely what you do. Are you joking or do you lack any self-awareness whatsoever?

' I am at times partisan, but generally stick to the facts, '

LOL you have no credibility. zero.

And you can't lie about Ann Coulter. The cons love her, they've hired her to speak for yours, they cheer her when she says hateful vicious, dangerous things like inciting the murder of judges.

Nobody mentioned this i the media, no one would have covered it all if it hadn't been for bloggers. No one on the right would have said a word and yuo know it. They never have before. She's the face of the conservative movement. Ugly, ugly, ugly.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 5, 2007 1:26 PM | Report abuse

How was I attacking you? I asked you a very simple question.

You say that you're "at times" partisan. I assume the times when you aren't partisan all take place when you're offline. Because almost every post you make criticizes or insults the Democrats. I don't remember ever seeing you criticize a Republican, on the other hand. I don't know how you can seriously claim that you aren't completely partisan, biased against the Democrats and for the Republicans in every situation and in all of your posts.

The fact that you're so consistently and relentlessly partisan means that it's ridiculous for you to criticize others for being partisan. It's about as ridiculous as your "I did not insult" posturing, when your post started out by calling everyone here nitwits.

Posted by: Blarg | March 5, 2007 1:23 PM | Report abuse

"what happens when you leave a war unfinished"

I dunno, what happens when you lose one?

Posted by: Pdoggie | March 5, 2007 1:20 PM | Report abuse

When Ann made her offending comment on Friday, it wasn't greeted by boisterous laughter as many of you have suggested in your emails and comments. It was greeted by uncomfortable silence. That spoke well of the attendees. The audience at CPAC knew that Ann had transgressed.

http://www.townhall.com/blog#b84e8791-f2cd-4992-a015-bb2c2d31bbd7

But no outrage at that stunted Bill moher and his cheney comments. Can we cancel this show of his too? He obviously has "issues" to say things about someone he doesn't know of such rare picquance. Maybe he got beat up a lot in junior high. Still, not funny and deserving of reprobation, just like Ann chupacabra Coulter gets from the right when she goes over the line, which is too often. Can someone pay attention to her before she shaves her head? It is sad to get old and wrinkled when you rely so heavily on your looks. Must be lonely in the end.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 5, 2007 1:17 PM | Report abuse

"attack me and ignore the argument I made. Pretty weak, as usual."

Posted by: Pot calling Kettle 'black' | March 5, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Blarg - I did not insult, I did not call anyone Nazis, I did not refer to evil, I did not assume motivation, etc. I stated actual Dem policies and proclaimed my dis-belief of them from a factual and rational viewpoint. I am at times partisan, but generally stick to the facts, don't name-call pols I don't know for hidden motivations and try to remain on policy and not personalities. I am not perfect, but I am certainly better than most on this site.

does whether I am partisan or not effect the statements I made or are you dodging the issues again? attack me and ignore the argument I made. Pretty weak, as usual.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 5, 2007 1:11 PM | Report abuse

As I have mentioned, Politico is a right-wing, smear dems site. The miserable excuse for a journalist howie kurtz trites to cover for John Harris... how he 'inadvertently' wrote a repug talking point. There's no' inadvertent' aspect to it --it's a clear-cut smear.

'John Harris, editor-in-chief of Politico.com, has admitted authoring the latest Republican talking point. Quite inadvertently, of course.

While editing a story on Democratic strategy for Iraq, he junked the lead as "too bland" and wrote a "snappier" one: "Top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration's options."

Republicans, and several news outlets, seized on Harris's "slow-bleed" phrase, using it to brand a plan by Democratic Rep. John Murtha to place restrictions on President Bush's ability to send additional troops to Iraq.'

Posted by: drindl | March 5, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Some anonymous poster said:

"The Times leans further right every day"

Yeah, they've gone from 'communist' to 'socialist'.

Posted by: JD | March 5, 2007 12:44 PM | Report abuse

"It is always amusing to see you nitwits talk about things you know nothing about and inject your assumed partisan ideas into everything you analyze."

You consider yourself non-partisan, Zouk?

Posted by: Blarg | March 5, 2007 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Domenici problems are small compared to Hillarys. Hillary's pardon controversies are back in major news outlets. This from the Boston Globe on 2/28. Now, in the wake of the launch of her presidential campaign, the pardon controversy has reemerged in an obscure court case in which Senator Hillary Clinton's brother Tony is battling an order to repay more than $100,000 he received from a couple pardoned by President Clinton. Tony Rodham, who acknowledged approaching the president about a pardon for the couple, is the second of Hillary Clinton's brothers to receive money from people who were eventually pardoned by President Clinton. Hugh Rodham received $400,000 from two people, one of whom was pardoned and one whose sentence was commuted.

In addition to the people who paid her brothers, those receiving pardons included commodities trader Marc Rich, a fugitive who was prosecuted for tax evasion by then-US Attorney Rudolph Giuliani and fled to Switzerland. Before Rich received the pardon in January 2001, his former wife, Denise Rich, contributed $70,000 to a fund supporting Hillary Clinton's Senate bid, and also made a large contribution to the Clinton presidential library.

"It is a legitimate campaign issue," said Stephen Gillers, professor of legal ethics at New York University School of Law. He said that Hillary Clinton should answer questions about her brothers' and her own involvement in the pardons because "the stench of the Marc Rich pardon still stinks and it has never been adequately explained. "

Posted by: BaLANCE | March 5, 2007 12:43 PM | Report abuse

It is always amusing to see you nitwits talk about things you know nothing about and inject your assumed partisan ideas into everything you analyze.
1. Domenici is not subject to spin, he has always said things as they are and does not have handlers, this makes his "handlers" very nervous, but he is the Senator. He has no declining facilities, something you would know if you ever met the man.
2. St Pete, as he is called, has no fear of losing any election ever in NM.
3. the biggest scandel from the clinton years is more likely selling secrets to the chinese, not getting OBL or perhaps even lying to a grand jury. there are just so many to choose from.
4. do you Dems ever think through to the consequences of your actions? what happens when you raise the min wage - low skilled workers become totally unemployed. what happens when you leave a war unfinished - the enemy regoups and goes on the attack. what happens when you care more about labor than children - the education system creates jobs but fails in teaching. what happens when you claim to be fiscally responsible and then add $10 billion to a defense bill - apparantly nothing happens. what happens when you promise seniors a certain level of income then are forced to renege on this pledge because of faulty actuarial assumptions - you demagouge and pretend it is someone else making trouble. what happens when you let big bureacracies run your health care system - (See Army) please fill out the proper forms for service. come back in about 6 months.

As you see, dear readers, you must suspend all reason to fall in line with any mainstream Dem thought. but a willing press lets non-critical voters stay unaware of the tricks being played.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 5, 2007 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Good news!!!!!!!
For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
www.onlinejournal.com

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070304/ap_on_re_us/massachusetts_health_care

Mass. health care plan moving forward

BOSTON - The average uninsured Massachusetts resident could obtain health care coverage for as little as $175 a month under the state's insurance law, less than half of earlier estimates, officials said Saturday.
ADVERTISEMENT

The plans are a critical piece of the state's landmark insurance initiative, which requires all state residents to have health coverage by July 1 or face tax penalties. Some insurers had suggested earlier that the premium would be $380 a month.

"This is a big improvement from the first round of bids and a big step forward for health care reform," Gov. Deval Patrick said as he released the results of negotiations with health insurers in the state. "The health security that was the point of health care reform will be delivered at an affordable price."

The panel charged with overseeing the law is expected to give its seal of approval Wednesday to the seven health care plans that met the affordability goals. On March 20, the board is scheduled to vote on whether the insurers will be able to offer lower cost versions without drug coverage.

The minimum plan detailed by Patrick would cover the average uninsured Massachusetts resident, who is typically around 37 years old. It includes prescription drug coverage and covers basic medical care, such as emergency room visits and outpatient medical care.

Lower cost plans would be available to young adults. Prices would also rise and fall depending on the age of the person seeking insurance and where they live.

The plans must include coverage for preventive doctor visits and an out-of-pocket limit, after which the plan would pay everything else, said the board's executive director, Jon Kingsdale. They must also include coverage for emergencies, mental health, substance abuse, rehabilitation, hospice and vision.

Posted by: che | March 5, 2007 12:27 PM | Report abuse

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
www.onlinejournal.com

Breaking news!!!
Bush departments alliance with Al Qaeda related groups in Lebanon

A major focus of the US strategy is to weaken the Syrian government of President Bashir Assad and his alliance with Iran, and to undermine the influence of Hezbollah in Lebanon. The Bush administration actively encouraged Israel's savage bombardment and invasion of Lebanon last year as the opening shot in a broader campaign against Syria and Iran. But in a significant blow to US plans, Israel failed to destroy Hezbollah, which emerged from the rubble with heightened political stature. In an interview on Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio, Hersh described Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah as "the single most popular figure among Sunnis and Shias" in the Middle East.

In its efforts to counter the Shiite-based Hezbollah and shore up the government of Prime Minister Fuad Siniora, the US is now covertly supporting Sunni extremist groups in Lebanon that are known to have close ideological ties to Al Qaeda. Nothing is more revealing of the criminal character of the Bush administration. In the name of fighting its bogus "war on terror" against "Islamo-fascists" to defend the American people, the White House has no compunction in forming in a de facto alliance with Sunni fanatics who pay homage to Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

A former senior American intelligence official told veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh: "We are in a program to enhance Sunni capacity to resist Shiite influence, and we're spreading money around as much as we can... In this process, we're financing a lot of bad guys with some serious potential unintended consequences. We don't have the ability to determine and get pay vouchers signed by the people we like and avoid the people we don't like. It's a very high-risk venture."

Former British MI6 agent Alastair Crooke, based at the Conflicts Forum think tank in Beirut, explained that Fatah al-Islam, which broke from the pro-Syrian group Fatah al-Intifada in the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp in northern Lebanon, had been offered money to fight Hezbollah. A larger Sunni fundamentalist group, situated at the Ain al-Hilweh Palestinian refugee camp, received arms and supplies from Lebanese internal security forces and militias associated with the Siniora government.

An article in the British-based Telegraph last month confirmed that President Bush had given the green light to the CIA to provide financial and logistical support to the Lebanese prime minister. The classified presidential order "authorises the CIA and other US intelligence agencies to fund anti-Hezbollah groups in Lebanon and pay for activists who support the Siniora government. The secrecy of the finding [order] means that US involvement in the activities is officially deniable."

All these activities are going on behind the backs of the US Congress and the American people. It is no surprise that Elliot Abrams, who was convicted over the Iran-Contra affair, is a central figure in these dirty operations. In the 1980s, the Reagan administration was involved in secretly selling arms to Iran as a means of covertly funding and arming the right-wing Contras in Nicaragua without congressional approval. Now Abrams is directing another criminal operation, involving the Saudis, to fund Sunni extremists to undermine Tehran and its allies as the US prepares to launch a war on Iran.

The close involvement of Saudi Arabia in the enterprise is particularly significant. The Saudi monarchy, which has a long history of financing Sunni fanatics, was a close partner in the 1980s in the CIA's backing of Mujaheddin fighters against the Soviet-backed regime in Afghanistan. The "blowback" from that operation included the creation of Al Qaeda, which called for a jihad against the US after American troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia for the first Gulf War in 1990-91. Now with Saudi assistance, the Bush administration is unleashing the same reactionary forces in its efforts to undermine Iran, with cynical disregard for the consequences.

As a US government consultant told Hersh, Prince Bandar and other Saudis had offered assurances that "they will keep a very close eye on the religious fundamentalists. Their message to us was, 'We've created this movement, and we can control it.' It's not that we don't want the Salafis [Sunni fundamentalists] to throw bombs; it's who they throw them at--Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Iran, and at the Syrians, if they continue to work with Hezbollah and Iran." No doubt similar assurances were given in the 1980s that Riyadh would control a little-known Saudi engineer, Osama bin Laden, and his followers.

For the rest of this article please go to:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/iran-f28.shtml

Posted by: che | March 5, 2007 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Another R who hasn't learned that bringing home the bacon does not guarantee being re-elected. And another stake in the heart of conservatism on the R side. From Novak no less: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/04/AR2007030401050.html

"Thune has been energetic in promoting pork for South Dakota"

Anyone taking odds on the D's gaining more seats in the Senate in 2008?

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | March 5, 2007 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Gonzales told reporters the other day he considered it a waste of time to answer congressional inquiries or respond to subpoenas..... and, one of the U.S. Attorneys was fired to make room for an aide to Karl Rove to take the job.

Dominici is just the latest poster boy for the arrogant law-manipulating blindfolded Bush justice.... don't forget the imprisoned border guards while the immunity-granted drug smuggler walks free.

Congress, impeach Gonzales!

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | March 5, 2007 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Why hasn't anyone asked the question of these GOP Congressmen-who asked them to pressure these Us Attorneys?
bethincary

Posted by: bethincary | March 5, 2007 11:51 AM | Report abuse

The problem with zombies in Congress is nothing new. Domenici - popular in New Mexico because he's popular - appears to be having declining capacity in his mental faculties the last few years. This should be no problem as long as his handlers can keep him away from the press and the phones but, as this case illustrates, he gets in trouble when his handlers drop the leash.

Heather Wilson on the other hand is a complete outsider to New Mexico even after all these terms in Congress. She does not connect with voters so much as she clobbers them with reasons why her opponents in elections are worse than she is. Hence, her capacity to elicit voter forgiveness is much lower than Pudding Pete.

Heather narrowly missed getting bumped out during the 2006 elections and this clumsy scandal will do nothing for her Congressional longevity.

Posted by: Do-Do-Menici | March 5, 2007 11:44 AM | Report abuse

'NYT: Dems' on Iraq Are "Fringe"
In its piece about congressional Democrats' anti-war Out of Iraq Caucus, the New York Times is so blinded by its elitist, Serious Person disdain for the vast majority of the public that it actually published this absurdly oxymoronic statement: "Even with a majority of Americans opposing the war, the caucus is struggling to overcome its fringe image." ... This line is stunning (though sadly not shocking) for its sheer idiocy.'

The Times leans further right every day... it's barely above the level of Fox News anymore. I stopped my subscription when they couldn't stop bashing Bill Clinto every day... and then just licked the toes of awol deserter gw bush.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 5, 2007 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Remember about ten years ago or so, when the biggest "scandal" coming out of the administration was that the Prez had oral sex? Ah, those were the days.

Posted by: hellhound | March 5, 2007 11:21 AM | Report abuse

First off I agree that this will pressure Domenici to retire. It is definitly going to hurt his fund-raising. If he doesn't retire he will get re-elected no matter what happens with the scandal.
Secondly, the congresswoman in California, changed her shirt in front of a female reporter because she was running late. This would be a non-story if it had been a male Congressman changing his shirt and tie before another meeting.

Also people, the Democratic ticket will NOT have two minorities on it, period. If Obama or Richardson is nominated they will pick some white male with sound solid experience, ie Wesley Clark, Al Gore, or Evan Bayh. The same goes for Hillary too.

Posted by: Andy R | March 5, 2007 11:18 AM | Report abuse

'Those Days Are Gone': Media reports fiscal crunch, neglects to mention GOP responsibility - Digby: "I am getting so tired of Republicans screwing things up so that the Democrats have to come in and clean up their messes. Tonight, I watched what could have been a vintage 1992 60 Minutes story about how the deficit is going to bankrupt the country unless somebody does something right now -- which immediately translates into a story that insists we must radically scale back all spending and entitlement programs because it would be immoral to pass these bills on to our grandchildren. And yet, in this vintage deficit fear mongering story, there is virtually no discussion of why we are in this situation."

This is what is so fantastically stupid about this deficit. Bush cuts taxes for the wealthy, they no longer pay taxes so we go into deep deficit, so the answer to cut programs for the middle class. It was quite purposeful, because there is nothing bush wants more than to destroy Social Security and Medicare, he's been trying for 30 years.

These rich pric*s lie awake at night thinking up ways to screw the middle class...

Posted by: Anonymous | March 5, 2007 11:15 AM | Report abuse

"I'm more and more convinced an Obama/Richardson ticket would be tough to beat (charisma at the top, sound foreign policy experience to balance things out)."

Or what about Obama/Napolitano? Just one state away from NM is another interesting VP candidate.

Posted by: Golgi | March 5, 2007 11:04 AM | Report abuse

well judge, bush lurves gonzalez -- coz he'll do anything he's told. doesn't have an independent bone in his body. they would sure fight hard to block any attempt to get rid of him... without him to protect them, they would be in deep legal sh** themselves for all the crimes they've committed, especially against the constitution and humanity.


Posted by: drindl | March 5, 2007 11:03 AM | Report abuse

A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away R's considered themselves too powerful to worry about trivial things such as the rule of law. Fortunately, things have begun to shift back and these two may be one of the many to pay a price. As the crooks are brought to justice, I can't see Gonzalez making it to 2008. Question: who'll Bush nominate in his place?

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | March 5, 2007 10:56 AM | Report abuse

I wonder who the "the few conservative congressmen" are who were complaining about prosecutor Carol Lam. I live in Duke's district and the only congressman here who has complained publicly is Darrell Issa.

Duncan Hunter has been strangely silent and he's usually the first one to feign outrage on an immigration issue. Hunter was involved with Duke in pressuring the Pentagon to give Brent Wilkes some of his contracts so I expect the FBI is investigating him.

While I have read in the press that Issa and "other members of congress" have complained about Lam, those others have never been publicly identifed. Locally, neither Hunter nor Brian Bilbray (duke's successor) issued any press releases about this matter.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 5, 2007 10:51 AM | Report abuse

On the matter of Mr. Iglesias's testimony on Tuesday, let's remember a few things. Sen. Domenici (R-NM) and the political appointees at the Justice Department have strong motivations for supporting each others claims about management shortcomings during Mr. Iglesias's tenure -- despite the fact that there appears to be little if any evidence for this prior to Iglesias's ouster. Domenici has already if not lied than intentionally misled the public about his contacts with Iglesias. Remember, when first asked about Iglesias's claims about calls to his office from members of the New Mexico, Domenici said "I have no idea what he's talking about." It's only by the most generous and clement interpretation that that statement doesn't peg Domenici as a liar. So he's already misled the public and taken an action which even by the most innocent reading appears to violate congressional ethics rules. He doesn't have much credibility. The folks at Main Justice don't have much either when you consider that they've run through several different explanations at this point for why Iglesias was fired.

So let's see what Iglesias says. He's levelled extremely serious charges. So he deserves scrutiny too. But let's not miss that we're about to witness that most familiar of Bush era storylines, the whistleblower heading into the buzzsaw, with the full panoply of DOJ, Republican senators, National Review yakkers and RNC smearlords ready to crank up the noise machine to make sure Iglesias is too bashed and bruised by the end of the week to make his charges amount to anything.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 5, 2007 10:49 AM | Report abuse

The problem with Republicans when they are in power is that they tend to abuse power while trying to appear honest, just and decent. Bush*s administration has been plagued with corruption, nepotism, and favoritism which has led to incompetence and corruption. Domenici and Wilson certainly knew the impact of their calling Iglesias.

Posted by: M. Stratas | March 5, 2007 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Hypocritical Heather with her moooooves on the field and moral outrage over a quickly bared breast on the Super Bowl Halftime show now gets caught with her "Katherine Graham" in a wringer (Watergate aficionados will understand the reference). This comes on the heels of a report that she (allegedly) buried a report while serving as some functionary in NM state politics about her dear hubby giving the pizza boy a bit more than a tip (allegedly).

As for Richardson, I think the Senate would be a letdown for him. I'm more and more convinced an Obama/Richardson ticket would be tough to beat (charisma at the top, sound foreign policy experience to balance things out).

Posted by: Anon | March 5, 2007 10:33 AM | Report abuse

He's not regretful he made the call, he regrets the information coming out.....PUHLEEEZE!
(It would be a sad end to his career - but just like many who are in Congress - got a little too carried away, and thought too highly of themselves.)

Posted by: Anonymous | March 5, 2007 10:12 AM | Report abuse

Domenici will be fine, but Wilson better hope she's not in this when re-election time rolls around.

Posted by: reason | March 5, 2007 10:08 AM | Report abuse

Our corrupt Republican politicians at work--pressuring U.S. Attorneys who are getting to close to home and otherwise subverting their independence and an even-handed justice system. Then lying about it--of course he would lie, he's a Republican--before having to come clean when he knew the truth out come out during this week's hearings. We are governed by scum.

Posted by: mikeasr | March 5, 2007 10:01 AM | Report abuse

'only pants and a black bra:'

good lord. what happend to my country?

Posted by: Anonymous | March 5, 2007 9:59 AM | Report abuse

"But, there's little question that Domenici (and potentially Wilson) will be in the eye of this storm for the foreseeable future."

Not to mention (and you didn't) Alberto "Contempt of Congress" Gonzales and his master George W(orst President Ever) Bush. If the MSM ever gets around to doing their jobs, I think these two will be in the eye of the storm, as you say.

Posted by: Greg in LA | March 5, 2007 9:58 AM | Report abuse

A very big no no... and no doubt just the tip of the iceberg... on a lighter note, Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez did an interview with the LA Times wearing only pants and a black bra: http://www.solidpolitics.com

Posted by: William | March 5, 2007 9:34 AM | Report abuse

Patrick Fitzgerald's job will be winding-up soon. Perfect timing for him to pick-up with the job of determining whether or not Wilson or Domenici interferred with or obstructed a Federal investigation under Title 18 of the U.S. Code.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | March 5, 2007 9:33 AM | Report abuse

I'm dissappointed in Domenici. Even though I'm a liberal I always appreciated his advocacy on behalf of mental health issues because of his daughter. Domenici had close friendship with the late liberal Minnesota Senator, Paul Wellstone. Sadly, on this matter he put partisan politics before justice and he deserves to pay a price.

http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com

Posted by: Intrepid Liberal Journal | March 5, 2007 9:25 AM | Report abuse

Coulter said the comment was a joke and on her Web site she carried the speech with the comment, "I'm so ashamed, I can't stop laughing." She then said Edwards' campaign chairman's main job was "fronting for Arab terrorists."

Posted by: sick people | March 5, 2007 9:18 AM | Report abuse

Oh come on, Chris. Heather Wilson has already been implicated and you know it. Give me a break and stop covering for republican lawbreakers.

When are you going to write about CPAC, huh? When are you going to talk about the hatefullness of the radical right, who think it's funny when Ann Coulter calls John Edwards a 'fa**ot' or when 'consdervatives' applaud when she calls for murdering judges?

HOW LONG ARE YOU GOING TO IGNORE THIS NEONAZI BEHAVIOR?

Posted by: drindl | March 5, 2007 9:14 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company