Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

RNC Adds Staff Talent

The Republican National Committee is staffing up in anticipation of the handover of power from outgoing RNC Chair Ken Mehlman to its new leader, Sen. Mel Martinez (Fla.)

The latest hire is Lisa Camooso Miller, who will serve as communications director during the 2008 cycle. Miller comes to the RNC from a stint as spokeswoman for former House Speaker Dennis Hastert. (Miller's boss in Hastert's office -- Ron Bonjean -- has landed as executive director of the Senate Republican Conference.) She also worked under Bonjean at the Commerce Department and came up in the rough-and-tumble world of New Jersey politics, once serving as special assistant to former Gov. Donny DiFrancesco (R).

Miller joins Mike Duncan, who will run day-to-day operations.

The RNC has experienced a staff exodus of late as a number of senior operatives have left to join presidential campaigns. RNC political director Mike DuHaime is now heading up the exploratory committee of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani; RNC research director Matt Rhoades is serving as communications director for former Gov. Mitt Romney; Miller's predecessor -- Brian Jones -- will be communications director for Sen. John McCain's (Ariz.) 2008 campaign.

The Democratic National Committee has lost fewer people, probably due to the fact that Chairman Howard Dean is staying on through the 2008 election and wants to keep his current team in place. DNC executive director Tom McMahon, finance director Carl Chidlow and communications director Karen Finney are committed to remaining in their posts through 2008.

Deputy executive director Moses Mercado has left the DNC to join Ogilvy Government Relations, the lobbying firm formerly known as the Federalist Group. Political director Pam Womack will also leave the DNC but remain a consultant to Dean's vaunted "50 State Project."

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 9, 2007; 2:11 PM ET
Categories:  Democratic Party , Republican Party  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Kerry Prepares Another White House Run
Next: Wag The Blog: Sen. Tim Johnson

Comments

Why is everyone calling barack obama black? he is bi-racial? His mother is white and father is a kenyan? i actually take offense to this for personal reasons (HINT HINT)is this just the media being caught up in the moment? why doesn't barack say soemthing?

Posted by: Serious Question about Barack | January 18, 2007 11:11 AM | Report abuse

'Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, who is President Bush's choice to become the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, posed a riddle during the initial march to Baghdad four years ago that now becomes his own conundrum to solve: "Tell me how this ends."

That query, uttered repeatedly to a reporter then embedded in Petraeus's 101st Airborne Division, revealed a flinty skepticism about prospects in Iraq -- and the man now asked to forestall a military debacle.

The article does not answer Petraeus' question; it is only a short bio of the General. We are left to wonder what will happen to Iraq or any number of countries in which the US now finds itself (or its ally) fighting, from Afghanistan and the borders of Pakistan to Gaza to Lebanon to Somalia. Somalia is just the latest recipient of the Bush policy that claims the US has a unilateral right to use military force in any nation in which it finds persons we regard as "terrorists." But Petraeus' riddle is perhaps the most important issue facing the country as the President announces his plans to escalate the Iraq war.

I doubt that the President understands this question. As best I can tell, the President and his "national security team," seem to be preoccupied with not losing a war they started, especially not during Bush's term. They still believe, or at least claim to believe, that they can still "win" their war. But that belief seems be based on the non sequitur that since the consequences of losing are unthinkable to them, winning is the only option. As McCain put it, "It's just so hard for me to contemplate failure that I can't make the next step." McCain repeated the argument for WaPo and before AEI, and AEI's Frederick Kagan added his own fears about the consequences of failure on CSPAN's Washington Journal. Henry Kissinger, who helped Nixon deny that we lost the Viet Nam war, and left that unhappy result for President Ford, is the current President's model for how to leave a losing hand to the hapless sap that follows you.

I have been struggling with a similar question ever since I watched the twin towers in flames and heard the instant analysis that we had been attacked by an extremist Islamic group called al-Qaeda. Beyond the horrors of death and destruction, all I could think of was, "we have become the Middle East. We will be just like the Israelis and the Palestinans, locked in the cycle of hatred, revenge and counter revenge, with no clear vision of how we get out of that cycle. And our leaders will not see this until it is too late."

I knew then that our President and the people around him were unlikely to understand what was about to happen to the country in the absence of an extraordinary and unprecedented alternative vision. If anyone was articulating such a vision, they could not be heard over the President's bullhorn and chest thumping. We would invade Afghanistan in months, and Iraq a year after that.

The absence of an alternative vision not based on unilateral military intervention continues to drive American foreign policy and represents its most profound failure. It is a lack of imagination far more serious than the inability to forsee hijacked airplanes flying into buildings.

On Sunday night, that failure led US forces to extend the war against Islam to Somalia, not because Somalia lies at some strategic coordinates on the geopolitical map, and certainly not because its people or non-existent government represent any serious threat to Americans or the United States. No, we unleashed a Specter ("Spooky") gunship, with its awesomely lethal howitzer, cannons and gattling guns, on what was apparently a village at the southern tip of Somalia, because we wanted to kill certain people we claimed were al-Qaeda.

Initial reports indicate that 5-10 people (US claims) or 30 or more (Somali figures) were killed instantly. Within hours, CNN was showing us the pictures of a half dozen men US officials claim are al-Qaeda leaders, but even today there are no confirmed reports that the people we killed were those in the pictures. We just assume we were shooting at the "right" people. That unchallenged disconnect is a consistent pattern.

Just as it did not matter that as many as 20-30 Pakistanis civilians were killed in an effort to kill some al Qaeda leader thought to be meeting in a Pakistani house, it did not matter that there might have been other Somali people killed in this latest attack and now more follow up US attacks, or that some of the victims were probably innocent, or that we were not even technically at war with those we wanted to attack. We did not do this because Congress passed an Authorization to Use Military Force in Somalia.

No, we did it because our President claims we have the right to murder people in other countries if he decides he wants to do so. And we were in apparent violation of Security Council resolutions, which we helped pass, banning the introduction of weapons into Somalia from outside nations. We are an outside nation. In short, we attacked people in another country because we claim we don't have to obey any laws anywhere -- not ours, not theirs, not the UN's. And that, my friends, is exactly the belief that terrorists everywhere hold.

"Tell me how this ends." Does it end by the US killing everyone who hates America, or every one the neocons hate? Last I checked, that was moving in the direction of a very large number of Muslims; if so, we are significantly outnumbered. There are a billion or so Muslims who do not share our view that we have the unilateral right to kill them just because members of al Qaeda attacked us. In that context, the notion that sending 20,000 more US troops to help pacify or kill (with an even hand) angry Sunni and Shiite Muslims because they don't want us in their country seems incredibly obtuse, even suicidal.'

Posted by: Anonymous | January 10, 2007 10:04 AM | Report abuse

The key word to look for in the next few days is "ESSENTIAL" or various forms of it being used, that will essentially mean the same thing.

Posted by: lylepink | January 10, 2007 10:01 AM | Report abuse

'Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, who is President Bush's choice to become the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, posed a riddle during the initial march to Baghdad four years ago that now becomes his own conundrum to solve: "Tell me how this ends."

That query, uttered repeatedly to a reporter then embedded in Petraeus's 101st Airborne Division, revealed a flinty skepticism about prospects in Iraq -- and the man now asked to forestall a military debacle.

The article does not answer Petraeus' question; it is only a short bio of the General. We are left to wonder what will happen to Iraq or any number of countries in which the US now finds itself (or its ally) fighting, from Afghanistan and the borders of Pakistan to Gaza to Lebanon to Somalia. Somalia is just the latest recipient of the Bush policy that claims the US has a unilateral right to use military force in any nation in which it finds persons we regard as "terrorists." But Petraeus' riddle is perhaps the most important issue facing the country as the President announces his plans to escalate the Iraq war.

I doubt that the President understands this question. As best I can tell, the President and his "national security team," seem to be preoccupied with not losing a war they started, especially not during Bush's term. They still believe, or at least claim to believe, that they can still "win" their war. But that belief seems be based on the non sequitur that since the consequences of losing are unthinkable to them, winning is the only option. As McCain put it, "It's just so hard for me to contemplate failure that I can't make the next step." McCain repeated the argument for WaPo and before AEI, and AEI's Frederick Kagan added his own fears about the consequences of failure on CSPAN's Washington Journal. Henry Kissinger, who helped Nixon deny that we lost the Viet Nam war, and left that unhappy result for President Ford, is the current President's model for how to leave a losing hand to the hapless sap that follows you.

I have been struggling with a similar question ever since I watched the twin towers in flames and heard the instant analysis that we had been attacked by an extremist Islamic group called al-Qaeda. Beyond the horrors of death and destruction, all I could think of was, "we have become the Middle East. We will be just like the Israelis and the Palestinans, locked in the cycle of hatred, revenge and counter revenge, with no clear vision of how we get out of that cycle. And our leaders will not see this until it is too late."

I knew then that our President and the people around him were unlikely to understand what was about to happen to the country in the absence of an extraordinary and unprecedented alternative vision. If anyone was articulating such a vision, they could not be heard over the President's bullhorn and chest thumping. We would invade Afghanistan in months, and Iraq a year after that.

The absence of an alternative vision not based on unilateral military intervention continues to drive American foreign policy and represents its most profound failure. It is a lack of imagination far more serious than the inability to forsee hijacked airplanes flying into buildings.

On Sunday night, that failure led US forces to extend the war against Islam to Somalia, not because Somalia lies at some strategic coordinates on the geopolitical map, and certainly not because its people or non-existent government represent any serious threat to Americans or the United States. No, we unleashed a Specter ("Spooky") gunship, with its awesomely lethal howitzer, cannons and gattling guns, on what was apparently a village at the southern tip of Somalia, because we wanted to kill certain people we claimed were al-Qaeda.

Initial reports indicate that 5-10 people (US claims) or 30 or more (Somali figures) were killed instantly. Within hours, CNN was showing us the pictures of a half dozen men US officials claim are al-Qaeda leaders, but even today there are no confirmed reports that the people we killed were those in the pictures. We just assume we were shooting at the "right" people. That unchallenged disconnect is a consistent pattern.

Just as it did not matter that as many as 20-30 Pakistanis civilians were killed in an effort to kill some al Qaeda leader thought to be meeting in a Pakistani house, it did not matter that there might have been other Somali people killed in this latest attack and now more follow up US attacks, or that some of the victims were probably innocent, or that we were not even technically at war with those we wanted to attack. We did not do this because Congress passed an Authorization to Use Military Force in Somalia.

No, we did it because our President claims we have the right to murder people in other countries if he decides he wants to do so. And we were in apparent violation of Security Council resolutions, which we helped pass, banning the introduction of weapons into Somalia from outside nations. We are an outside nation. In short, we attacked people in another country because we claim we don't have to obey any laws anywhere -- not ours, not theirs, not the UN's. And that, my friends, is exactly the belief that terrorists everywhere hold.

"Tell me how this ends." Does it end by the US killing everyone who hates America, or every one the neocons hate? Last I checked, that was moving in the direction of a very large number of Muslims; if so, we are significantly outnumbered. There are a billion or so Muslims who do not share our view that we have the unilateral right to kill them just because members of al Qaeda attacked us. In that context, the notion that sending 20,000 more US troops to help pacify or kill (with an even hand) angry Sunni and Shiite Muslims because they don't want us in their country seems incredibly obtuse, even suicidal.'

Posted by: Anonymous | January 10, 2007 10:01 AM | Report abuse

The key word to look for in the next few days is "ESSENTIAL" or various forms of it being used, that will essentially mean the same thing.

Posted by: lylepink | January 10, 2007 9:59 AM | Report abuse

The key word to look for in the next few days is "ESSENTIAL" or various forms of it being used, that will essentially mean the same thing.

Posted by: lylepink | January 10, 2007 9:57 AM | Report abuse

As he pitches tonight's latest "stay-the- course" message masquerading as an Iraq strategy, President Bush needs to remember that the American people aren't in the mood for more of the same.

That's why voters bounced Republicans from congressional leadership in November.

That's why a clear majority tell pollsters that they want the troops to start coming home, now.

That's why skepticism and no confidence in the president's leadership dominate in poll after poll.

And that's why voters consistently say they want more bipartisanship in foreign policy and more assertiveness from Democrats.

Which makes it all the more astounding that tonight the president will not embrace the detailed, pragmatic road map to a less chaotic Iraqi future laid out by the Iraq Study Group a mere month ago.

Instead, he reportedly plans to offer a "surge" of a few tens of thousands of additional troops into Iraq.

Fewer than two of every 10 Americans favor an increase in U.S. troops, according to the latest CBS News poll, taken last week.

Fifty-nine percent want a full withdrawal or decrease.

Yet a "surge" in troops is the idea around which the president reportedly has framed his latest plan.

He should reconsider and look again at the Iraq Study Group's 79 recommendations that encompass both best and worse cases.

The group's bipartisan authors took a holistic approach to a crucial task that has so far eluded both the Bush administration and Iraq's radical Shiite government: empowering moderate Iraqis and influencing Iraq's neighbors, friends and adversaries to play a positive role in framing Iraq's future. What's needed is not more unilateral U.S. military action but a joint regional effort to stave off holy war and a larger-scale conflict that could threaten every single one of the Persian Gulf's governments, including Iran and Syria.

The Iraq Study Group recognized that the stakes go far beyond Iraq.

Should access to Persian Gulf oil be cut off and parts of Iraq morph into a terrorist Sunni Islamic state and a terrorist Shiite Islamic state, the world would pay a horrific price.

Yet President Bush thanked the study group's participants and then seemed promptly to have forgotten their overriding message: That it can no longer be business as usual in Iraq.

We hope the president surprises us tonight. We will be listening for the words "Iraq Study Group" and "embrace."

We're trying to keep an open mind. But we very much fear that what the president is proposing to do is paper over the depths of the crisis and try to put off until the end of his presidency America's day of reckoning in Iraq.

A "surge" linked to Iraqi benchmarks that have failed so far to elicit appreciable reforms is not acceptable. It is not practical.

Adding what will amount to a few thousand more troops in Baghdad may be called a "surge," but it will not appreciably change the power dynamics that have turned whole neighborhoods into sectarian war zones, paralyzed regular Iraqi forces and corrupted the interior forces and police.

Altering tactics to give U.S. troops a higher profile in going after the bad guys may yield temporarily higher insurgent body counts, but it will not solve the long-term conundrum of how to secure Iraqi neighborhoods without a credible Iraqi security force.

Praising Iraqi leader Nouri al-Maliki for being a reformed man who recognizes it's time to turn on Baghdad's murderous militias won't change the fact that al-Maliki is beholden for his office to militia benefactor, Muqtada al-Sadr. Which is why al-Sadr's thugs were the ones who got to hang Saddam Hussein, over U.S. objections.

Embracing a "surge" that is not militarily sustainable raises other questions of stewardship.

The only way to keep adding U.S. troops in Iraq is to extend already lengthy combat tours and reduce the time between tours - effectively destroying the nation's National Guard system by compelling part-time soldiers to become part of a regular overseas rotation.

Just a few months ago, senior U.S. generals were pitching to Congress a new emphasis on Iraqi troop training as the best way to hasten the time when U.S. forces could depart. Abandoning that plan so soon after it was set raises its own questions.

Either political pressures from the White House are again distorting military advice from below - or Iraqi forces proved so immutable to change and so resistant to the idea of taking charge of Iraqi security that the long-term prospects for the Iraqi nation must be considered grim.

The November election wasn't just a vote of "no confidence" in political business as usual. It was a vote of no confidence in this president's leadership of the war. A "surge" that cannot be sustained will merely confirm that view.

Posted by: cleveland plain dealer | January 10, 2007 9:49 AM | Report abuse

State officials said at a briefing that they hoped that the new regulations would spur development of ethanol, biomass, electric vehicles and hydrogen technology. Schwarzenegger said in a written statement that those alternatives reduce a "petroleum dependency" that "contributes to climate change and leaves workers, businesses and consumers vulnerable to price shocks from an unstable global energy market."

But Charles T. Drevna, executive vice president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, said that "even with global climate change, the energy world is going to revolve around the hydrocarbon molecule for a long time." He said he opposed California's plan. "Last time I checked," he said, "the term was global climate change, not Lower 48 climate change."

Posted by: suddenly, overnight, everyone admit global warming is real... | January 10, 2007 9:39 AM | Report abuse

'Opening Bristol Bay to oil wells endangers the world's largest wild sockeye salmon run, says Eric J. Siy of the Alaska Marine Conservation Council. '

In Washington, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne announced that the administration would open 5.6 million acres in Alaska's North Aleutian Basin for oil and gas development.

Congress first barred drilling in Bristol Bay in 1989 after the huge Exxon Valdez oil tanker spill damaged Alaska's coast. Congress lifted the ban in 2003 at the urging of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). But a moratorium President Bill Clinton declared on drilling in the area in 1998 remained in effect, so it took Bush's action yesterday to open it to development.

Other Alaskans decried the decision, saying development would bring in less than $8 billion once all the energy was tapped while undermining a fishing industry that brings in $2 billion a year.

"This decision is irresponsible, from our perspective," said Eric J. Siy, executive director of the Alaska Marine Conservation Council. The bay has the world's biggest wild sockeye salmon run as well as abundant red king crab, Pacific halibut and Bering Sea pollock and cod fisheries, he said. "The wise thing to do is to invest in the health of that sustainable economy."

Siy noted that a 1985 federal environmental impact statement suggested that the region posed a danger of a major oil spill. "This is a place with hurricane-force winds, with floating sea ice," he said. An oil spill could be "a nightmare" in an area home to 1 million migrating waterfowl and such marine mammals as endangered right whales, he added.

Posted by: say bye bye to wild salmon... | January 10, 2007 9:37 AM | Report abuse

Hear! Hear!

The neocons didn't want to comprehend the reality of the centuries-old tribal and sectarian strife in the Middle East. Their ideology would conquer all.

But bombing and pointing weapons at foaming-at-the-mouth jihadists and telling them to "love Democracy or we'll kill you" is music to their ears. As we have learned at great cost. More at....

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | January 10, 2007 9:37 AM | Report abuse

...and thank god for that.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 10, 2007 9:25 AM | Report abuse

'As we lug that big pile of end-of-year obituaries into the blue box, I'd like to ask whether we ought to be shedding a tear over a casualty that was largely overlooked -- the surprising death of an entire system of thought.

Neoconservatism, one of the dominant ideologies of the past decade, was decisively wiped out in the past six months, slaughtered along with a good number of innocent people in the imbroglio of the Iraq war -- a conflict that was devised and executed as a pure test of the neoconservative concept.

The death has just been declared, in bold terms, by the most prominent authors of neoconservatism. Francis Fukuyama, whose 1989 essay The End of History marked one of the movement's gestational moments, and who proudly called himself a "neocon," has drowned his own puppies with his book America at the Crossroads (published on this side of the pond as After the Neocons).

"I have concluded that neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something that I can never support," he writes. "Neoconservatism has now become irreversibly identified with the policies of the administration of George W. Bush in its first term, and any effort to reclaim the label at this point is likely to be futile."

Kenneth Adelman, the senior Pentagon official and Bush adviser who famously told the White House in 2002 that the liberation of Iraq would be "a cakewalk," now says the movement he promoted so vigorously, after the Iraq collapse, "is not going to sell."

Speaking to journalist David Rose in this month's Vanity Fair magazine (in an article cleverly titled "Neo Culpa"), he echoes the views of most of his hard-nosed comrades: "I feel that the incompetence of the Bush team means that most everything we ever stood for now also lies in ruins."

Posted by: Anonymous | January 10, 2007 9:23 AM | Report abuse

'Washington -- U.S. President George W. Bush will tell the nation Wednesday night he will send more than 20,000 additional American forces to Iraq, acknowledging that it had been a mistake earlier not to have more American and Iraqi troops fighting the war, a senior administration official said.

Seeking support for a retooled strategy to win support for the unpopular war, the president also will acknowledge that the rules of engagement were flawed, White House counsellor Dan Bartlett said.'

'Mistake'? 'Flawed'? It's not a freaking game of checkers. How about 'catastrophe'? Is he sorry, then? Tell it to the parents and husbands and wives and children of our dead and maimed troops. Tell them it was all a 'mistake.'

And if it was all 3 1/2 years of it a mistake and flawed, how do we know that this time it will be any different or better? Don't they keep running these 'new ways forward' past us over and over again, to no avail, like a bad deja vu? and isn't the outcome always the same? More of our own dead?

And what in god's name is a piddly little 20,000 troops [who by the way, will be worn out and overstretched -- because these are not NEW troops] going to be able to accomplish?

How many shell games will we fall for, how many more of our young people will be sacrificed on the altar of ego and oil?

Posted by: drindl | January 10, 2007 9:19 AM | Report abuse

'At an event with reporters on Thursday, House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-MO, lived up to his last name.

Showing off the leather whip the Missourian keeps in his office, Blunt said, "occasionally a younger person will say, 'Well, do you actually get to whip the members?' I always have a twinge of regret in my voice when I have to say, 'No, we actually, we actually can't actually make the Members (of Congress) do much of anything.

"Probably knee pads would be more appropriate for this job, with these narrow majorities," he added.'

--Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwe

Posted by: Anonymous | January 10, 2007 9:09 AM | Report abuse

The 'librul' press is back to their old mainstay-- 'democrats in disarray' --seems they just can't help themselves.

'The liberal lion of the Senate roars and Democrats are in disarray as to what they can do to stop the surge.'

Posted by: Anonymous | January 10, 2007 9:01 AM | Report abuse

'The House bill would also provide more funds to improve local emergency agencies' communications gear and take steps aimed at making it harder for terrorists to obtain nuclear weapons.'

God forbid we should make it harder to them to get nuclear weapons. We should make it easier for them to get those, alone with automatic weapons, like the administration wants. Bombs for everyone!

'Democrats provided no cost estimate of the package, but a Senate bill introduced last year to adopt the commission's proposals had a five-year price tag of $53 billion.

Republicans warned that the bill would be too costly. They also assailed Democrats for posing as being tough on terrorism.

"Homeland security is too important to play politics when American lives are at stake," said Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo.'

So making us safe is too costly? When we've spent 500 billion securing Iraq's oil for Exxon Mobil? And Mr. Blunt, that statement -- you don't know whether to laugh or cry at the sheer blatant cynicism of it.

'The bill also would change the way federal security funds are distributed to communities around the country, giving more to areas considered at higher risk of terrorist attacks and less to smaller and rural states.

That is one of the biggest obstacles to the bill's friendly reception in the Senate, where many leaders represent small and rural states that could lose money under the new formula.'

Pathetic. This is our government? God help us.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 10, 2007 8:59 AM | Report abuse

Drindl: your analogy to brownshirts is apt. Many of them were social rejects/failures, products of the limited opportunities available in the economic meltdown that was Germany in the early 1930's. We've done a nice job of allowing the same situation to fester in the Middle East. However, I don't see that level of general societal suffering/ignorance here in the US. I do agree that unthinking hatred seemed to be a common thread for many of yesterday's posters.

Skinheads seem to do a good job of hanging together so at a certain depth they all manage to get along.

The on-going splintering of R support due to the fact that Congress is actually DOING something is interesting to watch. The Calcified Ones who post their rantings here won't change but they don't matter. Its the great unwashed undecideds who's opinions count.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | January 10, 2007 8:58 AM | Report abuse

These behind the scenes looks are very revealing. But so far I've seen traditional campaign people, not the people that are leading Internet efforts. Campaigns like Edwards are investing heavily in social networking.

Also, I just heard Mike Huckabee on Imus.

As a moderate I'd say he has one of the best messages out there and a great platform. I hope some attention is paid to him while you're at it.

Posted by: Dons Blog | January 10, 2007 8:57 AM | Report abuse

'An anti-terrorism measure that easily passed the House faces tougher scrutiny from senators skeptical of its call for tougher screening for cargo aboard ships, a new way to divide federal security aid among states and other provisions.

Raising further questions about the bill's future, the Bush administration said it opposed the measure's collective bargaining rights for airport screeners, inspections of cargo on passenger airliners and the cargo-scanning requirement for ships bound for U.S. ports.'

Well of course the administration opposes a living wage for airport screeners-- maybe they can find some homeless people down on skid row who will work for what they want to pay. Keep us real safe. And of course screening of cargo -- why would we want to do that? Who cares if there are bombs on planes? And scanning cargo from other countries -- why would anyone want to hurt us? Anyway, our ports are owned by dubai now -- one of the largest employers of illegal alients in the world, so why should we worry?

All this proves one thing -- the bush administration is not in the least interested in so-called 'Homeland Security' [Did you notice they coined that term 'homeland' right after 9/11, to sound like 'fatherland'] -- to push your hot buttons, folks. karl is good at it. But all they are really interested in is fat contracts to buddies, for projects that never really happen, although the money disappears.

Posted by: drindl | January 10, 2007 8:53 AM | Report abuse

I have to say that the drudgers that were here yesterday are a perfect example of the sickening vileness of 'movement' conservatives. A good part of them have no belief system whatsoever except hatred and bigotry and racism. I did read about that tiff with Martine, JimD. I hope it tears them apart. They hate gays, they hate women, they hate immigrants, they hate Muslims, they hate Mexicans, they hate democracy, they hate the Constitution. A whole generation of americans who hate everything America stands for. How easy it is for them to lie, to slime a good man, to insult the intelligence of any decent human. Timothy McVeigh was, after all, a republican. They are today's young brownshirts and nazis.

If we have any luck, however, their hatred for each other and their own candidates will keep them from gaining much traction.

Posted by: drindl | January 10, 2007 8:39 AM | Report abuse

'A senior al Qaeda suspect wanted for bombing U.S. embassies in East Africa has been killed, a Somali official said Wednesday as witnesses said U.S forces launched a third day of airstrikes.

Also Wednesday, Somalia's Deputy Prime Minister said American troops were needed on the ground to root extremists from his troubled country, and he expected the troops soon.'

Posted by: so now we're sending troops to somalia? huh? | January 10, 2007 7:52 AM | Report abuse

Power will always beget power; it seems everyone is getting geared up for the big race.

http://www.enewsreference.com

Posted by: eNews Reference | January 10, 2007 4:51 AM | Report abuse

Martinez's appointment stirred up a hornet's nest of criticism from the right wing. The anti-Hispanic prejudice rampant among a significant portion of the republican base is ugly and will cost them at the ballot box.

Posted by: JimD in FL | January 9, 2007 11:02 PM | Report abuse

The House is now paying honor to President Ford.

Posted by: lylepink | January 9, 2007 7:40 PM | Report abuse

One thing that strikes me about the recent discussion of John Kerry's possible run and the new Republican operatives discussed here is what John Kerry went through. Now, John Kerry won a silver star in Vietnam. A crewman had fallen overboard and was wounded and under fire. John Kerry ran his boat nto the bank. Then, under fore himself, he jumped over the side and drew a sidearm, shooting the Viet enemy soldier dead. Then, with more fire directed at him by enemy soldiers in the area, he picked up the wounded crewman and carried him into his boat where he was treated for his wounds. Now this was attested to by the wounded crewman and by every member of Mr. Kerry's crew. It was also witnessed and attested to by the entire crew of a boat participating in that rescue. During the election, and since, right wing liars have painted this as a photo op, as a faked publicity stunt, called Mr. Kerry a war criminal for killing the Vietcong sniper, and worse. Those same people, then, turn around and demand that various leftist, opposed to our ill advised venture in Iraq, honor returning soldiers. Those same people decry the antiwar scum who threw human excrement on returning soldiers following the Vietnam War. Now, there is something very wrong here - the people who decry mistreating soldiers for their sacrfice turn and do it to a Mr. Kerry, returning soldier and genuine hero. The new Republican operatives are the very same sort of scum who did this to Mr. Kerry and have poisoned discourse in this country that it led to this end. These people have no sense of honor nor sacrifice nor patriotism. They only know politics of the moment, no matter the cost to our country.

Posted by: MikeB | January 9, 2007 7:28 PM | Report abuse

For uncensored news please bookmark:

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

Isn't it funny how there are billions and billions of dollars available for this continuing slaughter, while social programs in the US are starved for funding? Schools, healthcare, housing and other vital programs are continually cut back or eliminated because there is "no money" for them. Politicians stand up and blather on about how our society "cannot afford" to provide a social safety net for its citizens, while at the same time a tame Congress votes again and again to feed billions into the war machine and into the pockets of corporate criminals like Halliburton. It's sickening.

In order to finance these wars of aggression and windfalls for arms manufacturers, poor and working class youth are shoved into the meat grinder. Meanwhile, the United States steadily becomes more and more like a third-world country, with the destruction of manufacturing jobs, a bloated oligarchy, thousands of people living on the streets and dying of preventable diseases and the environment being destroyed by the rape of the planet for resources that never make it to the people who are exploited into providing the labor that produces it.

Welcome to the world's biggest banana republic.

CZ

San Francisco, California, US

Posted by: che | January 9, 2007 7:18 PM | Report abuse

Chris, having read some of the outright ibel being written by your Republican posters, I have to wonder about the sort of staff being added by the GOP. More liars? More character assassins? Perhaps more spin doctors who will cover up for the piggish and hypocritical behavior of their Republican masters? Karl Rove really did manage to make a sows ear look like a silk purse..but only for a while. So tell us, should we be glad that the crooks and pornographers and treasonous corporate types who support and fund the Republican Party will attempt to pull another fast one on the American voter?

Posted by: MikeB | January 9, 2007 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Chris: Thanks for providing a new thread, the Kerry one was a bit much today.

IDIOT ALERT: Halloween is back. Today a former Governor of Virginia (He who should not be named!) has annouced that he is running for President. Watch your wallets America, he has no, none, zip, zilch concept of fiscal responsibility.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | January 9, 2007 5:59 PM | Report abuse

I see the repugs have rounded up every loser they could find.

Go losers!

Posted by: Anonymous | January 9, 2007 5:12 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company