"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door." The Statue of Liberty (P.S. Please be so kind as to enter through the proper channels and in an orderly fashion)

Location: Arlington, Virginia, United States

Saturday, December 24, 2005


"Out of Context"

Friday, December 23, 2005

By John Gibson

(bold by Republicus)

A friend once cautioned me about going into the opinion game.

"All you ever do," he said, "is spend time defending your opinion."

At the time I started "My Word" I thought about what my friend told me and thought, "Well, I won't say anything I can't defend."

(note by Republicus: Ditto.)

That takes some doing because if you're talking on TV and talking on the radio — which I now do everyday — you end up saying things you don't entirely mean or you wish you could rephrase. But even so, I went into this thinking I could defend myself even through some garble because I think I remain fairly consistent in what I say.

(note by Republicus: Ditto.)

All this got a little deeper when I published books. For the last one, "The War on Christmas," I was especially careful because I knew this would be a touchy subject.

But still I never really expected what has actually happened.

With the book, people condemn it without having read it. They have me saying things I didn't say, and call me names for saying things I didn't say.

That has redoubled with the radio. Now I have people calling me names on television. Names like "fathead" and "the worst something or other" for things I really did not say.

(note by Republicus: How about "Freakin hypocritter" (sic), "fascist," "freakin' fascist," and "anglofascist?")

Or if the words were actually uttered, they were taken wildly out of context.

Who does this? These blogs you find on the side of the road on the information highway. They're like litter. You don't notice as you're speeding by but if you stop you see how ugly it all is.

(note by Republicus: LOL! Yes.)

..Oh well, the slings and arrows.

Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah to all and to all a good night.

That's My Word.

Ditto. :)

Friday, December 23, 2005

Something Neat-O To Hear From An Astronomer (But Not A Proctologist!)

More Rings Found Around Uranus

Thursday, December 22, 2005

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Astronomers aided by the Hubble Space Telescope have spied two more rings encircling Uranus, the first additions to the planet's ring system in nearly two decades.

The faint, dusty rings orbit outside of Uranus' previously known rings, but within the orbits of its large moons, said Mark Showalter, an astronomer at the SETI Institute in Mountain View, Calif., who made the discovery.

Details will appear online Friday in the journal Science. The discovery, announced Thursday, means scientists now believe the seventh planet from the sun possesses 13 rings.

In 1986, Voyager 2 became the first spacecraft to zip past Uranus and beam back thousands of images of its dazzling rings and numerous moons. It found two new rings in addition to the nine previously discovered from Earth.

Scientists peering through the Hubble Space Telescope made the latest ring discoveries in 2004. Then they went back to process hundreds of images taken by Voyager and found the rings in the pictures. Scientists speculate that the rings may not have been discovered during the spacecraft flyby because of their faintness.

The newly discovered rings are made up of short-lived, faint bands of dust grains that are constantly being replenished by erosion of larger space bodies. Scientist think the dust in the outermost ring is being supplied by the moon Mab, discovered in 2003.

Scientists also measured changes in the orbits of Uranus' inner moons since 1994. The new measurements suggest the moons are in a "random and chaotic" fashion, said Jack Lissaur of the NASA Ames Research Center.

Because of the moons' instability, scientists think the satellites will collide with one another in the next few million years.

Uranus, four times the size of Earth, is one of the solar system's giant, gaseous planets, which also include Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune.

Thursday, December 22, 2005

The Comeback Congress!

Friday, December 16, 2005, Fox News

Senate Blocks Vote to Extend Patriot Act

"Yeaaah, finally some sense seeping into the Govenment reps again>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>!!!!

Gloatingly Yours,

Lee Harvey

Six days later:

Thursday, December 22, 2005, Fox News

Congress Passes Patriot Act Extension, Avoids its Expiration



So funny, and yet... so sad.

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

The Comeback Kid

"Wake up calls have been issued and are being received very warmly!!!!!!!!!!

Bushies disapproval ratings..........

Poll Date Approve Disapprove Gap

Fox 11/9 36 53 -17
AP 11/9 37 61 -24
NBC 11/7 38 57 -19
Pew 11/6 36 55 -19
ABC 11/2 39 60 -21
Zogby 11/2 39 61 -22CBS 11/1 35 57 -22Mean ---- 37.1 57.7 -20.6"

Excitedly Yours, Lee Harvey (introducing himself and shamelessly gloating over Bush's low approval ratings in the Nov. 16 commentary section of the post "FYI: What the Democrats Said")

"...Like you, I've been disgusted...Just keep hammering the same line over and over and over because the public already knows it's true: The President is again LYING his failed ass off to the American people....Luckily you radical fascists are no longer an accepted ideology anymore. Every poll has turned, every stone is now beginning to be uncovered and the stench of these neocant's are on the way out, permanently."


"What is so funny and sad at the same time John is that you actually think you are having and winning an argument here. There is nothing to argue about. Everyone with a working brain knows the truth. Only gullible egomaniacs like yourself and Cheney/Bush think you are still fooling(winning) people. It's over man, you argue with no one but yourself now, and claim to win, or "delimb"...By now everyone knows...Everyone knows that... And everyone knows...Everyone knows..."

Lee Harvey (repeatingly speaking on behalf of "everyone" in the commentary section of the November 21 post, "Duhs, a Ditto, a Doy, and a "DOH!")

"Luckily you are a very fast shrinking minority of thought that still worships this administration and believes anything they say."

Lee Harvey (still gloating over Bush's low--but slowly growing at that point-- approval ratings in the commentary section of the November 29 post "I Like Ike")

December 19, 2005:


Bush Ratings:


56% Approve

44% Disapprove


48% Approve

49% Disapprove

Overall Job

47% Approve

52% Disapprove


47% Approve

52% Disapprove


46% Approve

53% Disapprove

That's quite a jump, Lee Harvey.



"Drip by drip."


"Wake up calls have been issued and are being received very warmly!!!!!!!!!!"


Live by the polls, DIE BY THEM, Lee Harvey.

Monday, December 19, 2005

Let's Let This Guy Enrich Uranium!

Thursday, December 08, 2005

MECCA, Saudi Arabia (AP) — Iran's hard-liner president, who has called for Israel's destruction, said Thursday that the Jewish state should be moved to Europe if the West wants to make up for the Holocaust.

Israeli officials condemned the remarks as "outrageous and even racist."

Speaking to reporters at an Islamic summit in the Muslim holy city of Mecca, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad implied that European countries backed the founding of Israel in the Middle East in 1948 out of guilt over the Holocaust.

"Some European countries insist on saying that during World War II, Hitler burned millions of Jews and put them in concentration camps," Ahmadinejad said. "Any historian, commentator or scientist who doubts that is taken to prison or gets condemned."

"Let's give some land to the Zionists in Europe or in Germany or Austria, so they can have their government there," he said. "They faced injustice in Europe, so why do the repercussions fall on the Palestinians? Offer a piece of land from Europe, and we will back this decision and will not attack this government."

"Those who are occupying and ruling Jerusalem, what is the origin of their fathers? ... Most of them have no roots in Palestine, but they are holding the destiny of Palestine in their hands and allow themselves to kill the Palestinian people," he said.

Israel and Iran are sworn enemies and Ahmadinejad's recent remarks saying that Israel should be wiped off the map, combined with Israel's belief that Tehran's nuclear activities are aimed at producing nuclear warheads, have increased tension between the countries.

"Unfortunately, this is not the first time that the president of Iran has made outrageous and even racist remarks concerning Jews and Israel," Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said.

"Only recently the U.N. General Assembly condemned Holocaust denial and here the Iranian leader is showing himself to be fundamentally contradicting the norms of international behavior and decency," he added. "I hope that anyone who had illusions about the true nature of the Iranian regime has received these recent remarks as a wake up call."

Ahmadinejad drew sharp international criticism — and even some at home in Iran — when he said in October that Israel is a "disgraceful blot" that should be "wiped off the map." Still, Ahmadinejad, who was elected in June with the backing of Iran's hard-line clerical rulers, stuck by the comments, and his government organized a series of large anti-Israel demonstrations

But WAIT! There's MORE!

Monday, December 19, 2005

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has banned all Western music from Iran's state radio and TV stations — an eerie reminder of the 1979 Islamic revolution when popular music was outlawed as "un-Islamic" under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Today, though, the sounds of hip-hop can be heard blaring from car radios in Tehran's streets, and Eric Clapton's "Rush" and the Eagles' "Hotel California" regularly accompany Iranian broadcasts.

No more — the official IRAN Persian daily reported Monday that Ahmadinejad, as head of the Supreme Cultural Revolutionary Council, ordered the enactment of an October ruling by the council to ban all Western music, including classical music, on state broadcast outlets.

"Blocking indecent and Western music from the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting is required," according to a statement on the council's official Web site.

Iranian guitarist Babak Riahipour lamented what he called a "terrible" decision. "The decision shows a lack of knowledge and experience," he said.

Music was outlawed by Khomeini soon after the 1979 revolution. Many musicians went abroad and built an Iranian music industry in Los Angeles.

But as revolutionary fervor started to fade, some light classical music was allowed on Iranian radio and television; some public concerts reappeared in the late 1980s.

In the 1990s, particularly during the presidency of reformist Mohammad Khatami starting in 1997, authorities began relaxing restrictions further. These days in Iran, Western music, films and clothing are widely available in Iran. Bootleg videos and DVDs of films banned by the state are widely available on the black market.

Ahmadinejad's order means the state broadcasting authority must execute the decree and prepare a report on its implementation within six months, according to the IRAN Persian daily.

Earlier this month, Ali Rahbari, conductor of Tehran's symphony orchestra, resigned and left Iran to protest the treatment of the music industry in Iran.

Before leaving, he played Beethoven's Ninth Symphony to packed Tehran theater houses over several nights last month — its first performance in Tehran since the 1979 revolution. The performances angered many conservatives and prompted newspaper columns accusing Rahbari of promoting Western values.

The ban applies to state-run radio and TV. But Iranians with satellite dishes can get broadcasts originating outside the country.

Ahmadinejad won office in August on a platform of reverting to ultraconservative principles, following the eight years of reformist-led rule under Khatami.

During his presidential campaign, Ahmadinejad also promised to confront what he called the Western cultural invasion of Iran and promote Islamic values.

Since then, Ahmadinejad has jettisoned Iran's moderation in foreign policy and pursued a purge in the government, replacing pragmatic veterans with former military commanders and inexperienced religious hard-liners.

He also has issued stinging criticisms of Israel, calling for the Jewish state to be "wiped off the map" and describing the Nazi Holocaust as a "myth."

International concerns are high over Iran's nuclear program, with the United States accusing Tehran of pursuing an atomic weapons program. Iran denies the claims.

The latest media ban also includes censorship of content of films.

"Supervision of content from films, TV series and their voice-overs is emphasized in order to support spiritual cinema and to eliminate triteness and violence," the council said in a statement on its Web site.

The council has also issued a ban on foreign movies that promote "arrogant powers," an apparent reference to the United States.

The probibitions mirror those imposed in neighboring Afghanistan during the Taliban regime, which imposed a strict version of Islamic law, including a ban on music and film. The Taliban was ousted by a U.S.-led coalition in late 2001.

President Bush's Oval Office Address

Dec. 18, 2005

President Bush:

Good evening. Three days ago, in large numbers, Iraqis went to the polls to choose their own leaders – a landmark day in the history of liberty.

In coming weeks, the ballots will be counted … a new government formed … and a people who suffered in tyranny for so long will become full members of the free world.

This election will not mean the end of violence. But it is the beginning of something new: constitutional democracy at the heart of the Middle East. And this vote – 6,000 miles away, in a vital region of the world – means that America has an ally of growing strength in the fight against terror.

All who had a part in this achievement – Iraqis, Americans, and Coalition partners – can be proud.

Yet our work is not done. There is more testing and sacrifice before us. I know many Americans have questions about the cost and direction of this war. So tonight I want to talk to you about how far we have come in Iraq, and the path that lies ahead.

From this office, nearly three years ago, I announced the start of military operations in Iraq. Our Coalition confronted a regime that defied United Nations Security Council Resolutions … violated a cease-fire agreement … sponsored terrorism … and possessed, we believed, weapons of mass destruction.

After the swift fall of Baghdad, we found mass graves filled by a dictator … we found some capacity to restart programs to produce weapons of mass destruction … but we did not find those weapons.

It is true that Saddam Hussein had a history of pursuing and using weapons of mass destruction. It is true that he systematically concealed those programs, and blocked the work of UN weapons inspectors. It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong.

And as your President, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq.

Yet it was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power. He was given an ultimatum – and he made his choice for war. And the result of that war was to rid the world of a murderous dictator who menaced his people, invaded his neighbors, and declared America to be his enemy.

Saddam Hussein, captured and jailed, is still the same raging tyrant – only now without a throne. His power to harm a single man, woman, or child is gone forever. And the world is better for it.

Since the removal of Saddam, this war – like other wars in our history – has been difficult. The mission of American troops in urban raids and desert patrols – fighting Saddam loyalists and foreign terrorists – has brought danger and suffering and loss. This loss has caused sorrow for our whole Nation – and it has led some to ask if we are creating more problems than we are solving. That is an important question, and the answer depends on your view of the war on terror.

If you think the terrorists would become peaceful if only America would stop provoking them, then it might make sense to leave them alone.

This is not the threat I see.

I see a global terrorist movement that exploits Islam in the service of radical political aims – a vision in which books are burned, and women are oppressed, and all dissent is crushed. Terrorist operatives conduct their campaign of murder with a set of declared and specific goals – to de-moralize free nations … to drive us out of the Middle East … to spread an empire of fear across that region … and to wage a perpetual war against America and our friends. These terrorists view the world as a giant battlefield – and they seek to attack us wherever they can.

This has attracted al Qaeda to Iraq, where they are attempting to frighten and intimidate America into a policy of retreat.

The terrorists do not merely object to American actions in Iraq and elsewhere – they object to our deepest values and our way of life. And if we were not fighting them in Iraq … in Afghanistan … in Southeast Asia … and in other places, the terrorists would not be peaceful citizens – they would be on the offense, and headed our way.

September 11th, 2001 required us to take every emerging threat to our country seriously, and it shattered the illusion that terrorists attack us only after we provoke them.

On that day, we were not in Iraq … we were not in Afghanistan … but the terrorists attacked us anyway – and killed nearly 3,000 men, women, and children in our own country.

My conviction comes down to this: We do not create terrorism by fighting the terrorists. We invite terrorism by ignoring them. And we will defeat the terrorists by capturing and killing them abroad … removing their safe havens … and strengthening new allies like Iraq and Afghanistan in the fight we share.

This work has been especially difficult in Iraq – more difficult than we expected.

Reconstruction efforts and the training of Iraqi Security Forces started more slowly than we hoped. We continue to see violence and suffering, caused by an enemy that is determined and brutal – unconstrained by conscience or the rules of war.

Some look at the challenges in Iraq, and conclude that the war is lost, and not worth another dime or another day. I don’t believe that. Our military commanders do not believe that. Our troops in the field, who bear the burden and make the sacrifice, do not believe that America has lost.

And not even the terrorists believe it. We know from their own communications that they feel a tightening noose – and fear the rise of a democratic Iraq.

The terrorists will continue to have the coward’s power to plant roadside bombs and recruit suicide bombers. And you will continue to see the grim results on the evening news.

This proves that the war is difficult – it does not mean that we are losing. Behind the images of chaos that terrorists create for the cameras, we are making steady gains with a clear objective in view. America, our Coalition, and Iraqi leaders are working toward the same goal – a democratic Iraq that can defend itself … that will never again be a safe haven for terrorists … and that will serve as a model of freedom for the Middle East.

We have put in place a strategy to achieve this goal – a strategy I have been discussing in detail over the last few weeks. This plan has three critical elements.

First, our Coalition will remain on the offense – finding and clearing out the enemy … transferring control of more territory to Iraqi units … and building up the Iraqi Security Forces so they can increasingly lead the fight. At this time last year, there were only a handful of Iraqi army and police battalions ready for combat. Now, there are more than 125 Iraqi combat battalions fighting the enemy … more than 50 are taking the lead … and we have transferred more than a dozen military bases to Iraqi control.

Second, we are helping the Iraqi government establish the institutions of a unified and lasting democracy, in which all of Iraq’s peoples are included and represented.

Here also, the news is encouraging:

Three days ago, more than 10 million Iraqis went to the polls – including many Sunni Iraqis who had boycotted national elections last January. Iraqis of every background are recognizing that democracy is the future of the country they love – and they want their voices heard.

One Iraqi, after dipping his finger in the purple ink as he cast his ballot, stuck his finger in the air and said: "This is a thorn in the eyes of the terrorists." Another voter was asked, "Are you Sunni or Shia?" He responded, "I am Iraqi."

Third, after a number of setbacks, our Coalition is moving forward with a reconstruction plan to revive Iraq’s economy and infrastructure – and to give Iraqis confidence that a free life will be a better life.

Today in Iraq, seven in 10 Iraqis say their lives are going well – and nearly two-thirds expect things to improve even more in the year ahead.

Despite the violence, Iraqis are optimistic – and that optimism is justified.

In all three aspects of our strategy – security, democracy, and reconstruction – we have learned from our experiences, and fixed what has not worked.

We will continue to listen to honest criticism, and make every change that will help us complete the mission.

Yet there is a difference between honest critics who recognize what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right.

Defeatism may have its partisan uses, but it is not justified by the facts.

For every scene of destruction in Iraq, there are more scenes of rebuilding and hope.

For every life lost, there are countless more lives reclaimed.

And for every terrorist working to stop freedom in Iraq, there are many more Iraqis and Americans working to defeat them.

My fellow citizens: Not only can we win the war in Iraq – we are winning the war in Iraq.

It is also important for every American to understand the consequences of pulling out of Iraq before our work is done:

We would abandon our Iraqi friends – and signal to the world that America cannot be trusted to keep its word.

We would undermine the morale of our troops – by betraying the cause for which they have sacrificed.

We would cause tyrants in the Middle East to laugh at our failed resolve, and tighten their repressive grip.

We would hand Iraq over to enemies who have pledged to attack us – and the global terrorist movement would be emboldened and more dangerous than ever before.

To retreat before victory would be an act of recklessness and dishonor … and I will not allow it.

We are approaching a New Year, and there are certain things all Americans can expect to see:

We will see more sacrifice – from our military … their families … and the Iraqi people.

We will see a concerted effort to improve Iraqi police forces and fight corruption.

We will see the Iraqi military gaining strength and confidence, and the democratic process moving forward.

As these achievements come, it should require fewer American troops to accomplish our mission.

I will make decisions on troop levels based on the progress we see on the ground and the advice of our military leaders – not based on artificial timetables set by politicians in Washington.

Our forces in Iraq are on the road to victory – and that is the road that will take them home.

In the months ahead, all Americans will have a part in the success of this war.

Members of Congress will need to provide resources for our military.

Our men and women in uniform, who have done so much already, will continue their brave and urgent work.

And tonight, I ask all of you listening to carefully consider the stakes of this war … to realize how far we have come and the good we are doing … and to have patience in this difficult, noble, and necessary cause.

I also want to speak to those of you who did not support my decision to send troops to Iraq: I have heard your disagreement, and I know how deeply it is felt.

Yet now there are only two options before our country – victory or defeat. And the need for victory is larger than any president or political party, because the security of our people is in the balance.

I do not expect you to support everything I do, but tonight I have a request: Do not give in to despair, and do not give up on this fight for freedom.

Americans can expect some things of me as well. My most solemn responsibility is to protect our Nation, and that requires me to make some tough decisions.

I see the consequences of those decisions when I meet wounded servicemen and women who cannot leave their hospital beds, but summon the strength to look me in the eye and say they would do it all over again.

I see the consequences when I talk to parents who miss a child so much – but tell me he loved being a soldier … he believed in his mission … and Mr. President, finish the job.

I know that some of my decisions have led to terrible loss – and not one of those decisions has been taken lightly.

I know this war is controversial – yet being your President requires doing what I believe is right and accepting the consequences. And I have never been more certain that America’s actions in Iraq are essential to the security of our citizens, and will lay the foundation of peace for our children and grandchildren.

Next week, Americans will gather to celebrate Christmas and Hanukkah. Many families will be praying for loved ones spending this season far from home – in Iraq, Afghanistan, or other dangerous places.

Our Nation joins in those prayers.

We pray for the safety and strength of our troops. We trust, with them, in a love that conquers all fear, and a light that reaches the darkest corners of the Earth.

And we remember the words of the Christmas carol, written during the Civil War: "God is not dead, nor [does] He sleep; the Wrong shall fail, the Right prevail, with peace on Earth, good-will to men." Thank you, and good night.



I met a traveler from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read,
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed,
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

Percy Bysshe Shelley

Freedom's March

I come before you and assume the Presidency at a moment rich with promise. We live in a peaceful, prosperous time, but we can make it better. For a new breeze is blowing, and a world refreshed by freedom seems reborn; for in man's heart, if not in fact, the day of the dictator is over. The totalitarian era is passing, its old ideas blown away like leaves from an ancient, lifeless tree. A new breeze is blowing, and a nation refreshed by freedom stands ready to push on. There is new ground to be broken, and new action to be taken.

Excerpt from Newly-Elected President George H. Bush's Inaugural Address, January 20, 1989

At the end of that very year, the Berlin Wall was torn down.

The Soviet Union died, and a democratic Russia and New Europe was born.

The Cold War was won.

Yet those words still apply today.

Destroy All Who Disagree Part 2

Disgruntled Dems Consider Challenge to Lieberman
Monday, December 19, 2005
By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

WASHINGTON — Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman may be some Republicans' idea of a good Democrat, but a growing number of fellow party members in his home state couldn't disagree more.

"It's at the point where he's no longer interested in his own party's opinion, he's really out of touch with reality," said Mitchell Fuchs, chairman of the Fairfield Democratic Town Committee in Connecticut. "For me, he's crossed the line a number of times."

(note by Republicus: "Out of touch with reality?" lol! That sounds familiar!)

Passions flared after Lieberman's recent trip to Iraq. Upon his return, the three-term senator pointed to what he views as progress on the ground there and suggested that Democrats should avoid harsh criticisms of President Bush's Iraq policy.

In turn, Republicans and administration officials, including Bush, used the senator's comments to bolster their case for war and underscore Lieberman's differences with other Democratic leaders on the issue.

(note by Republicus: Yes. Destroy him.)

Republicans have since charged that Democrats lack a coherent, unified message on Iraq.

(note by Republicus: lol! Yes! They can only resort to their default position of endless criticisms while they try to figure out how to keep the Bush-haters and defeatists in their pockets without having to actually vote for immediate troop withdrawal, which would be madness.)

The series of events has sparked petitions and protests outside of Lieberman's district office in Hartford and prompted a potential challenge from a former and formidable political foe.

In an interview with, former U.S. senator and Connecticut Gov. Lowell Weicker, said he will challenge Lieberman in 2006 if no credible anti-war Democrat or independent jumps into the race first.

"I'm not going to let [Lieberman] get a free pass on this. And that's what's going to happen if no one steps up to bat," said Weicker, who as a Republican lost his Senate seat to Lieberman in 1988.

(note by Republicus: So does he want to run against him on principle, or revenge?)

In 1990, Weicker went on to become governor, elected as an independent.

(note by Republicus: Good. He's not a real Republican.)

Weicker, 74, said he would run for Senate against Lieberman as an independent, not a Democrat.

He said he has been against the war in Iraq "from the onset," and doesn't take lightly the notion of coming out of retirement to challenge the incumbent.

"I have no desire to put my neck on the chopping block. I'm in the business of winning," he said.

(note by Republicus: You already lost your head, Lowell.)

Meanwhile, a letter with 55,000 signatures — mostly from out of state — was delivered to Lieberman's district office in Hartford last Tuesday urging the senator to stop "trying to stifle debate" on war policy and join "the majority of Americans in questioning President Bush's foreign policy."

The group circulating the letter, Democracy for America, is led by Jim Dean, a Connecticut resident and brother of Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean.

(note by Republicus: OF course.)

On top of that, Democrats attending the regular State Central Committee meeting last Wednesday criticized Lieberman and called for support for a primary challenge against him at the party's convention in May.

"I speak to Democratic state senators all the time. They always said, 'Joe is a rat, but he's our rat.' Now they are saying, 'Joe's a rat and we can't afford to have him at the top of our ticket,'" said Democrat Keith Crane of Branford, Conn. "I think Joe is going to get a rude awakening in May."

(note by Republicus: You're vermin, Keith. All of you.)

Crane runs, one of a handful of anti-Lieberman sites that have cropped up in recent years.

He said Democrats see Lieberman as increasingly out of touch with his constituency, the majority of whom are Democrats and voted against Bush in the last two presidential elections.

(note by Republicus: That's because the Democratic Party is being hijacked by unhinged Bush-Haters like Lee Harvey/"Jeff.")

In 2004, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry beat Bush in Connecticut 54 percent to 43 percent.

(note by Republicus: John who?)

Crane said many Democrats hope to persuade Weicker to run in their party's primary.

"This has to be a grassroots thing," he said.

Lieberman has been known to buck his party before — in 1998, he was one of the only major Democrats to rebuke publicly then-President Bill Clinton for his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. He has previously sided with Republicans on many economic and foreign policy issues.

Lieberman's office did not respond to in repeated calls for comment...

(note by Republicus: If he did, they'd use that against him, too: "He spoke to Foxnews!")

...but the senator still has supporters among the state party leadership, and they say they are part of the moderate majority in the state. Audrey Blondin, a longtime friend and political supporter of the senator, says she wouldn't want him any other way.

"I respect Joe, he has never been afraid to say what he thinks and explains in detail why he thinks that way. He's not one who is swayed by public opinion," said Blondin, who is a member of the Democratic State Central Committee.

Blondin said she shares her fellow Democrats' harsh opinion of the Bush administration on the war, but respects Lieberman's position.

(note by Republicus: Excuse me, Audrey, but you're just as bad as the others, then. What kind of shameless double-standard is that?)

Jim Diamond, also a member of the State Central Committee, representing Stamford, Lieberman's hometown, agreed with Blondin.

"Joe Lieberman has made a career out of acting in a bipartisan fashion. He's been the lead Democrat on fighting terrorism and homeland security and for that he gets a lot of support across both sides of the political aisle," Diamond told

"I think [critics] are in the minority," he said. "Often it’s the people on the extremes of the political spectrum who make the most noise."

(note by Republicus: Very true.)

But Fuchs of Fairfield and Crane say a growing number of local Democratic leaders are vocalizing their dissatisfaction with Lieberman, and support for a primary challenge is growing.

"I've talked to town [Democratic committee] chairs all over the state, and I would say many of them are getting upset with [Lieberman]," said Fuchs. Meanwhile, the Democratic town committee in Manchester is set to pass a resolution in early 2006 withdrawing its support for Lieberman, according to reports.

Democrats interested in defeating Lieberman in a Democratic primary say they will continue to court Weicker. But they may find Weicker unreceptive, as he said he is also unhappy with the Democrats' lack of veracity on the war issue.

"My criticisms are probably as stiff against the Democrats as they are against the Republicans," Weicker said, adding, "As much as I disagree with the Republican policy, I couldn't disagree more with the deafening silence on behalf of the Democrats on the war."

Running as an independent, he said, "allows me the integrity of my position, which is, I'm not happy with either side."

Asked about Democratic concerns that by running as an independent, Weicker could split the Democratic vote and end up giving Connecticut a pro-war Republican senator, he responded, "Their problem is not my problem. My problem is to get elected."

(note by Republicus: lol! Yes, run, Lowell, run!)

Most political observers say that Lieberman still remains a tough man to beat, despite the recent rancor.

"I think he has a safe seat right now because there is no one really with the ability to challenge him," said Gary Rose, political science professor at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield.

Lieberman won his last two Senate elections by large margins, even in 2000 when he was running unsuccessfully as Al Gore's vice president.

Weicker could change that, Rose said, suggesting that he has the political stature, the fundraising capability and the reputation as an independent to pose the perfect challenge.

"[Weicker] has all the ingredients that's needed to unseat an incumbent. He has a sizable following in this state and he's right on the issue of Iraq," according to a majority of people in the state, Rose said.

Diamond said he doesn't agree and believes that Lieberman, who steers a moderate course, appeals to both Democrats and Republicans and is not as vulnerable as some would suggest. He also won't concede that a majority of Connecticut voters are against the war.

"If it turns out to be a 1988 rematch between Weicker and Lieberman, I have no doubt the senator will be victorious," Diamond said.

(note by Republicus: Drop those losers, Joe. Switch to the Republican Party.)

"It's Beginning To Look A Lot Like Christmas..."


Sunday, December 18, 2005

Support the Troops.

He's Right.

Bush Urges Patriot Act Extension
Saturday, December 17, 2005

December 18, 2005


President Bush said Saturday that senators who are blocking renewal of the terrorism-fighting Patriot Act are acting irresponsibly and standing in the way of protecting the country from attack.

"In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without this law for a single moment," the president said in a live broadcast from the White House of his weekly radio address.

Senate Democrats, with the aid of a handful of Republicans, succeeded Friday in stalling the bill already approved by the House. The vote to advance the measure, 52-47, fell eight votes shy of the 60 votes required to end debate.

"That decision is irresponsible and it endangers the lives of our citizens. The senators who are filibustering must stop their delaying tactics and the Senate must reauthorize the Patriot Act," Bush said.

Opponents of renewing the law, most of whom are Democrats, argue that it threatens constitutional liberties at home.

Most Republicans and other supporters say the act is essential for protecting the country against terrorists. The law was enacted in the aftermath of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Of the 55 Republicans in the Senate, four helped to block its passage while two of the 45 Democrats pushed to pass it.

Some of the most contentious elements of the Patriot Act include powers granted to law enforcement agencies to gain access in secret to library and medical records and other personal data during investigations of suspected terrorist activity.

The law allows the government to conduct roving wiretaps involving multiple phones and to wiretap "lone wolf" terrorists who may operate on their own, without control from a foreign agent or power.

If the law is not renewed, its powers would expire Dec. 31 only for new investigations of people whose criminal activity began after Dec. 31 and who were not associated with anyone who was under investigation before Dec. 31.

The debate over the Patriot Act was fueled anew by a New York Times report that Bush had secretly authorized eavesdropping on individuals in the United States without first gaining permission from the courts.