Link: http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dd5vs2xt_0hkwp6xd8 Subject: ESCR under attack - CONTACT NIH TODAY!!! Forwarded message from Don Reed, national stem cell research advocate-- Dear Stem Cell Research Advocate: The next 6 days are crucial in the stem cell research struggle. Here's why. Remember when President Obama signed that document removing the Bush stem cell restrictions? That same day he called upon the National Institutes of Health to draft a new set of guidelines for scientists wanting federal funding. Those guidelines have just been issued. see http://stemcells.nih.gov/policy/2009draft.htm The next 2 days are the comment period for the new guidelines for stem cell research, which American scientists will have to live with if they want federal funding. This is the public's only chance to shape those guidelines: which can be improved-or made worse. Unfortunately, there are problems with the proposed guidelines! Not only are the guidelines far more conservative than we had hoped, but opponents of the research are systematically flooding the comment process. Conservative religious bodies, have launched a national campaign to attack early stem cell research by mass emails to the NIH. *"The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) launched a new "Oppose Destructive Stem Cell Research" campaign today, equipping citizens to contact Congress and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to oppose embryonic stem cell research ." -- WASHINGTON, May 6 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ www.usccb.org/stemcellcampaign Is their anti-research campaign having an effect? Dr. Wise Young of Rutgers University , ". of the 6000 plus comments that NIH has received concerning the draft guidelines, 99% were from people who opposed embryonic stem cell research."-Carecure Forum http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/showpost.php?p=1039001&postcount=12
Cable news and right wing blogs are swarming with the revisionist history on the New Deal. Arm yourself against lies, spin and propaganda by reading info from a number of sources.
Here down a article about this topic. [Media Matters is a progressive media watchdog and fact checking organization which has received accolades from numerous sources (except the right wing media which often gets debunked by Media Matters).]
The link to digg it and for article: Conservatives Cherry-Pick 1930s Unemployment Figures
Summary: Columnists Mona Charen and George Will continued a trend among conservative media of responding to comparisons between the current economic situation and that of the 1930s and between Barack Obama and FDR by attacking the New Deal. In separate columns, both Charen and Will cherry-picked unemployment figures to assert that the New Deal did not reduce unemployment. But historians and progressive economists have noted that unemployment fell every year of the New Deal except during the 1937-38 recession; further, Nobel-laureate Paul Krugman has said it was a reversal of New Deal policies, not a continuance of them, that contributed to rising unemployment in 1937 and 1938.
Yes we can! Best wishes, Steffen
http://changeforbetterworld.blogspot.com/2009/01/my-way-to-say-goodbye-to-neocons-bush.html
Formal Petition to Attorney General-Designate Eric Holder to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate and prosecute any and all government officials who have participated in War Crimes.
You can Digg it: My_way to say GOODBYE to neocons, Bush and Cheney!
A picture from me to say goodbye from most bad president of US and all neocons.We can only hope many people will long enough remember. Bush had a lot bad gifts for the change! Let's take care the poor and normal people will not have to pay now too much after the rich made profit in good time!And what's with impeachment now?! What's with hidden knowledge of Sept. 11 2001?[ Maybe an explanation of picture: it's made like an "egg laying wool milk sow" a metaphorical-idiomatic term in Germany]
Yeah, and here you can see something new about neocons were bringing to us - for me to say: don't forgive Bush and neocons and there is still a lot to work of. We will and can do this too - Yes we can!I got now message too like "If anybody can clean up the mess bush left, it's President Obama." - Yes and Obama likes people helping still to do the work - help him! We were a big and strong movement and so people got knowledge back how strong people can be together! Whistleblower: Bush's NSA spied on EVERYONE (already 4255 Diggs) The NSA had access to ALL YOUR COMMUNICATIONS, regardless of who you were or whether or not you were communicating internationally.
All I got to say is that Obama has to be real carefull I feel that there are very evil people out there and if he tries to take away there money they will try to get rid of him. They may try to drum up some kind of stupid charges or even worse. I honestly believe they allowed him to be president just to satisfy our needs. So that they can keep our attention off of whats really going on and for all we know Obama, Clinton and the whole bunch may already be apart of the grand plan. And for those of you who haven't figured it out yet the biggest transfer of wealth went on right in front of our eyes while we were watching Obama they raised the price of a barrell of oil to 150.00 dollars and spent trillions of dolllars. Foriegn companies gave suit cases of money to people in our goverment for u.s. contracts. Our most secret plans and weapons are already in the hands of our enemies. Our banking system is the most corrupt in the world we are spending money we don't even have wait till the Chinees and the Japanees find out that we couldn't pay them back even if we wanted to. Lets just say they think were on the up and up and they really think we can pay them back and then something happens and they want there money and there is none. Then what? WORLD WAR (3). AND OUT THE WAR COMES THE NEW WORLD ORDER A ONE WORLD ONE GOVERMENT WORLD. But at the end of it all untill we get rid of greed and we fix the hunger problem we will always have problems. When you really think about it all you need is love and if the people of this crazy world could come together and take care of each other so that all men no matter what color there skin is could have a home a means for feeding there families. When you really think about it why do we need borders why do we care about what we look like we are all Gods children no matter what you call him whether you believe in religion or mother nature it doesn't really matter does it. We got to get rid of money it is the root of all evil.
WOW WHAT A MOUTHFULL!!!! WELL YOU GUYS PROBABLY THINK I'M CRAZY BUT HAVE A MERRY CHRISTMAS ANYWAY!!! AND TRY TO REMEMBER WHAT CHRISTMAS IS REALLY ABOUT.
AP – Mark Madden, a General Motors Corvette assembly plant worker, hangs a door on a Corvette Friday
DETROIT – Festering animosity between the United Auto Workers and Southern senators who torpedoed the auto industry bailout bill erupted into full-fledged name calling Friday as union officials accused the lawmakers of trying to break the union on behalf of foreign automakers.
The vitriol had been near the surface for weeks as senators from states that house the transplant automakers' factories criticized the Detroit Three for management miscues and bloated UAW labor costs that lawmakers said make them uncompetitive.
But the UAW stopped biting its tongue after Republicans sank a House-passed bill Thursday night that would have loaned $14 billion to cash-poor General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC to keep them out of bankruptcy protection. The Bush administration later stepped in and said it was ready to make money available to the automakers, likely from the $700 billion Wall Street bailout program.
Still, autoworkers remain angry with the senators who tried to negotiate wage and benefit concessions from the union, then scuttled the House-passed bill that would have granted the loans and set up a "car czar" to oversee the nearly insolvent companies and get concessions from the union and creditors. Their top targets were Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.; Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., who led negotiations on a compromise; and Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., who has been a vocal critic of the loans.
Kentucky, Tennessee and Alabama all house auto assembly plants from foreign automakers, and union officials contend the senators want to drive UAW wages down so there would be no reason for workers at the foreign plants to join the union.
"They thought perhaps they could have a twofer here maybe: Pierce the heart of organized labor while representing the foreign brands," UAW President Ron Gettelfinger said at a Friday morning news conference in Detroit.
Republicans in several Western states — where unions are often shunned — joined the Southerners in opposition.
But lawmakers and their spokesmen said the criticism is off base. Jonathan Graffeo, Shelby's spokesman on the Senate Banking Committee, said the senator has consistently opposed taxpayer-funded bailouts.
"He opposed the Chrysler bailout in 1979 when there were no foreign auto manufacturers in Alabama, and he opposed the recent $700 billion bailout of the banking industry," Graffeo said.
"Bailouts generally don't work, and this is a huge proposed bailout, and I fear it's just the down payment on more to come next year," Shelby said on the Senate floor Thursday night. "These companies are either already failed or failing, and that's a shame. These aren't the General Motors, Ford and Chrysler I knew."
Corker said the alternative he tried to develop would have provided federal money in exchange for restructuring the companies' debt and making the UAW more competitive in wages with workers at U.S. plants of Japanese competitors.
"Our members wanted to know that the UAW was willing to be competitive," Corker said.
"I basically pleaded with them to give me some language by some date certain that they were competitive with these other companies," Corker said. "That's where it broke down."
Hourly wages for UAW workers at GM factories already are about equal to those paid by Toyota Motor Corp. at its older U.S. factories, according to the companies. GM says the average UAW laborer makes $29.78 per hour, while Toyota — generally viewed as the main competitor of the Detroit Three — says it pays about $30 per hour. But the unionized factories have far higher benefit costs.
The union, GM and Chrysler have contended that the companies have restructured and the UAW has granted concessions that would make them competitive in 2010, but the economy went south this year and forced them into trouble. A third Detroit automaker, Ford Motor Co., asked for loans in case of emergency but says it has enough cash to make it through 2009.
Union officials also accused the senators of retaliating for the UAW's overwhelming support of Democratic candidates in federal races. The union gave $1.9 million to Democrats but only $11,500 to Republicans in the 2008 election cycle.
Many Democrats support the Employee Free Choice Act, which would take away employers' rights to demand a secret ballot on whether workers will join a union. Instead, workers could form unions by getting a majority of employees to sign a card in support of it.
"There's a lot at stake. If Republicans think now they can tarnish labor, it's going to be difficult to pass the Employee Free Choice Act," said Gary Chaison, professor of labor relations at Clark University in Worcester, Mass. "The unions are going to say that a strong labor movement is good for America. One of the things Republicans are trying to show now is that a strong labor movement isn't good for America."
Other union officials joined Gettelfinger to form a chorus of anger and frustration with the senators.
"What this is is the Southern conservative senators trying to destroy the United Auto Workers, trying to destroy unions," said Mike O'Rourke, president of a UAW local at a GM factory in Spring Hill, Tenn., Corker's home state. "It's a sad day in America when the senators turn their back on Main Street."
In an effort to help the auto companies get federal aid, the UAW last week offered to delay company payments into a union-run trust fund that will take over retiree health care costs starting in 2010. It also agreed to end the controversial "jobs bank" program in which laid-off workers get most of their pay and benefits after unemployment pay runs out.
Most Southern U.S. auto plants run by Toyota, Honda Motor Co., Nissan Motor Co., BMW AG, Daimler AG and other manufacturers are nonunion. The UAW has tried numerous times without success to organize workers at the foreign-owned factories.
Spokesmen for Toyota and Nissan declined comment, but Honda spokesman Ed Miller said in a statement the company did not lobby against the bill.
"Honda has been encouraging initiatives that would maintain the short- and long-term viability of the U.S. auto industry, including the hundreds of the shared supplier companies in the United States," he said.
As the Detroit Three have declined and ceded market share to the foreign nameplates, the UAW's membership has plummeted 69 percent, from a peak 1.5 million in 1979 to 465,000 at the end of 2007.
___
Associated Press Writer Ken Thomas in Washington and AP Business Writer Ellen Simon in New York contributed to this report.
[I have a solution to the problem.
I propose auto companies hire independent skilled contractors. Independant doesnt mean less wage and benefits, it means both sides are in a win win situation. Neither side is taking advantage of the other. I say that because clearly if the company hires independant, it is the company and the individual who will negotiate set wage and benefits. Independent means the skilled worker will be his/her own boss and no longer be in debt to the union (who really does nothing for the employee, but advance itself, politically)
Is there a union for independent contractors? Yes there is. But here the union does not force the company to pay higher wage and benefits, or else. The union is only there to assure independent contractor is paid equal to his production, and to assure the auto company is obeying independent contractor worker rights.
Independent wage will be based on piece work with a (fair) percentage per car sold. Depending on what his skilled trade is.
If the contractor is a highly motivated then the contractor will earn a wage equal to his work. And not be paid regardless if he works or not. Time is money people. And if it is money that individual workers are after then they have to earn it, just like the company who employes them, does.
I think unions have contributed to the destruction of our economy. I say that because unions demand auto companies pay union workers more money then non union workers. What is with this demand? Union workers are not more skilled then those who are non union! It's bullshit for the union to assume its workers are more valuable then non union workers are.
Really, I believe non union workers are discriminated against by unions. How is paying "dues" automatically qualify one employee more important/valuable then the other employee who has the same skill? Paying dues is a ticket to discriminate other workers who are not apart of the union.
Independent contractor status does away with; "I am more important then you" union status, and replaces it with; "all skilled workers are valuable, regardless of affiliation."]
Kade
WASHINGTON – With Congress gridlocked and the economy floundering, the Bush administration declared Friday it would step in to prevent the "precipitous collapse" of the U.S. auto industry and the disastrous loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs sure to follow.
A day after the sudden demise of rescue legislation in Congress, carmakers were talking with the administration and the Federal Reserve about how they could still get the billions of dollars they say they need to survive. The talks included conditions that automakers would have to meet, said GM spokesman Greg Martin.
The administration said no decisions had been made on the size or duration of the new bailout plan, or what type of concessions might be demanded from the struggling automakers, their workers, stockholders or others.
In a reversal, the most likely rescue option under consideration involved billions of dollars originally ticketed for the bailout of the financial industry. President George W. Bush had earlier declared that money off-limits to the beleaguered automakers.
continued@ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081213/ap_on_go_pr_wh/meltdown_autos
[I see what is going on here...why the Republicans are stonewalling the auto bail out.
It is clear to me once the auto trade is bankrupt, it gives Republican shareholders the "green light" to ship the American auto industry overseas (where the new owners/ shareholders of these companies can reap all the rewards: cheap labor and selling cars at American price) or am i wrong? Maybe.
I am so sick and tired of special interest groups greed! Greed is the reason why our country is in recession. Greed is why our country comes second next to Russia (Russia pools their funds into technology and America is about me, myself and I individually speaking) Greed is why we have lost respect around the world. Greed is why the war on terror has become so popular (with shareholders)
It is time we stop the greed and replace it with spreading the wealth. I am not talking about taking money from business owners and just giving it away. #1 I am talking about placing a cap on shareholders assets; only allow no more then 20% per 5 companies, per one individual, or group. But most importantly, placing a cap on labor union wage. Wage is not "point of no return" it is limited.
How would the union feel, if employer demanded the union pay a certan amount before the employee can work. Rent out a booth to work, as in independent contractor status? I bet the union wouldn't like that! So may be now the union understands what the employer is going through?
Unions expect companies to pay a certain wage and if they dont, the union orders employees to strike causing huge loses to the company. Company is then forced to accept what the union wants, or continue to suffer.
Question is; "why are unions ordering these companies around? If it was not for the hard earned work of the owner; Investing his/her own money into the company, working long hours taking time away from family etc.-- the employee wouldnt have a job, let alone be able to pay union dues. Now, this isn't to say employees have not contributed to the employers wealth (because they have to a degree) I am saying employers deserve more of the reward then employees do, being that it was employers idea, and or funds that started the company in the first place. Unions are forcing employers to pay employees for ideas they did not create.
How would employee feel if employer demanded employees life savings ? Why should the employee give the employer his/her life savings when it was the employee who earned it? Do you see what I am getting at here?
Instead of the union forcing companies to do what they want, it is time to put a cap on what Unions can do. It is my opinion, unions are just as responsible for the recession as anyone else. Are so when they are motivated by greed; "Me, myself and I.... and to hell with the employers life savings and or sacrifices that he/she made to make what the company is today." Union motto.
I highly doubt union workers will end up on the poor street if wages are capped. If wages are capped, it allows employers to create more jobs for people who really need them.
Do you see.. Unions contibute to sky rocketing unemployment rate. Why do we support something that deprives the general population of jobs? Doesn't make sense. Does it? No it does not!
Union is one big special interest group and that is all it is-]
Kade and Josh
Senate Republicans’ dramatic revolt against a White House-backed auto industry rescue plan is fraught with political risk.
While the high-stakes gambit places them squarely within the mainstream of anti-bailout public sentiment, at the same time it exposes the party to potentially devastating criticism that its failure to compromise doomed the Big Three automakers and deepened the economic recession.
Republicans argue that their rejection Thursday evening of a $14 billion loan package came in response to the concerns of angry taxpayers who are unwilling to pay for an auto industry bailout on the heels of October’s $700-billion financial bailout package.
"I think it would appear that the people who voted against this are carrying out the will of the voters as expressed through the phone calls to our offices," said Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa).
But that sentiment betrays the deep rifts the issue has revealed within the party, pitting Rust Belt and auto-state senators who joined Democrats in a plea for federal aid against their Southern colleagues who represent states where foreign-owned automakers constitute a significant economic presence. All of this takes place against the backdrop of an intraparty debate over whether the GOP has lost its core value of limited government.
“I’m not even thinking about the politics of it, I’m talking about the substantive part of it, the people who are losing their jobs, the suppliers and the automobile dealers,” said Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio), who faces re-election in 2010 and was one of just 10 Republicans who voted to advance the bill Thursday night.
By opposing the automaker bailout, Republicans now find themselves vulnerable to charges that they are insensitive to ailing American auto companies and the millions of workers reliant on the domestic auto industry, a problem compounded by their inability to rally around a clear alternative to the $14 billion package of loans that had been backed by Democrats and the White House.
“Clearly, it’ll be on their heads,” said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.). “It passed the House, and Democrats in the Senate and the White House are on the same page. They’re the odd person out here. It will be on their shoulders if it doesn’t go forward.”
Republicans furious at the government’s intervention to prop up the economy say the vote against the bailout marks the beginning of the party’s return to its small government roots. But even those members acknowledged the downside risk.
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), a fierce critic of the bailout, said the failure of the bill could hurt his auto-state colleagues, but noted, “politically, I think Republicans can show a real difference [with Democrats] here.” The bigger risk, he said, was pumping more money into companies whose problems were bound to get worse and would likely return to Congress asking for more money.
“I think the public is going to turn on all of us as we go through a deeper recession over the next few months because they are going to see all of this money being thrown at this thing and more and more people realize that the foundations of the recession were based on bad government policy,” DeMint said. Some strategists say rejection of the package could prove costly to Republicans in the industrial parts of the Midwest.
“The big question is what happens next, if the auto companies are still in business in January or March, whenever it happens to be, [there won’t be] much fallout,” Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) told Politico. “But if something dire occurs, if one of the companies or more face bankruptcy or layoffs and that has a dramatic negative impact on communities, families or the economy, then I think there are some questions to be answered to think whether this might have been enough to keep them in business and help them survive.”
Administration officials have been warning for weeks that failure to pass the bill could lead to an even deeper recession.
That was the message Vice President Dick Cheney brought to a closed-door Senate GOP lunch Wednesday, reportedly warning that it’ll be “Herbert Hoover” time if aid to the industry was rejected, according to a senator familiar with the remarks. A Cheney spokeswoman would neither confirm nor deny the vice president’s remarks.
The White House could still use its authority under the financial bailout law known as the Troubled Assets Relief Program to provide aid to the industry, but the Bush administration has strongly resisted that approach. Meanwhile, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has warned that he could not be relied on as a backstop if additional loans were needed for the first quarter of next year.
That means the White House could take the blame both for spending money and failing to stabilize the auto sector.
Ron Bonjean, a Republican strategist, predicted “neither Republicans nor Democrats are going to get the blame because the White House will use TARP money.”
The Bush administration’s resistance to release the money has put the onus on Congress. But Senate Republicans stayed away from negotiating a bailout, allowing the White House to broker a deal with Democrats, which the House approved Wednesday night with 32 Republicans, mostly from auto-producing states, joining 205 Democrats in voting for the measure.
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who has auto plants in his state, has been torn between the warring factions of his party. He had waited until Thursday to announce his opposition to the bill, then later embraced a proposal by Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) to beef up the administration bill by setting out specific steps for bondholders and labor to take to slash General Motors’ debt and operating costs by the end of March or see the company go into bankruptcy.
Republicans had hoped to use the Corker proposal to deflect blame that they had no viable alternative.
“If we’re viewed as being proactive and trying to solve this problem with a good solution … I’m not sure they can argue we weren’t trying to fix the problem,” said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.).
But Republicans failed to rally around the Corker plan until late Thursday, preventing them from properly explaining it to the public. McConnell dispatched Corker to find a bipartisan solution with Democrats, but the talks stretched through the night, and Corker ultimately failed to sell a revised plan to the GOP caucus.
Republicans will now have to convince the public that they sought a middle ground, but ultimately decided to side with the taxpayer.
Otherwise, “they look like they’re in disarray,” said one top GOP strategist, speaking on the condition of anonymity because one of his auto clients backed the $14 billion in loans.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081212/pl_politico/16515
[Question: "If privitzation is so great for our country then how come industry like auto is about to be bankrupt?" About to be bankrupt is an indication privitzation is not the answer, government is-
Yeah, yeah Republicans are against big government and more for privitzation. But look guys where has Privitzation gotten, us other then in recession?
I have never been for privitzation in government because i know its all about making the big bucks for share holders and well...citizens are left paying debt if something goes wrong. Privitzation is none other then exploiting US citizens from special interest groups.
LOOK! Republicans....it is time you allow the government to intervene being that your attempt to expolit the rest of us failed, miserably. Time to quit being selfish and start distributing the wealth. This administration isn't about YOU ANYMORE. Time to pack up and be gone.
Democrats know what they are doing and either way you look at it, they will continue to clean up the mess you made for years to come. Should you be happy? NOPE! You should crawl back into your shell and don't come out for at least 4 years. At least this way the Democrats can do their job without interference.
Republicans have shifted this country away from prosperity long enough it is time to get the *uck out of the way so democrats can do their job. Thank you.]
You’re helping us win critical victories. President-elect Obama has committed to close Guantánamo. Help us keep the pressure on until we fully renew America’s commitment to freedom.Sign our Open Letter to Barack Obama now.
Yesterday, five high-profile detainees attempted to submit guilty pleas before the government’s ill-conceived military commissions. But, by the end of the day, their pleas were tied up in a blizzard of confusion over unresolved legal questions. It's not clear what will happen next if these unjust proceedings are allowed to continue. But, what is abundantly clear is that, no matter how hard the government tries to advance the military commissions, this process doesn't work. History will show that any guilty pleas in these proceedings were the result of an inhumane, unjust process designed to achieve a foregone conclusion. The only solution is to close the prison at Guantánamo Bay and shut down these unjust military commissions. As you know, the ACLU is calling on President-elect Obama to close Guantánamo, ban torture, and shut down indefensible military commissions on his first day in office. This trip to Guantánamo has convinced me that it is more essential than ever to keep the pressure on -- because what’s happening down here flies in the face of justice, fairness and our American ideals. Sign our Open Letter to Barack Obama now. The ACLU is working on all fronts to dismantle this system of injustice that the Bush administration has created. We’re sponsoring expert civilian counsel to those held at Guantánamo, mobilizing our nationwide network of grassroots activists, filing lawsuits and exposing the truth. Just last week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a vitally important ACLU case taking on the Bush administration’s sweeping claim that it can indefinitely imprison a legal resident of the United States without charging him with a crime or trying him before a jury. Our case was filed on behalf of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, who has been detained in solitary confinement at a Navy brig in South Carolina since June 2003. Al-Marri asked the Court to reverse a federal appeals court decision that gave the president sweeping power to deprive individuals in the United States of their most basic constitutional rights simply by designating them “enemy combatants.” We will urge the Court to ensure that people in this country cannot be seized from their homes and imprisoned indefinitely simply because the president says so. From this important Supreme Court challenge to indefinite detention to our grassroots efforts to demand the closure of Guantánamo and the end of Bush’s military commissions, your support and your voice are essential to our success. Help us keep the pressure on and add tens of thousands of names to our Open Letter to Barack Obama. Sign our Open Letter to Barack Obama now.Finally, I want to tell you about another critical victory in the ACLU’s effort to restore justice and the rule of law in America. In a crucial ACLU case, a federal appeals court acted last week to rebuff the Bush administration’s efforts to deport Egyptian torture victim Sameh Khouzam. The case hinged on his right to challenge Egypt’s “diplomatic assurances” that it will not torture Khouzam upon his return. This is an enormous victory for due process and the rights of all people -- citizens or not -- to be free from torture. And it’s a stinging rejection of the government’s attempts to simply eliminate the role of the courts in reviewing the government’s actions.You’re helping us win critical victories. President-elect Obama has committed to close Guantánamo. Help us keep the pressure on until we fully renew America’s commitment to freedom.Sincerely, Anthony D. RomeroExecutive DirectorACLU P.S. In the courts and in the court of public opinion, the evidence against our government’s injustice continues to mount. Take a moment right now to see our new closegitmo.com video in which top military lawyers challenge the unjust military commissions underway here at Guantánamo Bay.
end of report
[Are you aware without the tortured confessions the war on terror would cease to exist? because it is true. If the US government didn't need these confessions then how come they used torture to get them? Had to use torture in order to get confessions is indication the war on terror is fabricated.
My belief is that without coerced confessions the corrupt political system we have in America wouldnt be worth the influence, it thinks it has.
Torturing innocent people into confessions is the worst human rights violation in the world. Dictators are the ONLY PEOPLE who force innocent people to "confess or else"
Dictator, or police states is the only system that torture people for their own political benefit. America is not a police state and it sure in the fuck does not have a dictatorship, so why are foreign counterparts human rights being violated?
The war on terror is run by the worst human rights violators like Old Boy Network; Hitler. It is these people, these US leaders, who are the terrorist. Are so when it is they who deny human rights in favor of their own political and or turf war benefit.
If US leaders keep this fabricated war on terror up (continue to accuse innocent people of crimes they did not commit, or kill innocent people and blame them for crimes they didn't commit) it is only a matter of time before foreign counterpart allie and enemies alike make a pact together to once and for all crush America. How is America going to be crushed? Simple really. US dollar will be switched to euro. We therefore will have to pay triple prior to buying and our products will be cheaper then China's. Further, US dollar cannot be used to "influence anybody, anywhere, ever again" being that it no longer has value.
Do I feel sorry for the US government? NOPE! US government brings on its own problems and will continue to do so for as long as they carry on fabricating "wars" for political/turf benefit.
Again, it is only a matter of time before America is crushed. Do I give a shit? NOPE. Our government will give a shit...but by then it will be too damn late, the damage will be done.
You want to talk about America crawling on its knees? US leaders will be crawling "to foreign counterpart masters"]
The former Senator who will be Obama’s Secretary of Health and Human Services shares a lot of his new boss’s views. But in his recent book on health reform, Tom Daschle goes beyond Obama’s agenda.
The Health Blog mentioned as much yesterday, but last night we picked up a copy of the book (Critical: What We Can Do About the Health Care Crisis) to get a better sense of where Daschle might take things.
Daschle says Medicare should pay more for care that leads to good outcomes, and should stop paying for unnecessary or harmful treatments. Like Obama, he says Americans who want to keep their employer-based insurance should be allowed to do so, but people should also be able to buy insurance from the pool that covers federal employees, or from a new pool based on a similar model.
He also argues that all Americans should be required to buy health insurance — a key difference from Obama, who argues that only children should be required to have health insurance. (Plenty of powerful Dems, Max Baucus and Hillary Clinton, have also called for mandates).
Perhaps the most striking part of Daschle’s plan is his call to create a Federal Health Board, modeled on the Federal Reserve Board that manages monetary policy. The basic idea is to create an institution, run by experts, that answers to the government but is “largely insulated from the politics and passions of the moment,” he writes.
“Like monetary policy, health-care policy shouldn’t be subject to the whims of subcommittee chairmen and special interests,” Daschle continues.
The board wouldn’t regulate the private insurance market, but it would have power over federal health-care programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, whose decisions are often followed by private insurers. It would also set the terms for private insurers who wanted to participate in the federal employees’ insurance pool.
Perhaps most importantly, the Board would assess the effectiveness and costs of various treatments.
He stops short of saying the U.S. should have a U.K.-style, hard-and-fast rule on cost-effectiveness. But he does say the U.S. “won’t be able to make a significant dent in health-care spending without getting into the nitty-gritty of which treatments are the most clinically valuable and cost effective.”
Permalink | Trackback URL: http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/11/20/tom-daschles-blueprint-for-health-reform/trackback/
[Universal healthcare starts with the government regulating hospitals and clinics charge scale. Instead of doctors charging a set fee, different illnesses such as sinus infections, bladder infections, ear aches etc should be on lesser scale then with major issues such as heart attacks, cancer, blood infections etc.
It is common sense to me as to why citizens cannot afford healthcare, is because the price of healthcare is through the roof. Doctors are charging way too much money. Instead of curing disease/helping people doctors are more interested in making themselves rich.
If there was a plan to get doctors on board a quality healthcare plan we can all live with, then Tom Daschles blue print will be a success. (I bet it will....he is one smart cookie)]
Enlarge USA TODAY file photo A statue of "Honest John" Burke, governor from 1907 to 1913, stands in front of the North Dakota's state capitol building in Bismarck. North Dakota had the highest rate of public corruption convictions won by federal prosecutors from 1998 through 2007.
North Dakota, it turns out, may hold that distinction instead.
Federal authorities arrested Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich Tuesday after a wiretap allegedly recorded him scheming to make money on his appointment to fill the U.S. Senate seat left vacant by President-elect Barack Obama. Blagojevich, a Democrat, ran for election in part on cleaning up after his predecessor, Republican George Ryan, who was convicted in 2006 of racketeering, bribery and extortion.
"If it isn't the most corrupt state in the United States it's certainly one hell of a competitor," Robert Grant, head of the FBI's Chicago office, said Tuesday.
On a per-capita basis, however, Illinois ranks 18th for the number of public corruption convictions the federal government has won from 1998 through 2007, according to a USA TODAY analysis of Department of Justice statistics.
Louisiana, Alaska and North Dakota all fared worse than the Land of Lincoln in that analysis.
Alaska narrowly ousted Republican Sen. Ted Stevens in the election in November after he was convicted of not reporting gifts from wealthy friends. In Louisiana, Democratic Rep. William Jefferson was indicted in 2007 on racketeering and bribery charges after the FBI said it found $90,000 in marked bills in his freezer. Jefferson, who has maintained his innocence and will soon go to trial, lost his seat to a Republican this year.
But North Dakota?
Don Morrison, executive director of the non-partisan North Dakota Center for the Public Good, said it may be that North Dakotans are better at rooting out corruption when it occurs.
"Being a sparsely populated state, people know each other," he said. "We know our elected officials and so certainly to do what the governor of Illinois did is much more difficult here."
Morrison said the state has encouraged bad government practices in some cases by weakening disclosure laws. North Dakota does not require legislative or statewide candidates to disclose their campaign expenses.
The analysis does not include corruption cases handled by state law enforcement and it considers only convictions. Corruption may run more rampant in some states but go undetected.
Michael Johnston is a political science professor at Colgate University in New York — which is ranked just after Illinois for corruption convictions. Johnston, who has studied political corruption for 30 years, said places such as Illinois gain a bad reputation that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
"Expectations build up … and you replicate those expectations when you get to the top of the ladder," Johnston said. "It gets repeated."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-12-10-corruptstates_N.htm?se=yahoorefer
[Yes North Dakota and believe it or not South Dakota too. Both Dakotas are neck and neck when comparing in corrupted practices. It is my opinion SD should be the front runner being that they are much closer knit then ND will ever be. The closer the knit, the more likely, cover up's.
Is it surprising to know that smaller counties have the most corruption over the bigger counties? It's the truth. It is why it is important the FBI randomly investigate these counties to assure government funds are not used inappropriately.
Key is for the FBI to randomly choose. Randomly choosing keeps those who would cheat, honest. A government official would never know what county is next. Never knowing who is next is a good deterrant, he/she would refrane from defrauding the government, automatically]
[The FBI was investigating Martin Luther king Jr under orders by a Democrat. It was the Kennedys who initially didn't trust MLK, Jr.]
Martin Luther king Jr was a republican until his death. You can't rewrite history.
It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S's: Slavery, Secession, Segregation and now Socialism. It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860's, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950's and 1960's. During the civil rights era of the 1960's, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman's issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was President Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military. Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Senator Al Gore, Sr. And after he became president, John F. Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Attorney General Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King. In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King's leaving Memphis, Tennessee after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a "trouble-maker" who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968. Given the circumstances of that era, it is understandable why Dr. King was a Republican. It was the Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860's, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Republicans also started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon‘s 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation‘s first goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.Few black Americans know that it was Republicans who founded the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Unknown also is the fact that Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965. Not mentioned in recent media stories about extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is the fact that Dirksen wrote the language for the bill. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of civil rights legislation without the support of Republicans. Critics of Republican Senator Barry Goldwater who ran for president against Democrat President Lyndon Johnson in 1964, ignore the fact that Goldwater wanted to force the Democrats in the South to stop passing discriminatory laws and thus end the need to continuously enact federal civil rights legislation. Those who wrongly criticize Goldwater, also ignore the fact that President Johnson, in his 4,500 State of the Union Address delivered on January 4, 1965, mentioned scores of topics for federal action, but only thirty five words were devoted to civil rights. He did not mention one word about voting rights. Then in 1967, showing his anger with Dr. King's protest against the Viet Nam War, President Johnson referred to Dr. King as "that Nigger preacher." Contrary to the false assertions by Democrats, the racist "Dixiecrats" did not all migrate to the Republican Party. "Dixiecrats" declared that they would rather vote for a "yellow dog" than vote for a Republican because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks. Today, some of those "Dixiecrats" continue their political careers as Democrats, including Democrat Senator Robert Byrd who is well known for having been a "Keagle" in the Ku Klux Klan. Another former "Dixiecrat" is Democrat Senator Ernest Hollings who put up the Confederate flag over the state capitol when he was the governor of South Carolina. There was no public outcry when Democrat Senator Christopher Dodd praised Senator Byrd as someone who would have been "a great senator for any moment," including the Civil War. Democrats denounced Senator Trent Lott for his remarks about Senator Strom Thurmond. Senator Thurmond was never in the Ku Klux Klan and defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats. If Senator Byrd and Senator Thurmond were alive during the Civil War, and Byrd had his way, Thurmond would have been lynched.
The thirty-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party began in the 1970's with President Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy" which was an effort on the Part of Nixon to get Christians in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values and were still discriminating against their fellow Christians who happened to be black. Georgia did not switch until 2002, and some Southern states, including Louisiana, are still controlled by Democrats. Today, Democrats, in pursuit of their socialist agenda, are fighting to keep blacks poor, angry and voting for Democrats. Examples of how egregiously Democrats act to keep blacks in poverty are numerous. After wrongly convincing black Americans that a minimum wage increase was a good thing, the Democrats on August 3rd kept their promise and killed the minimum wage bill passed by House Republicans on July 29th. The blockage of the minimum wage bill was the second time in as many years that Democrats stuck a legislative finger in the eye of black Americans. Senate Democrats on April 1, 2004 blocked passage of a bill to renew the 1996 welfare reform law that was pushed by Republicans and vetoed twice by President Bill Clinton before he finally signed it. Since the welfare reform law expired in September 2002, Congress had passed six extensions, and the latest expired on June 30, 2004. Opposed by the Democrats are school choice opportunity scholarships that would help black children get out of failing schools and Social Security reform, even though blacks on average lose $10,000 in the current system because of a shorter life expectancy than whites (72.2 years for blacks vs. 77.5 years for whites). Democrats have been running our inner-cities for the past 30-40 years, and blacks are still complaining about the same problems. Over $7 trillion dollars have been spent on poverty programs since President Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty with little, if any, impact on poverty. Diabolically, every election cycle, Democrats blame Republicans for the deplorable conditions in the inner-cities, then incite blacks to cast a protest vote against Republicans. In order to break the Democrats' stranglehold on the black vote and free black Americans from the Democrat Party's economic plantation, we must shed the light of truth on the Democrats. We must demonstrate that the Democrat Party policies of socialism and dependency on government handouts offer the pathway to poverty, while Republican Party principles of hard work, personal responsibility, getting a good education and ownership of homes and small businesses offer the pathway to prosperity.
By Frances Rice
http://www.nationalblackrepublicans.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=pages.DYK-Why%20MLK%20was%20a%20Republican
What does a “war” on terror mean? It means incessant warmongering against those in the “axis of evil” and against many other nations. It means building a militaristic society and giving up many of our precious freedoms. All of this is wrong because the “war” on terror is metaphorical. Committing a terrorist act is not, or should not be, a war but a crime - an international crime against which all nations can be enlisted to fight against, thus building international cooperation.
I said all this way back in January of 2004. I was called a fool. I'm bringing the issue up again because I think the climate has changed enough so that maybe people will listen. If I'm not mistaken, Bush and his administration seem to be coming to a similar conclusion. Administration officials no longer talk about the "war on terror"; they speak of the "struggle against violent extremism."
Declaring ourselves as being at war with terrorism is detrimental to our goal of conquering terrorism. Terrorism is an international crime and should be treated that way. By calling it a crime, I do not condone it or minimize it. I am merely suggesting another, and I think more effective, way of fighting the terrorism scourge.
TERRORISM AS ENDLESS WAR
Our current approach to terrorism is militarizing our life. Some time ago, the Department of Homeland Security asked 3 companies - Northrop Grumman Corp, BAE Systems Inc. and UAL Corp's United Airlines - to develop plans for a missile defense system for passenger jets. A contract worth $1 billion will be awarded. It is expected that the cost per airplane would be $1 million each.
Get this. We plan to arm PASSENGER planes so that they would be protected from portable surface-to-air missiles. Do you think this will help? Could the "defense system" be used by some erratic pilot for "offense"? Could it interfere with navigation? Whom do you think this system would help more? The passenger? Or the defense company that gets the contract?
After the planes, do we arm ships, subways, busses and trains? Do we arm private office buildings, hotels and factories? And supposing we do, will we be more safe? Or more afraid?
Fear stalks the land, is growing and will grow more as militarization proceeds.
Militarization is accompanied by destruction of our civil liberties. Start with the 3-hour or 4-hour wait at airports to get on a plane for a 1-hour flight. Now the government is talking of checking a huge data base to see if you are a "security risk." But these inconveniences pale in comparison with what two words from the president can do. All he needs to do is call you an "enemy combatant" and suddenly you have no recourse to the judicial system. You are toast!
The war, of course, is between U.S. and those who "harbor terrorists," possess "weapons of mass destruction" or are part of the "axis of evil." We started by declaring war against Afghanistan. Soon after, we were and still are at war with Iraq. Some are advocating war with North Korea, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan. Where does it end?
Unfortunately, bin Laden is getting his way. He wanted to start a war between Muslims on one side and Jews and Christians on the other. If you look at the countries we are targeting, he appears to be winning.
Unfortunately too, the war is isolating the U.S. from the world community. We have trashed the UN and drove allies away from us. People all over the world who previously loved the U.S., now hate us. Our universities used to attract students from all over the world. Now we have erected barriers to prevent them from coming. The gloss on the land of liberty is tarnished.
All because we are fighting a war!
TERRORISM AS A CRIME
A war takes place between two or more nations. Al Qaeda is not a nation. A war is executed over a period of time after which there is settlement of some kind. Terrorism will be with us for an indefinite period of time.
Terrorism should not be considered an act of war but a crime. A heinous crime, but a crime nonetheless. People or groups attacking other people or groups of people constitutes a crime. Terrorism is as much a crime as drug trafficking or arms smuggling. Mafia gangsters kill people. The "war" on the Mafia is metaphorical, however, like the "war" on poverty or the "war" on drugs.
Crime will always be with us. All we can do is diminish it. The same is true of terrorism. By the way, terrorism is not solely a Muslim activity. An American named Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist. We did not declare war against McVeigh. We arrested him, tried him in the courts and punished him. We should do the same with other terrorists.
A DIFFERENT APPROACH
We all know what happened after September 11. We were so shocked that we were eager for revenge. We declared war against Afghanistan. This is understandable. Then we got further worked up and declared war against Iraq - where we are currently stuck. And our society is gearing up to face an endless succession of wars.
Here is an alternate path we can still follow to achieve a happier America and a more peaceful world. The approach is based on calling terrorism an international crime:
Calling terrorism an international crime and working hand-in-hand with the UN to conquer it will have many positive effects. Here are a few:
Posted by Paul Siegel at July 28, 2005 06:02 PM
http://www.watchblog.com/democrats/archives/002514.html
[I concur. If the US government treated terrorism as a crime instead of just focusing on collecting "intelligence about the attack..", maybe then we would be able to combat against it. Until the US government starts investigating, arresting and prosecuting these criminals, in no way shape or form will we be able to prevent terrorism from escalating.
Integrity driven investigations, with the use of the court system to prosecute these terroristic criminals, is the ONLY way the war on terrorism can be deemed as legit.
Terrorism is currently about blaming innocent people for wrongs they did not commit, after the fact. in order to prove the US governments world leadership. Iron fist, Stalin style.
America is no Russia]
By JARED STRONG
November 30, 2008
A Las Vegas insurance salesman who attempted to cash in on the deaths of 37 terminally ill people will spend more than five years in federal prison. William Reed Jenkins, 60, was prosecuted in Iowa for the scam. He admitted to falsifying life insurance applications to Cedar Rapids-based Life Investors Insurance Co. of America for people he knew would die soon who normally wouldn't be approved. Jenkins' cohorts paid the premiums and waited to collect the insurance payout.
Advertisement "Life Investors was on top of this right away," said Ian Thornhill, assistant U.S. attorney for Iowa's Northern District. "They caught it close to the beginning." Jenkins, who stood to gain up to $7 million in death benefits, pleaded guilty to two counts of wire fraud and was sentenced earlier this month to five years and 10 months in prison. Criminals in federal prison are not eligible for parole. He was also ordered to pay Life Investors about $433,000. Thornhill declined to release the names of people Jenkins used for the scam, but he said that none of them is an Iowa resident. Jenkins' sentencing comes on the heels of the convictions of the so-called "black widows" of California.
Helen Golay and Olga Rutterschmidt, who are both in their 70s, were sentenced in July to life in prison after they killed two homeless men in staged hit-and-run car crashes about nine years ago. The women had befriended the men and gave them a place to live. In exchange, the men agreed to get life insurance policies that the women paid for and collected on. The death-for-profit business has a legal side to it as well. In Iowa, someone who has had a life insurance policy for two years - or earlier under specified emergency conditions such as terminal illness, death of a spouse or bankruptcy - can sell its benefits to someone else.
However, state legislators this year outlawed so-called "stranger-oriented life insurance" practices, in which an investor pays the premiums for an older or unhealthy Iowan, buys the policy after two years, then collects the death benefit when the Iowan dies. "Stranger-originated life insurance is increasingly being used to prey on the elderly," state Sen. Dick Dearden of Des Moines said earlier this year. "Hedge funds and investment firms have ... been known to participate in this unscrupulous moneymaking scheme."
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20081130/NEWS/811300328/-1/NEWS04
[Whats up with these criminals? Every single person who conspires to commit murder in order to collect life insurance money should be thrown into prison for 500 years. If I was President, people who exploit others for self gain would serve a minimum of 500 years in prison...but that would be the worst of their worries being I support torture against criminals/conspirators.]
Josh
Insurance fraud and you
Did you know that the Coalition Against Insurance Fraud estimates that fraudulent claims increase the average household's insurance cost by more than $300 a year, and cost insurance companies more than $80 billion a year? Nationwide® wants to prevent fraud to help you from becoming a victim. Find out here what insurance fraud is, what we're doing to prevent it, and how to protect yourself. Insurance fraud is not a victimless crime − it's a serious problem that affects everyone: you, your family and your neighbors and friends.
Insurance fraud is the second most costly white-collar crime in America, and it comes in many forms, from normally honest people bending the truth to professional organized crime rings. While some fraud schemes are geared toward making a fast dollar by changing the facts of a claim, others are dangerous and can threaten your safety.
Examples of insurance fraud include:
No matter the size or extent of it, insurance fraud is dishonest and in many cases a criminal offense.
We're serious about stopping insurance fraud, and its effects on our customers. We employ the best people, technology and resources in our efforts to try to stop potential fraud. Our anti-fraud strategy includes:
Nationwide and the National Insurance Crime Bureau suggest a few simple steps to help you avoid becoming a victim of insurance fraud:
We're taking an active approach in protecting our customers from insurance fraud; however, we need your help. If you know or suspect someone is committing insurance fraud, speak up. Call the Nationwide Fraud Hotline at 1-800-4RIPOFF (800-474-7633), available 24 hours a day, or e-mail us at rptfraud@nationwide.com. Calls to the Nationwide Fraud Hotline can be anonymous.
Nationwide Insurance is a charter member of the Coalition Against Insurance Fraud, a national advocacy organization of consumer groups, public interest organizations, government agencies and insurers. For more information about insurance fraud and how to protect yourself, view the web site at insurancefraud.org.
I have been watching who is being picked and why. And i will add that Barack Obama has made excellent choices for key slot positions. Number 1 being Senator Tom Daschle to head HHS. WONDERFUL!
Do any of you know what Tom Daschle has been doing since he left office? You would be pleasantly surprised. Not only has he stayed with fighting for the little guy (like you and I) on the sidelines, but also has made it his primary passion to assist and defend vulnerable adults such as the elderly. We could not ask for a more passionate person to become the Secretary of HHS.
I ask: "How may legislators have you heard of who fight with tooth and nail to secure the rights of the vulnerable adults, seniors?" You havent. it is why Tom Daschle is so right for this position. His passion for defending the rights of the elderly are unmatchable. I do believe Tom daschle has found his way in to run for the Presidency in 2012. A sound leader he is, a strong leader he has become.
Think about it... back in when was it? Oh yeah President Bush's second term. Tom Daschle was going to run for the Presidential seat. President Bush would have crushed him being that baby Bush was so very popular. And as a result it would have ruined Tom Daschles chances when running in 2012. A Senator that runs twice usually does not succeeed. The first round is his one and only shot at success.
If you could give someone a second chance, unknowing to them you are giving that person a second chance, would you embark on it, indirectly? Because I did. And I have no regrets doing it what so ever. (Regardless of what other people think what I did or did not do blah blah blah, If I had the chance to help Tom Daschle out again, I would, and not hesitate at the slighest. Tom Daschles staffers didn't really have his best interest at heart, even I could see that, It is why I quickly stepped in.)
I personally do not know Tom Daschle but I have met some of his staff in Sioux Falls SD. His staff? It is my opinion he could have done a lot better. As in secured his own right by assuring they were loyal to his cause. In which they were not. Each staffer was out for himself and as a result hurt Tom Daschle by encouraging him to run for the president seat. They put him out there knowing it might hurt his future chances when the timing was ripe. I say that because they KNEW Tom Daschle didnt have a prayer in hell running up against popular baby Bush, they knew it would have been impossible to succeed. And they didn't care, because all they wanted was to fulfill their own selfish needs. Pathetic.
Really though, I am proud to see Tom Daschle come this far and so well....positioned for the Presidential seat in 2012. Sure its way.. too...early to say that being that Barack Obama's time to lead hasn't even begun yet. Sorry. But i am excited again. Excited to start working on ways to secure Tom Daschles chances of winning the Presidency (not that he needs assistance, because he will win on his own accord, by the means of his own merit. But I ask whats the harm in assisting him? No harm. It's pure glory)
Ok Tom Daschle this Tom Daschle that, yeah yeah so what! He is one of my favorites outside of Hillary Clinton. I have always secretly admired his passion for key causes. Passionate people make excellent Presidents.
What more could this country ask for other then a leader who's passionate about serving.
