Al Franken refused his rival’s calls for an election night concession last November, choosing instead to begin vote counting and courtroom haggling that stretched almost eight months and ultimately landed him a seat in the U.S. Senate.

Franken’s victory over Republican Norm Coleman gives Democrats 60 Senate seats, the critical number needed to overcome Republican filibusters. When Franken is seated, which could come as early as next week, his party will have a majority not reached on either side of the aisle in some three decades.

Coleman conceded the election hours after a unanimous state Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that Franken — who moved into politics with books poking fun at conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh — should be certified the winner. In doing so, Coleman pulled the plug on a bitter election that was decided by 312 votes out of almost 2.9 million cast.

“When you win an election this close, you know not one bit of effort went to waste,” Franken told reporters outside his downtown Minneapolis town house, accompanied by his wife. “The way I see it, I’m not going to Washington to be the 60th Democratic senator, I’m going to Washington to be the second senator from Minnesota.”

James Delingpole, the Brit, was gloating like a child with a lollipop while whoring his book “Obamaland” on C-Spans Washington Journal. He claimed while the conservative right  are “pragmatic adults,”  the liberal left are adolescences that are about to ruin the fine nation George Bush created.  If I didn’t hear it with my own ears, I wouldn’t have believed it.
With his face sweating, glossy childlike glee, Delingpole was so giddy I though he would make out with the camera. 

The Neo Con right are such pragmatic adults they embrace the likes of Ted Haggard ( you remember him from Larry King and his pimp) left a 10 trillion dollar debt (did I say billion?), 2 failed wars and all that implies, torture (we don’t – we do and it’s ok), Katrina, Plame, a culture of corruption that led to years of jail time for the pragmatists  … Delingpole’s book should have been titled  … ”The Very Best of  Conservatism – VOL I” 

Lunatic right fringe cave men, like Delingpole, throw us back into the Bush stone age with his never ending fear mongering that obviously still appeals to the stuck on stupid. Ho Hum.

 Ah, what depths one will sink  to be embraced by a fringe right part of our American culture with money to burn and Delingpole is hoping they’ll toss some coin his way.  Good on ya James! You worked the right fringe beautifully and they will reward you for your loyalty, I guarantee it.  Look at Scooter. 

If Obamaland is Delingpole’s idea of being a pragmatic adult … I’d rather be adopted by a commie – pinko – welfare grabbin – government cheese eatin – crack ho.

Intelligent design … I beg you to please, PLEASE save us from the Neo Nazi Lunatic Right!
We’re counting on you.

We were hoping the National Broadcasters Association was above reproach. Apparently not. Ex-Beer governor, and current head of National Broadcasters Association President David K. Rehr, released their political compaign donations for the 2008 cycle.

Although the following numbers don’t add up on Mr Rehr’s official report, out of the $26,911.00 allotment;
$18,300.00 went to 16 Republicans or Republican organizations
$6,000.00 went to 5 Democrats.
$1,500.00 went to 2 miscellaneous organizations
$1111.00 is unaccounted for on the report.

2008 National Broadcasting Association Contribution Totals:

Rehr, David $1,000 05/12/2008 DUNCAN D HUNTER FOR CONGRESS – Republican
Rehr, David $1,000 05/01/2008 WOODY JENKINS FOR CONGRESS – Republican
Rehr, David $500 04/01/2008 WOODY JENKINS FOR CONGRESS – Republican
Rehr, David $2,000 03/25/2008 JOHN D. DINGELL FOR CONGRESS – Democrat
Rehr, David $2,000 03/13/2008 LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART FOR CONGRESS – Republican
REHR, DAVID $2,000 03/12/2008 WICKER FOR SENATE – Republican
Rehr, David $2,300 01/04/2008 DAVID WOODS FOR CONGRESS – Republican
Rehr, David $1,000 12/20/2007 DAVID SCOTT FOR CONGRESS – Democrat
Rehr, David $1,000 12/18/2007 GENE GREEN CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN – Democrat
Rehr, David $1,000 11/23/2007 CONGRESSMAN JOE BARTON – Republican
Rehr, David $1,000 11/08/2007 BACHMANN FOR CONGRESS – Republican
Rehr, David $500 08/01/2007 FREEDOM AND SECURITY PAC
Rehr, David $1,000 06/28/2007 COLE FOR CONGRESS – Republican
REHR, DAVID $1,000 06/25/2007 COLEMAN FOR SENATE 08 – Republican
Rehr, David $1,000 06/22/2007 PROFESSIONALS IN ADVERTISING POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
REHR, DAVID $1,000 06/20/2007 FRIENDS OF MARY LANDRIEU INC – Democrat
Rehr, David $1,000 06/08/2007 DAVID SCOTT FOR CONGRESS – Democrat
Rehr, David $1,000 05/17/2007 STEVE CHABOT FOR CONGRESS – Republican
Rehr, David $1,000 05/09/2007 SENSENBRENNER COMMITTEE – Republican
Rehr, David $1,000 05/04/2007 KLINE FOR CONGRESS – Republican
Rehr, David $500 04/27/2007 EVERY REPUBLICAN IS CRUCIAL (ERICPAC)
Rehr, David $1,000 03/26/2007 CONGRESSMAN JOE BARTON – Republican
Rehr, David $1,000 12/11/2006 TEXANS FOR HENRY BONILLA – Republican

IYFR: The dead give away to Mr. Rehr favorites is the Every Republican is Critical donation. Tsk Tsk Mr. Rehr. Shame on you and your fuzzy math. You’re on the wrong side of history and it’s not money well spent

http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/david-rehr.asp?cycle=08

The GOP candidate’s younger brother, who lives in Alexandria, Va., told Washington radio station WTOP he was returning from a campaign event in Philadelphia around 2 a.m. on Oct. 18 when he got stuck in traffic on Interstate 495 at the Wilson Bridge.

Frustrated because of the traffic, he called 911 to find out what was going on. The operator asked him to “state your emergency.”

“Well, it’s not an emergency, but do you know why on one side at the damn drawbridge of 95 traffic is stopped for 15 minutes and yet traffic’s coming the other way?,” Joe McCain said.

The operator asked him if he was calling 911 to complain about traffic. McCain then uttered an expletive and hung up the phone.

The 911 Operator called back and got Joe McCain’s voice mail. Eventually, Joe McCain answered his cell phone and was busted by the 911 operator.

Unauthorized History of My Space (Part 1 of 2)

Unauthorized History of My Space (Part 2 of 2)

Karl Rove ain’t coming to the party. And he ain’t talking.

Despite being subpoenaed by the House Judiciary Committee to testify on his role in politicizing the Justice Department the erstwhile Boy Genius has announced that he isn’t showing up today

He claims that the president’s assertion of executive privilege “obligates” him to disregard the Congressional order.

By doing so, Rove is thumbing his nose at Congress, legal precedent, the public’s right to know the truth — about, among other things, the firing of nine U.S. attorneys and the blackballing of Justice Department hires — and the Constitution.

Rove’s refusal is, of course, part and parcel of the Bush White House’s ongoing efforts to keep its actions cloaked in secrecy. But beyond that, it is further evidence that for Bush/Cheney and company the ultimate power in America lies in their hands, not in the hands of the people or the laws that govern us.

This is no petty partisan squabble; this is a fight about the foundations of our democracy.

True to form, Rove has offered to meet with the Judiciary Committee — but only in private, without being under oath, and with no transcript kept. Shades of the conditions imposed on the 9/11 Commission by Bush and Cheney, who only agreed to meet with the Commission members in tandem and with no record kept (indeed the members’ notebooks were confiscated).

Rove has been cited for contempt by the Senate Judiciary Committee for refusing to testify about the U.S. Attorney scandal.

In theory, according to the Congressional Oversight Manual, Rove could be arrested, “brought before the House or Senate by the Sergeant-at-Arms, tried at the bar of the body, and can be imprisoned in the Capitol jail.”

But that’s not going to happen. Odds are the Committee will move to hold Rove in contempt. The matter will then be turned over to the Justice Department — the same Justice Department Rove is accused of politicizing — which will likely do the same thing it has done with Harriet Miers and Josh Bolton, i.e. nothing. The matter will then be tossed to the courts… and Rove will go on pontificating on Fox and advising John McCain. Pretty sweet set up.

FROM: DAVID MANNING
DATE: 14 MARCH 2002

CC: JONATHAN POWELL

PRIME MINISTER

YOUR TRIP TO THE US

I had dinner with Condi on Tuesday; and talks and lunch with her and an NSC team on Wednesday (to which Christopher Meyer also came). These were good exchanges, and particularly frank when we were one-on-one at dinner. I attach the records in case you want to glance.

IRAQ

We spent a long time at dinner on IRAQ. It is clear that Bush is grateful for your support and has registered that you are getting flak. I said that you would not budge in your support for regime change but you had to manage a press, a Parliament and a public opinion that was very different than anything in the States. And you would not budge either in your insistence that, if we pursued regime change, it must be very carefully done and produce the right result. Failure was not an option.

Condi’s enthusiasm for regime change is undimmed. But there were some signs, since we last spoke, of greater awareness of the practical difficulties and political risks. (See the attached piece by Seymour Hersh which Christopher Meyer says gives a pretty accurate picture of the uncertain state of the debate in Washington.)

From what she said, Bush has yet to find the answers to the big questions:

— how to persuade international opinion that military action against Iraq is necessary and justified;

— what value to put on the exiled Iraqi opposition;

— how to coordinate a US/allied military campaign with internal opposition (assuming there is any);

— what happens on the morning after?

Bush will want to pick your brains. He will also want to hear whether he can expect coalition support. I told Condi that we realised that the Administration could go it alone if it chose. But if it wanted company, it would have to take account of the concerns of its potential coalition partners. In particular:

— the Un dimension. The issue of the weapons inspectors must be handled in a way that would persuade European and wider opinion that the US was conscious of the international framework, and the insistence of many countries on the need for a legal base. Renwed [renewed?] refused [refusal?] by Saddam to accept unfettered inspections would be a powerful argument;

— the paramount importance of tackling Israel/Palestine. Unless we did, we could find ourselves bombing the Iraq and losing the Gulf.

YOUR VISIT TO THE RANCH

No doubt we need to keep a sense of perspective. But my talks with Condi convinced me that Bush wants to hear you [sic] views on Iraq before taking decisions. He also wants your support. He is still smarting from the comments by other European leaders on his Iraq policy.

This gives you real influence: on the public relations strategy; on the UN and weapons inspections; and on US planning for any military campaign. This could be critically important. I think there is a real risk that the Administration underestimates the difficulties. They may agree that failure isn’t an option, but this does not mean that they will avoid it.

Will the Sunni majority really respond to an uprising led by Kurds and Shias? Will Americans really put in enough ground troops to do the job if the Kurdish/Shi’ite stratagem fails? Even if they do will they be willing to take the sort of casualties that the Republican Guard may inflict on them if it turns out to be an urban war, and Iraqi troops don’t conveniently collapse in a heap as Richard Perle and others confidently predict? They need to answer these and other tough questions, in a more convincing way than they have so far before concluding that they can do the business.

The talks at the ranch will also give you the chance to push Bush on the Middle East. The Iraq factor means that there may never be a better opportunity to get this Administration to give sustained attention to reviving the MEPP [Middle East Peace Process].

DAVID MANNING

Bush ‘plans Iran air strike by August’
By Muhammad Cohen

NEW YORK – The George W Bush administration plans to launch an air strike against Iran within the next two months, an informed source tells Asia Times Online, echoing other reports that have surfaced in the media in the United States recently.

Two key US senators briefed on the attack planned to go public with their opposition to the move, according to the source, but their projected New York Times op-ed piece has yet to appear.

The source, a retired US career diplomat and former assistant secretary of state still active in the foreign affairs community, speaking anonymously, said last week that the US plans an air strike against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). The air strike would target the headquarters of the IRGC’s elite Quds force. With an estimated strength of up to 90,000 fighters, the Quds’ stated mission is to spread Iran’s revolution of 1979 throughout the region.

Targets could include IRGC garrisons in southern and southwestern Iran, near the border with Iraq. US officials have repeatedly claimed Iran is aiding Iraqi insurgents. In January 2007, US forces raided the Iranian consulate general in Erbil, Iraq, arresting five staff members, including two Iranian diplomats it held until November. Last September, the US Senate approved a resolution by a vote of 76-22 urging President George W Bush to declare the IRGC a terrorist organization. Following this non-binding “sense of the senate” resolution, the White House declared sanctions against the Quds Force as a terrorist group in October. The Bush administration has also accused Iran of pursuing a nuclear weapons program, though most intelligence analysts say the program has been abandoned.

Rockin’ and a-reelin’
Senators and the Bush administration denied the resolution and terrorist declaration were preludes to an attack on Iran. However, attacking Iran rarely seems far from some American leaders’ minds. Arizona senator and presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain recast the classic Beach Boys tune Barbara Ann as “Bomb Iran”. Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton promised “total obliteration” for Iran if it attacked Israel.

The US and Iran have a long and troubled history, even without the proposed air strike. US and British intelligence were behind attempts to unseat prime minister Mohammed Mossadeq, who nationalized Britain’s Anglo-Iranian Petroleum Company, and returned Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to power in 1953. President Jimmy Carter’s pressure on the Shah to improve his dismal human-rights record and loosen political control helped the 1979 Islamic revolution unseat the Shah.

But the new government under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini condemned the US as “the Great Satan” for its decades of support for the Shah and its reluctant admission into the US of the fallen monarch for cancer treatment. Students occupied the US Embassy in Teheran, holding 52 diplomats hostage for 444 days. Eight American commandos died in a failed rescue mission in 1980. The US broke diplomatic relations with Iran during the hostage holding and has yet to restore them. Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric often sounds lifted from the Khomeini era.
The source said the White House views the proposed air strike as a limited action to punish Iran for its involvement in Iraq. The source, an ambassador during the administration of president H W Bush, did not provide details on the types of weapons to be used in the attack, nor on the precise stage of planning at this time. It is not known whether the White House has already consulted with allies about the air strike, or if it plans to do so.

Sense in the senate
Details provided by the administration raised alarm bells on Capitol Hill, the source said. After receiving secret briefings on the planned air strike, Senator Diane Feinstein, Democrat of California, and Senator Richard Lugar, Republican of Indiana, said they would write a New York Times op-ed piece “within days”, the source said last week, to express their opposition. Feinstein is a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and Lugar is the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee.

In a statement received by Asia Times Online from Feinstein’s office, the senator said she “has not received any briefing, classified or unclassified, from the administration involving any plans to strike Iran”.

Given their obligations to uphold the secrecy of classified information, it is unlikely the senators would reveal the Bush administration’s plan or their knowledge of it. However, going public on the issue, even without specifics, would likely create a public groundswell of criticism that could induce the Bush administration reconsider its plan.

The proposed air strike on Iran would have huge implications for geopolitics and for the ongoing US presidential campaign. The biggest question, of course, is how would Iran respond?

Iran’s options
Iran could flex its muscles in any number of ways. It could step up support for insurgents in Iraq and for its allies throughout the Middle East. Iran aids both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Israel’s Occupied Territories. It is also widely suspected of assisting Taliban rebels in Afghanistan.

Iran could also choose direct confrontation with the US in Iraq and/or Afghanistan, with which Iran shares a long, porous border. Iran has a fighting force of more than 500,000. Iran is also believed to have missiles capable of reaching US allies in the Gulf region.

Iran could also declare a complete or selective oil embargo on US allies. Iran is the second-largest oil exporter in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and fourth-largest overall. About 70% of its oil exports go to Asia. The US has barred oil imports from Iran since 1995 and restricts US companies from investing there.

China is Iran’s biggest customer for oil, and Iran buys weapons from China. Trade between the two countries hit US$20 billion last year and continues to expand. China’s reaction to an attack on Iran is also a troubling unknown for the US.

Three for the money
The Islamic world could also react strongly against a US attack against a third predominantly Muslim nation. Pakistan, which also shares a border with Iran, could face additional pressure from Islamic parties to end its cooperation with the US to fight al-Qaeda and hunt for Osama bin Laden. Turkey, another key ally, could be pushed further off its secular base. American companies, diplomatic installations and other US interests could face retaliation from governments or mobs in Muslim-majority states from Indonesia to Morocco.

A US air strike on Iran would have seismic impact on the presidential race at home, but it’s difficult to determine where the pieces would fall.

At first glance, a military attack against Iran would seem to favor McCain. The Arizona senator says the US is locked in battle across the globe with radical Islamic extremists, and he believes Iran is one of biggest instigators and supporters of the extremist tide. A strike on Iran could rally American voters to back the war effort and vote for McCain.

On the other hand, an air strike on Iran could heighten public disenchantment with Bush administration policy in the Middle East, leading to support for the Democratic candidate, whoever it is.

But an air strike will provoke reactions far beyond US voting booths. That would explain why two veteran senators, one Republican and one Democrat, were reportedly so horrified at the prospect.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, the self-described “Independent Democrat” who caucuses with the Democratic party in the Senate even though he has endorsed Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz, got some tough talk from Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, yesterday about his advocacy for the presumptive Republican presidential candidate and the general tone of the campaign, Democratic sources tell ABC News. Returning to the Senate after his securing the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama and Lieberman greeted each on the Senate floor in the Well as they were voting on the budget resolution.

They shook hands. But Obama didn’t let go, leading Lieberman – cordially – by the hand across the room into a corner on the Democratic side, where Democratic sources tell ABC News he delivered some tough words for the junior senator from Connecticut, who had just minutes before hammered Obama’s speech before the pro-Israel group AIPAC in a conference call arranged by the McCain campaign.

    The two spoke intensely for approximately five minutes, with no one able to hear their conversation. Reporters watched as Obama leaned closely in to Lieberman, whose back was literally up against the wall.

  Neither party is officially talking. But while Lieberman spokesman Marshall Whitman says the conversation was “a cordial and friendly discussion” and Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton says it was “private and friendly,” Democratic sources tell ABC News that the conversation was a stern rebuke to Lieberman for his criticism of the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee on the conference call, as well as a discussion about how far Lieberman is willing to go in his advocacy of McCain, and the tone of the campaign.

    ”It’s one thing to support McCain,” said one Democratic source, “but many think Uncle Joe has gone too far.”

    Obama campaigned for Lieberman in 2006 when he was challenged (and ultimately defeated) in his primary race for his Senate seat. When Lieberman opted to run as an independent, Obama wrote a supportive email endorsing Democratic nominee Ned Lamont, but he did not appear in person for him, unlike other Democrats, such as Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn.

    On the McCain conference call yesterday, Lieberman congratulated Obama “in securing the Democratic nomination and to express my own hope as a supporter of John McCain that this will be a civil and constructive campaign debate from here to November.”

    The only Orthodox Jew in the U.S. Senate then criticized the White House hopeful’s speech to the Jewish pro-Israel lobby AIPAC, saying, “I would say respectfully that I thought in this speech that there was a disconnect between things Senator Obama said today in particularly with regards to Iran and things that he has said or done earlier either in the campaign and senate. To be specific, I was troubled earlier in the year during the campaign season when Senator Obama referred to, I guess compared Iran and other rogue and terrorists states to the Soviet Union and minimized the threat represented by Iran. I think that is wrong.”

    Lieberman also criticized Obama for voting against an amendment he offered with Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., that designated Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group, and included other language that Obama said linked the war in Iraq to Iran in a way that troubled him. “Senator Obama opposed it saying it was saber rattling and referring to the possible threat of military force,” Lieberman said. “But if you look at the Kyl-Liebermann Amendment as it was passed, it has none of that in it, regarding military action. I was hoping and I still hope that he will say that that vote was a mistake, and that he would support that resolution.”

“Obama today argued that American foreign policy in recent years has essentially sort of strengthened Iran,” Lieberman continued. “At one point, he almost seems to suggest that it helped to elect us Ahmadinejad, and has made Israel safe. I just disagree with that. Iran elected Ahmadinejad for their own reasons. If Israel is in danger today, it’s not because of American foreign policy which has been strongly supportive of Israel in every way, it is not because what we have done in Iraq, it is because Iran is a fanatical terrorist, expansionist state and has a leader and a leadership that constantly threatens to extinguish the state of Israel.”

    ”Its a difficult situation,” Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, the Senate Democrats’ Assistant Majority Leader and a major Obama backer, told reporters Wednesday, according to Roll Call. “Joe is my friend … but I hope he doesn’t become the lead attack dog. Of course it’s a concern when someone in your Caucus is supporting the other party’s candidate. Let’s not try and sugarcoat it.”

    Lieberman agreed to caucus with the Democrats, who need his vote in the narrowly-divided Senate, in order to maintain power. But the Nutmeg stater is testing the patience of Democratic leaders by endorsing McCain and agreeing to speak at the Republican National Convention in September. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told MSNBC they would “watch very closely” how far Lieberman takes his advocacy.

    But Obama may feel Lieberman has already taken it too far.

For squatters, foreclosed homes like this are like a camp-ground with free camping,” says real-estate broker Marc Charney, a foreclosure specialist, as he enters the home in Brockton, Massachusetts, and shines a flash-light at a mattress where homeless people have been sleeping each night.

Squatting is on the rise across the United States as foreclosures surge, eviction notices mount and homes go unsold for months, complicating the worst U.S. housing slump in a quarter century and forcing real-estate brokers to enlist the help of law enforcement and courts to sell empty houses.

IYFR: Back in 2000, when George Bush stole the White House, we said this will be the worst Presidency in history. Our off the cuff, on air, comments included a potential disaster in housing, a possible war, rising gas prices. We even joked about food and water shortages.

In retrospect, we’re sorry to the American people for putting that out there.  While little consolation, at least we didn’t vote for this clown … twice.   

IYFR: Add another REPUBLICAN POLITICAL LEADER to the YOU FILTHY PIG list.

Disgraced New York Congressman Vito Fossella broke down in tears on the floor of the House of Representatives today, apparently under the emotional weight of his recent behavior.

Fossella acknowledged on Thursday that he had fathered a daughter, now three years old, with a woman who wasn’t his wife. News of his adultery came just a week after the Staten Island Republican was arrested for drunk driving in suburban Virginia.

Appearing on the House floor today, Fossella broke down when talking with House Chaplain, Reverend Daniel P. Coughlin, a Hill source who witnessed the event told The Huffington Post. The episode occurred shortly after the congressman voted against the Neighborhood Stabilization Act of 2008, a housing bill that passed through the House by a 239 to 188 vote.

Fossella’s political and legal future is currently up in the air. He is expected to appear in court next week and could face jail time if convicted for his drunk driving charge.

According to the New York Times:

“A police report in Alexandria, Va., a suburb of Washington, said that Mr. Fossella ran a red light on Thursday just after midnight and had a “strong smell of alcoholic beverage” when he was pulled over. According to the report, Mr. Fossella told the officer that he was on his way to pick up his daughter, who needed to go to the hospital, although on Friday he said that he had been on his way to visit friends.

The report said Mr. Fossella failed several sobriety tests on the street, including a preliminary breath test on which he registered a blood alcohol level of 0.133 percent. After he was arrested, he recorded a level of 0.17 percent on another machine. The legal limit in Virginia, as in most states, is 0.08 percent.”