Johnny Coli

Rabbit underground, Rabbit safe and sound. Haven't read that book in years.

Time to brush up on your lapine.

All the kids are smarter in East Germany because they sterilize all the dumb adults...it's basic genetics, man.

Romney's win in Mass is actually a really good story. It was an excellent example of political opportunism. The previous Governor, a left-of-center-on-the-issues member of the GOP, left for an ambasador's position, leaving the state in the hands of his Lieutentant Gov, Jane Swift. Swift was an easy target for the media, as she made several political blunders in her short time occupying the corner office in Boston. Despite that, the GOP was going to run her as their nominee going into the next election. Although she wasn't really that attractive as a candidate, the GOP stuck with her because she was the defacto incumbent. Swift's approval numbers were abyssmal, and the Dems thought she would easliy be picked off. Thus, they ran a career state politician, Shannon O'Brien, who was the daughter of a well-loved carreer state politician, thinking it would be a cake-walk. Romney, coming off the Salt Lake City Olympics (which he was credited with for saving) swooped back into Mass, but promised the Swift campaign that he would not get in her way. Of course, that was a complete lie because he entered the race a short time later, but too late for the Dems to find a more attractive candidate of their own. Romney easily crushed O'Brien in a series of debates, and won the election on a pseudo-liberal platform heavy on all the buzz-words. Once in office, he re-emerged as the Romney you see today. His tenure in Mass (when he was here...he's literally been on the presidential camapign trail for a long time) was marked by bitter feuds with the state legislature over just about everything. The GOP actually lost seats in MA becasue of Romney...he became very aggressive in wanting to get more GOP seats in the state legislature...he failed miserably. If he would have run this past election he would have been soundly destroyed. He hates us as much, if not more than we hate him.

Sam Fox was a Bush "ranger" campaign donor, ie responsible for >$200,000 in campaign donations. For this he was to be rewarded with a sweet ambassador appointment. His ties to the Swift Boat ads, ties to the tune of $50,000, led to a harsh, and expected, grilling from John Kerry. Vietnam vets who served with Kerry sent letters to the confirmation committee saying Fox should not be approved, primarily for funding the campaign of lies by the Swift-boat group and for denigrating a veteran. When the Bush admin saw that the vote was most-likely not going to go their way, they pulled Fox's nomination at the 11th hour. Bush made him a recess appointment this week while congress was on the holiday break, thereby getting around the need for a Congressional confirmation.

Do you have the transcript of those meetings, because it's now three days removed and no one has said that she discussed a different foreign policy than that of the admin. Lawmakers disagree on Pelosi's Mideast trip

You are wrong. I am outraged at the handling of the US-atty purge because, although it's not unconstitutional it's a complete subversion of the justice department orchestrated not for performance reasons, but to directly influence the next round of elections. That's not a manufactured controversy...it's real and people are pleading the fifth and resigning over it. Pelosi's trip, and/or any of the other congress-persons who have gone to Syria, is/are not unconstitutional. You can keep saying it's not authorized, but people a hell of a lot smarter than you or I dissagree with you. If what she and the countless other reps over there did was even remotely a violation of any law, then the State Department wouldn't have been there briefing her and sitting in on the meetings. Also, if this was an egregious violation as you suggest, the WH would not single out a single congress-person...that's not the case here. There's nary a peep from this admin about anyone else other than Pelosi. That's a personal issue, not a constitutional one.

If this was anything but manufactured controversy and rhetoric dreamed up by the WH then they, meaning the WH and their lackeys with press credentials, would be leveling this nonsense at ALL of the delegates that have traipsed (sic?) through Syria over the past few weeks. It's only an issue because Pelosi is over there and Bush thinks he's being upstaged. Even the GOP members of Congress seem to be tired of his tantrums, as evidenced by their blatant disregard for the marching orders coming from the WH.

I haven't ignored either one of them. Tom's position (I believe) is that Pelosi's (and numerous members of the GOP) trip to Syria is unconstitutional. It's not, and I've linked to multiple sources, including several from the State Department, showing that that position is wrong. If there was anything unconstitutional or treasonous about any of this your party would be using that angle all over the place. They're not. GG's position (I think) is that these trips fly contrary to Bush's foreign policy. Yet Pelosi was briefed by the State Department, the State Department had people in the room during the meetings, and the GOP members that were actually there stated she didn't stray from the US's position at all. So, I haven't ignored either one of them. But, because I don't fall lock-step in with the rest of the PPP I must be wrong and/or ignoring them...according to you, right? Pork? Here's an excersize for you, go back and look at every single GOP-driven Iraq war budget legislation and supplamental funding legislation that your party submitted to Bush over the past five years. Show me one that didn't have some domestic spending atached to it. Then show me how many Bush vetoed. Pork shouldn't be attached to any bill, but to use that as an excuse to cut off funding to the troops via a veto is on Bush and Bush only. You can't cry "pork" after six years of rubber-stamping it. You put up an article critical of Pelosi, I put up one shooting down it's premise. That's debate. It's not my fault that yours was loaded with inaccuracies. Then, when I point that out, you give me a lecture on what not to believe? You posted a hit-piece on Pelosi, yet I am yet to see you level a single criticism for any of the countless members of your party over there. It's hypocritical, but this isn't about a member of Congress and foreign policy is it?

And just like that another hit-piece get's swatted down by actual facts and not shrill speculation by a right-wing monkey And, for those who only hear out of the right side of their head.... Hobson (R-Ohio) had much more to say in yet another link within the original Chicago Trib piece: So, briefed by the State Department who also sat in on the meetings, and actually supported the Bush policy. This is what get's Pelosi slandered by the gas-bags from right-wing hate radio and the press.

You have to have a foreign policy to be at odds with someone, don't you?

How dare he undemine Bush's foreign policy! I love this quote from Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) [yet another member of the GOP who was over there in Damascas] from a seperate article on the same trip.

I stopped reading after the part where he was gang-raped.

You're arguing semantics with the wrong poster. It was in response to SnR's: They're not pursuing different foreign policies. The "action" of having active discussions with foreign heads of state without the full backing of Bush is the disagreement--an "action" that we both agree is fully consistent with the US Constitution.

Back in this old (1996) issue of US Foreign Policy Agenda (pdf), Professor Frederick L. Holborn of Johns Hopkins University disagrees with your assesment, and outlines why US foreign policy is and should be a "tug and pull", as the framers of the Constitution believed that foreign policy was "too important to be left to the President alone and that tension between the branches of government is to be expected." This president feels he has a mandate to sequester as much power as he possibly can in the Executive Branch, but that power grab seems to run counter to what many historians believe to be the original framers intent for the office, and in fact may be an example of what they were trying to avoid. Also, to suggest that Congress' and the White House's foreign policy objectives are 180 degrees opposite from one another is entirely false.

Fair enough. I retract "diplomacy" from my original statement. However, with respect to the constitutionality of Congress influencing foreign policy, they have every right to do so, and nothing in the Constitution limits them from talking with other heads of state. A fair interpretation would be that they do not have the right to enact and sign treaties without the approval and cooperation of the Executive Branch, nor do they have the power to unilaterally negotiate international agreements, but those seem to be the only limits. They could however pass resolutions/legislation where, if they had a veto-proof majority, they would be able to circumvent the Executive Branch. Long and the short, Pelosi or whomever, has as much right to "discuss" policy with another head of state as the Executive Branch does.

Ask Laura Bush. Whitehouse.gov--pics of Laura Bush's Mid-East trip (at the Dome of the Rock) At the Western Wall The pic of her in this article bears a striking resemblance to Speaker Pelosi. There's a bunch more, but I'm sure you get the idea of where this is "headed". (h/t to numerous commie blogs for the official White House link, h/t to Google Image for the other one)

Actually, Congress does have the right to pursue foreign policy, and has done so historically. U.S. Department of State: Foreign Policy Roles of the President and Congress It would seem that the GOP delegation and/or Pelosi's delegation have every right to go on diplomatic and/or fact-finding jaunts at their own discretion, whether it is in agreement with the Executive Branch or not.

They were there over the weekend, then moved on to Jordan (Lawmakers Visit Syria to Discuss Ties). Pelosi's trip is pretty much the same one the GOP delegation is on. Her's is following a few days behind.

Carter? Yeah, why would you want a Nobel Prize-winning champion of human rights jetting all over the world interfering with Bush's foreign "policy"? Gotta keep a nut like that in the box.

Miller park is outstanding. Milwaukee...great town. Wonderfull people, great baseball city, great drinking city, Harley Davidson, sausage races during the seventh inning stretch. The Pabst factory has been shut down for a while, but you can still find a dusty can in some of the bars if you ask. All-in-all, a really spectacular place to visit, and I'm sure it's a great place to live.

Jesus turning water into piss. Maybe they're outraged because the artist didn't use white chocolate?

I hate him, yet I also kind of give the guy a nod as well. Here's this no-talent white-trash hack with a couple dance moves--he get's hitched to one of the most popular pop stars (at the time she was pretty popular), parties his nuts off on her dime, get's to kind of live his dream as a rap star (and failed, but on her dime as well) drives her completely insane (not just a little nuts, totally-whacked-out-shave-3/4ths-of-your-head crazy), ends up looking like the more stable of the two people, and walks away with more money than he started with. Now he's famous for absolutely nothing and parties for free in Vegas. Yeah, he's scum, but I doubt he give's a rat's ass what anyone really thinks.

For anyone that wants to get past the spin on this issue, there's an excellent piece in Slate from yesterday (Is Congress using the Iraq bills to send a message?) that gives a nice run-down on what's in both versions of the bills, and what that would actually mean. There's also internal links to a piece in The Hill, describing what the Pentagon can do if Bush vetos the final version and the money starts to dwindle (really interesting if you're into budget minutiae--It's the first I've ever heard of the Feed and Forage Act). (h/t to Prof. Lederman from the Balkinization legal blog--he's also linked to in the Salon piece).

Whom, exactly, would they be surrendering to? I find it very disturbing. No doubt OBL is laughing, because we've essentially ignored that he's in Pakistan and the bulk of our military is bogged down in a country he hasn't set foot in. Just an FYI, there are very few people who think the war in Afganistan is unjustified. Most would rather we redeploy the bulk of the military there, you know, to find the guy that was responsible for 9-11. Okinawa? You do know that we have military bases throughout the Mid-East, right? You do know that redeployment doesn't remove any-and-all US presense in Iraq, right?