Johnny Coli

I stand by my statement that Joe Lieberman is a political whore and does not represent the Democrats that voted to put him in office. From today's (Sunday's) Hartford Courant: He's not a Dem, and shouldn't pretend to be running as one just to get elected. And, in the unlikely event that Ned Lamont does beat him in the primary, he hasn't gone on the record denying a run as an independent just out of spite. He's not just disagreeing with my views, as you state it. He's spitting in the face of the voters in Conn who voted for him thinking he was one thing, only to have him go to DC and bend over with a smile on his face and vote the other way. That's not just my opinion. Do a search of any Conn-based newspaper. He is being exposed as the fraud/whore that he really is. The Dems aren't losing. In fact, they are running strong in some very critical national races, and they are running on historically liberal platforms. You say you are pro-labor. Then that is a view you have in common with liberal Dems. You don't care about civil rights for homosexuals or a women's right to choose. That's fine. Unless you feel strongly against those issues (like Rape Gurney Joe Lieberman), I don't see how that would affect your willingness to vote Dem. You say you are "conservative wrt foreign policy." That's a tidy little talking point, but says absolutely nothing about what you think a "liberal foreign policy" is. I suspect you think the liberals would just turn everything over to the UN, right? That we'd just let radical fundamentalists and despots run loose, that we'd hand out visas to terrorists, and let anybody and everybody into the country with a fresh $100 bill. I suspect you've bought the Republican characterization that liberals are soft and we don't love this country as much as the conservatives do, and that we wouldn't defend it just as hard, if not harder. Well, you would be wrong, Bill. So, Bill, it sounds to me that you probably would fit in quite well in "my" party. You just didn't realize it. The gist of this thread was that it would be easier to bring about a third party than reform an existing party. I have put my views out, saying that I would rather work to reform one of the existing parties that "at it's core" sums up a majority of my beliefs. I want the politicians that I vote for to adhere to those principles. That's why I vote for them. If someone I vote for turns around post-election and votes completely the opposite to almost every single issue that comes up, then I have the right to call him out and help to vote his ass out of the party. I don't see why that is such a big deal for some here to grasp.

Didn't see this post before hitting submit on my other post. The "core" has been labled extreme by the moderates who pander for votes. Since when has a liberal ideology been considered "lunatic fringe"?

The problem with the current leadership in the Dem party is the fact that they run towards the center. In my opinion that is running out of fear. This is the party of pro-choice, pro-labor, pro-environment, pro-civil rights, positive social programs, and on and on. That is the core ideology that makes this the Democratic Party and sets it apart from the Reps. The fact that the party has been taken over by cowardly milquetoasts like Joe Lieberman doesn't mean the ideology has changed. It just means that it has been hijacked by said cowards who are afraid to take a stand on any issue. Sticking to a set of convictions and an ideological core should not be "fringe." It's only considered fringe because the people who run towards the center out of fear tell us so. I have more respect for a total nut like Wacka (no offense ) than I do for political whores like Joe Lieberman or John McCain.

Do you not agree that there is a core ideology behind both parties? I'm not suggesting "change". I'm suggesting reform within the party, not changing the core ideology.

We're going to have to agree to disagree, then. I see several candidates on the liberal Dem side that are running clean, special interest-free campaigns that have people gravitating towards them because of their party reform approach. We will see how successful this strategy is in the long run (several election cycles from now, not this election cycle...change will take time). The fact that the party "insiders" and elite are pushing back so hard makes me believe that this approach is on the right path. I am a life-long liberal Dem. I want to see my party return to the ideals and beliefs I, and it appears many others, have.

I don't see it as a contradiction. By "party" I mean "party platform" or ideology. There is a reason I'm a liberal Dem and not a Rep. I don't see a problem with a consensus party ideology. If Joe Lieberman doesn't want to be part of that ideology, then Joe Lieberman should leave it.

I disagree. All politics starts at the local level. Councilmen become state reps. State reps can become House Reps/Senators. Attorney Generals run for governorships. It's all part of a long process. Lieberman hasn't been a Democrat for years. He dug his own grave, ignored his constituents, and developed an elitest attitude at his own peril. The unions are ignoring him, Ned Lamont got 1/3 of the delegates at the state convention, and Lamont's only been in the race since March. Shed no tears for Joe Lieberman. When asked if he'll back Lamont if Lamont won the primary, he said he wouldn't rule out a run as an Independent. There's your party loyalty. F-ck Lieberman.

Here's an example of change from within. You don't get more of a Dem machine example than Massachusetts, where even the Republicans run as Democrats. Deval Patrick, a relative outsider, has a strong chance of bumping the party favorite Tom Reily (who has been angling for this seat for many years, paid his party dues, and feels he's entiltled to it), and pissing off the Mass Dem Party elite. BarnstablePatriot.com More from the Boston Globe.

But a third party will have the baggage of being considered fringe and not being taken seriously by a majority of voters. Both established parties have blocs of voters who pull the Dem or Rep lever no matter who the candidates are. They're built in votes. Why not force change from within? It seems to me that an outsider/longshot campaign has a poorer chance of gaining a foothold than a campaign running from within the structure already present, ie win a primary and earn the right to go up against the other party's candidate. Ned Lamont is causing Rape Gurney Joe Lieberman fits in Conn. Deval Patrick might have enough delegates in the MA governors race to keep the other Dems off the primary ballot. Real change can be done from within the party. Enough people want change, but are still beholden to the brand name. Use that brand/party loyalty.

Here's the link I mentioned in the previous post on the grassroots wave building up steam in Philly. The new kids on Dem block

Or rebuild an existing party from the grassroots up. There is a very strong wave of progressive change at the grassroots level in the Dem party. Look no further than Ned Lamont's campaign to unseat Lieberman in Conn. Here in Mass, we have a progressive Dem, Deval Patrick, who has a excellent chance of shutting out the other "entitled" Dems in the primary for the governors race. Barak Obama, Russ Feingold...our party is beginning to be reshaped. It is going to take time, and it will be a struggle to get the dead wood out of the party, but it is happening. I just read an article yesterday on the progressive movement taking shape and beginning to wield some real power in your state (I will try to find the link). If we have to have a two party system in the US, then it is up to us to mold them into the parties that represent the views of the majority of their members. It can be done first at the local level, town councils, state Senators and Reps, etc, and that will eventually make an impact at the national level. I don't believe it all has to be razed. We need brooms, not wrecking balls.

Kind of an ingenuine (not to mention somewhat dubious and totally lacking in actual substance) call for a third party from Noonan, a life-long RNC hack (worked for both Reagan and Bush Sr.) and a key member of Bush Jr's 2004 re-election campaign. Look no further than the final three paragraphs of her piece. She manages to squeeze in two RNC platform talking points, immigration and (an entire paragraph) on how scared the american people are in the "age of terror." Last I heard, the american people were more concerned with the economy and Iraq. (article from yesterday) Her final paragraph is a classic. She characterizes Republicans as "some huge buffed guy at the gym who looks strong but can't even put on his T-shirt without help because he's so muscle-bound" (settle down, Peggy), and the Dems as managerially incompetent, lacking in vision, and the most we could hope for is that they "competently serve their interest groups and let the benefits trickle down." I see...Reps strong and viral, but adorably dumb. Dems are myopic girly men. This from a woman who was the architect of Bush Sr's "thousand points of light" soundbite? You've lost a bit on your fastball, Peggy. Hardly a fair and balanced desperate call for a third party, Ms. Noonan. Show us your conviction to change, Peggy. Renounce your party affiliation with the Repugs, and register with a third party. Do they even allow registered Independents on FOXNews panels?

min/

It's probably going to boil down to whether-or-not he consented for NBC (the ones who took the initial footage) to do whatever they wanted with the video they shot. If NBC retains the rights to the footage and subsequent use thereof, then he's probably got no case.

Here you go, William. FBI accuses 2 Fumo computer experts of obstructing probe Kind of a big fish in a small pond from what I can dig up, so he's not on the same level as a Ney, Santorum, Delay or a Cunningham, but it's a potential scandal in a blue suit none-the-less. You can send me the "thanks for the heads-up, Johnny" six-pack of PBR (16 oz cans, por favor) to me at your leisure. I could reciprocate if you ever called out one of your own, and we could send each other booze for every Rep vs. Dem scandal, but I think I'd end up broke and thirsty.

You (and I, and almost everyone else on the planet) call it bull sh--, but the Bushies call it expert opinion. The guy who reported made up the whole story, Amir Taheri, was invited to the Whitehouse for his expert opinion on Iraq, as per Tony Snow, Fox News anchor White House press secretary. (props to TPM) Was he there for his expert opinion on Iraq and Iran, or was he just dropping by to pick up his bag of gold from Karl Rove?

Should he have paid for the tickets to avoid the appearence of impropiety, absolutely. Were the tickets illegal gifts, no. As for the monetary limit you describe, it doesn't pertain to gifts exempted from the rule described above. EDIT: Yeah, what the Crap-tossing Monkey said, only without the scandal thingy.

Here's a link to the legislation Reid introduced calling for more oversight of boxing, clearly not in the interests of the Nevada Boxing Commission. I sympathize with VABills' stick-to-it-iveness in trying to hijack a thread exposing the shadiness of the Cheney I mean Bush administration, but there is no scandal there.

Senate ethics rules allow gifts (or in this case, ringside seat tickets) from government agencies, ie the Nevada Boxing Commision. Senate Ethics Rules (pdf) Also, I do not yet have the link, but Reid voted against the Nevada Boxing Commission's interests, the guys that gave him the tickets. There's no scandal here, William.

There are bad days, and there are really bad days. I've got some champagne icing down for the good ones, which might not be that far off now.

Charlie Savage from the Boston Globe had this article in Sunday's paper showing that it is Dick Cheney's legal advisor and chief of staff, David Addington, who is the "leading architect of the "signing statements" the president has appended to more than 750 laws." Yes, you read that correctly. I'll post it again because I think it shouldn't go un-noticed. See this link for Savage's previous expose on the 750 signing statements issued by Bush, and this link for our previous lackluster discussion on the GOPPP. Cheney and his team of legal flunkies have been going through legislation that's on it's way to Bush's desk for signing that they target for Dubya to issue a signing statement to when the reporters leave, and the cameras get turned off. They've managed to get Dubya to issue over 750 of these statements that allow the Executive branch to ignore the very legislation that he just signed into law. Why veto something if you can just ignore it, I guess. Do we even have a system of checks and balances anymore, or is everything just tilting towards the Emporer's Branch now, Constitution be damned?

Rest in peace, Paul. You are missed, bud.

The Supreme court reversed a ruling today that gave First Amendment protection to government whistleblowers. Alito cast the deciding vote. Jurist SCOTUSblog has a pretty decent analysis of the opinion. In sum, and someone with more of a legal background should definately weigh in here, whistleblowers (and I believe this applies primarily to government employees wrt this opinion) are not protected from employer discipline by the First Amendment because exposing potential wrongdoing is considered speech in an official capacity and therefore free speech does not apply. FindLaw weighed in on this case a month ago and how it might be relevant to the firing of CIA analyst Mary McCarthy, who has been accused of leaking information about "secret American-run terrorist detention centers in Europe" to the press. However, what still is protected as free speech is pursuing a more public route, for example via a letter to a newspaper rather than going through internal channels, but The Court speaks to this scenario as well....more from SCOTUSblog: So, if I am interpreting this correctly (legal people please comment), if the employer "requires" an employee, pursuant to their job, to disclose wrongdoing via an internal review, than any disclosure would be considered an action related to their job, and the First Amendment protection would not apply. This would be equally devastating to government employees whose only recourse is to go through an internal review because of the nature of the information they have. Wow. UPDATE: More from the AP UPDATE II: The Washington Post analysis is up... UPDATE III: More insight from SCOTUSblog, highlighting the "Catch-22"-like insanity of today's majority opinion. Whooosh...there goes another protection...

I’ve been a huge Flaming Lips fan for a long time, but prefer the earlier stuff more than the post-Transmissions from the Satellite Heart records. The earlier LPs have a lot more edge to them, and are a lot more guitar-driven than the stuff they put out now. “Jesus shooting Heroin” was a pretty big college radio hit from the first full-length LP, Hear it is. In my opinion though, their best record is In A Priest Driven Ambulance, their first one produced by Dave Fridmann from the band Mercury Rev. You can definitely hear where the band was headed sound-wise, eventually realized on the pop masterpiece Transmissions from the Satellite Heart LP. As RunTheDamnBall mentioned earlier, if you like what they’re doing now, definitely pick up Soft Bulletin then Transmissions. If you want to hear where that stuff evolved from pick up Priest then Oh My Gawd!!!. EDIT: Forgot to add what I'm listening to right now. NOFX put out a new LP a few weeks ago, Wolves in wolves Clothing, so "USA-holes" from that record and "Seperation of Church and Skate" from their previous LP (War on Errorism) have been on heavy rotation at the Coli compound.

Cafaro's indictment was five years ago, and he paid a $150,000 fine. His $2000 donation to the Space campaign was two months ago, and the Space campaign returned the money when they were informed of Cafaro's past. That's hardly on the same par as Ney's legal problems.