Still Fighting has moved! Check us out at
www.stillfighting.com!
December 29, 2005
Saturday, May 28, 2005
Saturday's Links
Activism
Jon Tester for Senate. Check out the skinny on Jon Tester in News #1 (below). Just because his opponent, incumbent Conrad Burns, is considered a weak Senator who barely won his Montana seat in 2000 is no reason to think Tester's campaign will be a walk in the park. Indeed, Republicans will be planning to spend an enormous amount of money to keep this seat for that very reason. Can you help Jon Tester bring the balance of power in the Senate back to the Democrats? Check out his website, and if you can, make a small donation to his fund.
News
Speaking of Losing Senate Seats...Jon Tester is running for the Senate seat in Montana, currently held by Conrad Burns. Burns barely won his Senate seat in 2000, and is considered one of the most vulnerable seats in the country. Above that, the Swing State Project has many reasons why Tester will win. Burns is having trouble raising money. Burns is "a key figure in multiple corruption investigations." In contrast to Burns, Tester is considered more than just a good candidate. He's a leader. Looking at the bills he's introduced into Montana' State legislature (Tester is a two-term State Senator), it's easy to see why Monatans are excited about Tester.
Do They Know Something We Don't? Last summer, Rumsfeld approved something called an "Interim Global Strike Alert Order." Sound ominous? Just wait...there's more. This global strike also includes a possible "nuclear option," which runs counter to every American notion of nuclear weapons - that they are defensive measures only. Strategic Command, or Starcom, is the agency responsible for overseeing a global strike. But Starcom has something called CONPLAN 8022, designed to deal with an imminent threat from North Korea or Iran. In CONPLAN 8022, the option to use nuclear weapons is reserved for when "intelligence suggests an "imminent" launch of an enemy nuclear strike on the United States or if there is a need to destroy hard-to-reach targets." A need to destroy hard-to-reach targets? Now, there's CONPLAN 8022-02, which, for the first time in history, would apply a plan for a preemptive and offensive strike against Iran and North Korea. Yes, you read that correctly. No longer a last resort, Rumsfeld has made a plan to go out and attack Iran and North Korea. Why? Or better yet, who? What personnel would do this? Where would they come from? As you've read, military recruitment isn't exactly what it once was. CONPLAN suggests a quick, clean attack to safeguard America's security. The DoD has always said that they won't discuss war plans. Now that CONPLAN is in the open, why aren't we talking about it?
The Next Big Battle? Speculation runs wild over the possible resignation of Chief Justice William Rehnquist from the Supreme Court. Rehnquist, you may recall, recently revealed that he has thyroid cancer, and has been absent from many of the Court's recent rulings. Mum's the word from Rehnquist himself, but that doesn't stop law experts around the country from proclaiming that now is the time for him to step down. From the Republican side, it makes sense, because the GOP could (will?) lose precious Senate seats in 2006. Politics aside, we want Rehnquist to step down when he is ready to step down. Since Rehnquist will have no input into who the next nominee will be, he might be better served to wait. Even Rehnquist would have a hard time agreeing that someone like Priscilla Owen is fit to have a lifetime appointment.
Editorials
Clinton in 2008? Steve M. brings us a story that was kind of buried this week. In a USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll, for the first time ever, a majority of polled Americans would vote for Hillary Clinton in 2008. Would we? Obviously, we'll support whomever the final Democratic nominee is, but it might be difficult, if someone like Wes Clark decides to run again. As Steve points out, a lot of people (including us) have said that "Hillary can't win." Steve doesn't believe that anymore, even though he has serious doubts about Hillary being able to bring liberalism "back" to America, and countering the Right-Wing machine. Steve's bottom line is simple. "Is any other Democrat even close to figuring out a way to challenge the lock Republicans have on voters who tear up when they see an American flag?" Read the Nation article he links to, and then answer us that question.
Return of the McCainiacs. Speaking of 2008, what about John McCain? Aside from his ridiculous stance with Bush on Social Security, McCain doesn't act like your typical Republican. He has made his displeasure with the administration and Senate leaders plain. He's one of the few people in government we would trust to do what's right for the country. With his role in preventing the filibuster, he's most likely angered the Dobson/Falwell/Robertson crowd, and that could hurt his chances on the Republican primary. But McCain himself acknowledges that he was putting the interests of the country above his own desires for '08. We hear that a lot from politicians, but there's no other way to explain McCain's actions with the filibuster. Had he simply toed the party line, and not tried to hammer out an agreement, we'd be in a very different situation right now. But McCain saw the removal of the filibuster as not only detrimental to democracy, he knew that Republicans wouldn't be in power forever, and what would happen when the shoe's on the other foot? A McCain nomination in 2008 would be bittersweet to Democrats - McCain is no Bush, and doesn't play to special interest groups; he'll do what is in the country's best interests. But he's not a Democrat.
The NYT Swings and Misses On Santorum. From one side of the Republican spectrum to the other, we shift our attention to Senator Rick Santorum. PNIOnline has a great writeup about a recent New York Times Magazine article on Santorum. The article, written by Michael Sokolove, is a love-fest for Rick Santorum, who can do no wrong, apparently. PNI points out several instances where Sokolove "misses" the opportunity to show the real Santorum. Santorum looks to need all the help he can get, as the last Quinnipiac poll shows him 14 points behind State Treasurer Bob Casey, Jr. Still, we agree with PNI - magazine articles don't often include "in-depth" reporting, but this is ridiculous. For example, the article portrays Santorum as a man who fights for the lower classes. Then why did he vote against the minimum wage increase? We can't wait to get Santorum out of office, and you can bet we'll be taking the fight to Pennsylvania to ensure Casey's win.
|
December 29, 2005
Saturday, May 28, 2005
Saturday's Links
Activism
Jon Tester for Senate. Check out the skinny on Jon Tester in News #1 (below). Just because his opponent, incumbent Conrad Burns, is considered a weak Senator who barely won his Montana seat in 2000 is no reason to think Tester's campaign will be a walk in the park. Indeed, Republicans will be planning to spend an enormous amount of money to keep this seat for that very reason. Can you help Jon Tester bring the balance of power in the Senate back to the Democrats? Check out his website, and if you can, make a small donation to his fund.
News
Speaking of Losing Senate Seats...Jon Tester is running for the Senate seat in Montana, currently held by Conrad Burns. Burns barely won his Senate seat in 2000, and is considered one of the most vulnerable seats in the country. Above that, the Swing State Project has many reasons why Tester will win. Burns is having trouble raising money. Burns is "a key figure in multiple corruption investigations." In contrast to Burns, Tester is considered more than just a good candidate. He's a leader. Looking at the bills he's introduced into Montana' State legislature (Tester is a two-term State Senator), it's easy to see why Monatans are excited about Tester.
Do They Know Something We Don't? Last summer, Rumsfeld approved something called an "Interim Global Strike Alert Order." Sound ominous? Just wait...there's more. This global strike also includes a possible "nuclear option," which runs counter to every American notion of nuclear weapons - that they are defensive measures only. Strategic Command, or Starcom, is the agency responsible for overseeing a global strike. But Starcom has something called CONPLAN 8022, designed to deal with an imminent threat from North Korea or Iran. In CONPLAN 8022, the option to use nuclear weapons is reserved for when "intelligence suggests an "imminent" launch of an enemy nuclear strike on the United States or if there is a need to destroy hard-to-reach targets." A need to destroy hard-to-reach targets? Now, there's CONPLAN 8022-02, which, for the first time in history, would apply a plan for a preemptive and offensive strike against Iran and North Korea. Yes, you read that correctly. No longer a last resort, Rumsfeld has made a plan to go out and attack Iran and North Korea. Why? Or better yet, who? What personnel would do this? Where would they come from? As you've read, military recruitment isn't exactly what it once was. CONPLAN suggests a quick, clean attack to safeguard America's security. The DoD has always said that they won't discuss war plans. Now that CONPLAN is in the open, why aren't we talking about it?
The Next Big Battle? Speculation runs wild over the possible resignation of Chief Justice William Rehnquist from the Supreme Court. Rehnquist, you may recall, recently revealed that he has thyroid cancer, and has been absent from many of the Court's recent rulings. Mum's the word from Rehnquist himself, but that doesn't stop law experts around the country from proclaiming that now is the time for him to step down. From the Republican side, it makes sense, because the GOP could (will?) lose precious Senate seats in 2006. Politics aside, we want Rehnquist to step down when he is ready to step down. Since Rehnquist will have no input into who the next nominee will be, he might be better served to wait. Even Rehnquist would have a hard time agreeing that someone like Priscilla Owen is fit to have a lifetime appointment.
Editorials
Clinton in 2008? Steve M. brings us a story that was kind of buried this week. In a USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll, for the first time ever, a majority of polled Americans would vote for Hillary Clinton in 2008. Would we? Obviously, we'll support whomever the final Democratic nominee is, but it might be difficult, if someone like Wes Clark decides to run again. As Steve points out, a lot of people (including us) have said that "Hillary can't win." Steve doesn't believe that anymore, even though he has serious doubts about Hillary being able to bring liberalism "back" to America, and countering the Right-Wing machine. Steve's bottom line is simple. "Is any other Democrat even close to figuring out a way to challenge the lock Republicans have on voters who tear up when they see an American flag?" Read the Nation article he links to, and then answer us that question.
Return of the McCainiacs. Speaking of 2008, what about John McCain? Aside from his ridiculous stance with Bush on Social Security, McCain doesn't act like your typical Republican. He has made his displeasure with the administration and Senate leaders plain. He's one of the few people in government we would trust to do what's right for the country. With his role in preventing the filibuster, he's most likely angered the Dobson/Falwell/Robertson crowd, and that could hurt his chances on the Republican primary. But McCain himself acknowledges that he was putting the interests of the country above his own desires for '08. We hear that a lot from politicians, but there's no other way to explain McCain's actions with the filibuster. Had he simply toed the party line, and not tried to hammer out an agreement, we'd be in a very different situation right now. But McCain saw the removal of the filibuster as not only detrimental to democracy, he knew that Republicans wouldn't be in power forever, and what would happen when the shoe's on the other foot? A McCain nomination in 2008 would be bittersweet to Democrats - McCain is no Bush, and doesn't play to special interest groups; he'll do what is in the country's best interests. But he's not a Democrat.
The NYT Swings and Misses On Santorum. From one side of the Republican spectrum to the other, we shift our attention to Senator Rick Santorum. PNIOnline has a great writeup about a recent New York Times Magazine article on Santorum. The article, written by Michael Sokolove, is a love-fest for Rick Santorum, who can do no wrong, apparently. PNI points out several instances where Sokolove "misses" the opportunity to show the real Santorum. Santorum looks to need all the help he can get, as the last Quinnipiac poll shows him 14 points behind State Treasurer Bob Casey, Jr. Still, we agree with PNI - magazine articles don't often include "in-depth" reporting, but this is ridiculous. For example, the article portrays Santorum as a man who fights for the lower classes. Then why did he vote against the minimum wage increase? We can't wait to get Santorum out of office, and you can bet we'll be taking the fight to Pennsylvania to ensure Casey's win.
|
December 29, 2005
Jon Tester for Senate. Check out the skinny on Jon Tester in News #1 (below). Just because his opponent, incumbent Conrad Burns, is considered a weak Senator who barely won his Montana seat in 2000 is no reason to think Tester's campaign will be a walk in the park. Indeed, Republicans will be planning to spend an enormous amount of money to keep this seat for that very reason. Can you help Jon Tester bring the balance of power in the Senate back to the Democrats? Check out his website, and if you can, make a small donation to his fund.
News
Speaking of Losing Senate Seats...Jon Tester is running for the Senate seat in Montana, currently held by Conrad Burns. Burns barely won his Senate seat in 2000, and is considered one of the most vulnerable seats in the country. Above that, the Swing State Project has many reasons why Tester will win. Burns is having trouble raising money. Burns is "a key figure in multiple corruption investigations." In contrast to Burns, Tester is considered more than just a good candidate. He's a leader. Looking at the bills he's introduced into Montana' State legislature (Tester is a two-term State Senator), it's easy to see why Monatans are excited about Tester.
Do They Know Something We Don't? Last summer, Rumsfeld approved something called an "Interim Global Strike Alert Order." Sound ominous? Just wait...there's more. This global strike also includes a possible "nuclear option," which runs counter to every American notion of nuclear weapons - that they are defensive measures only. Strategic Command, or Starcom, is the agency responsible for overseeing a global strike. But Starcom has something called CONPLAN 8022, designed to deal with an imminent threat from North Korea or Iran. In CONPLAN 8022, the option to use nuclear weapons is reserved for when "intelligence suggests an "imminent" launch of an enemy nuclear strike on the United States or if there is a need to destroy hard-to-reach targets." A need to destroy hard-to-reach targets? Now, there's CONPLAN 8022-02, which, for the first time in history, would apply a plan for a preemptive and offensive strike against Iran and North Korea. Yes, you read that correctly. No longer a last resort, Rumsfeld has made a plan to go out and attack Iran and North Korea. Why? Or better yet, who? What personnel would do this? Where would they come from? As you've read, military recruitment isn't exactly what it once was. CONPLAN suggests a quick, clean attack to safeguard America's security. The DoD has always said that they won't discuss war plans. Now that CONPLAN is in the open, why aren't we talking about it?
The Next Big Battle? Speculation runs wild over the possible resignation of Chief Justice William Rehnquist from the Supreme Court. Rehnquist, you may recall, recently revealed that he has thyroid cancer, and has been absent from many of the Court's recent rulings. Mum's the word from Rehnquist himself, but that doesn't stop law experts around the country from proclaiming that now is the time for him to step down. From the Republican side, it makes sense, because the GOP could (will?) lose precious Senate seats in 2006. Politics aside, we want Rehnquist to step down when he is ready to step down. Since Rehnquist will have no input into who the next nominee will be, he might be better served to wait. Even Rehnquist would have a hard time agreeing that someone like Priscilla Owen is fit to have a lifetime appointment.
Editorials
Clinton in 2008? Steve M. brings us a story that was kind of buried this week. In a USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll, for the first time ever, a majority of polled Americans would vote for Hillary Clinton in 2008. Would we? Obviously, we'll support whomever the final Democratic nominee is, but it might be difficult, if someone like Wes Clark decides to run again. As Steve points out, a lot of people (including us) have said that "Hillary can't win." Steve doesn't believe that anymore, even though he has serious doubts about Hillary being able to bring liberalism "back" to America, and countering the Right-Wing machine. Steve's bottom line is simple. "Is any other Democrat even close to figuring out a way to challenge the lock Republicans have on voters who tear up when they see an American flag?" Read the Nation article he links to, and then answer us that question.
Return of the McCainiacs. Speaking of 2008, what about John McCain? Aside from his ridiculous stance with Bush on Social Security, McCain doesn't act like your typical Republican. He has made his displeasure with the administration and Senate leaders plain. He's one of the few people in government we would trust to do what's right for the country. With his role in preventing the filibuster, he's most likely angered the Dobson/Falwell/Robertson crowd, and that could hurt his chances on the Republican primary. But McCain himself acknowledges that he was putting the interests of the country above his own desires for '08. We hear that a lot from politicians, but there's no other way to explain McCain's actions with the filibuster. Had he simply toed the party line, and not tried to hammer out an agreement, we'd be in a very different situation right now. But McCain saw the removal of the filibuster as not only detrimental to democracy, he knew that Republicans wouldn't be in power forever, and what would happen when the shoe's on the other foot? A McCain nomination in 2008 would be bittersweet to Democrats - McCain is no Bush, and doesn't play to special interest groups; he'll do what is in the country's best interests. But he's not a Democrat.
The NYT Swings and Misses On Santorum. From one side of the Republican spectrum to the other, we shift our attention to Senator Rick Santorum. PNIOnline has a great writeup about a recent New York Times Magazine article on Santorum. The article, written by Michael Sokolove, is a love-fest for Rick Santorum, who can do no wrong, apparently. PNI points out several instances where Sokolove "misses" the opportunity to show the real Santorum. Santorum looks to need all the help he can get, as the last Quinnipiac poll shows him 14 points behind State Treasurer Bob Casey, Jr. Still, we agree with PNI - magazine articles don't often include "in-depth" reporting, but this is ridiculous. For example, the article portrays Santorum as a man who fights for the lower classes. Then why did he vote against the minimum wage increase? We can't wait to get Santorum out of office, and you can bet we'll be taking the fight to Pennsylvania to ensure Casey's win.
