http://carcino.gen.nz/images/index.p...796d8/3d2153aa

HTH
--
Cliff

"Cliff" wrote in message
news
http://carcino.gen.nz/images/index.p...796d8/3d2153aa

HTH
--
Cliff


Now that's funny!

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:20:52 -0400, Cliff wrote:

http://carcino.gen.nz/images/index.p...796d8/3d2153aa

HTH


Amazing how the person who did the work was unable to spell correctly
with the words right in front of him.

Now that takes talent, I'm just not sure what to call it.

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 01:18:51 GMT, Greylock
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:20:52 -0400, Cliff wrote:

http://carcino.gen.nz/images/index.p...796d8/3d2153aa

HTH


Amazing how the person who did the work was unable to spell correctly
with the words right in front of him.

Now that takes talent, I'm just not sure what to call it.

A gunnut?
--
Cliff

Cliff, wondering how all this works, wrote:

How can I raise the money to get myself a diaper nanny? I still haven't
learned how to put these things on my ass.

[
Subject: Nuclear option this week -- hit back with new ad


Senator Bill Frist has vowed to go "nuclear" on our courts sometime
this week.
With only a few days left to swing the final vote, we're aiming to run
our
powerful new ad deep in the home states of the 4 moderate senators who
are the
key to victory. We need to raise $300,000 today to put this emergency
plan into
action by Wednesday. Can you help us do it?
https://www.moveonpac.org/donate/ele...ZKOUxB0wXg&t=5


Dear MoveOn member,
It's finally begun. After months of threats, false starts and arm
twisting,
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has vowed to launch his scheme to
break the
rules and stack the courts this week.[1] The final vote on the "nuclear
option"
is still too close to call-and we only have a few days for one last
emergency
push to save our courts. It's a call to courage-asking our senators
to stand up
and stop this stampede.

We've developed a powerful television ad, Elephants:
https://www.moveonpac.org/rampage-QT.html
that shows the nuclear option for what it is: the last step in a
radical
Republican drive for absolute control of our government, and a
devastating blow
to our democracy. It calls on our senators for the courage to stand up
and stop
this stampede.

The plan is to go deep into the home states of the last few senators we
need to
win. If we can raise $300,000 today, we can put Elephants on the air
Wednesday
in Maine, Nebraska, Virginia and Pennsylvania-all the most crucial
battlegrounds
in this fight.

You can view the ad and help get it on the air he

http://www.moveonpac.org/donate/elep...ZKOUxB0wXg&t=5

The ad depicts a herd of elephants tearing through the capital and
trampling our
most sacred institutions-the House of Representatives, the Senate,
and the US
Courts of Appeals. The rampage is stopped at the steps of the Supreme
Court by
one "courageous Republican" who has the guts to stand up against
absolute power.

We did a preview run a couple weeks ago and got a huge response-the
ad generated
its own national news and created quite a stir in Washington. Elephants
reflects
a growing consensus that the Republican leadership is out of control
and
dangerously abusing power. That's why every national poll shows that
once they
learn about the "nuclear option" the American people oppose it.
Newsweek reports
public opposition at 57%, Time puts the figure at 59% and the
Washington Post
poll revealed that a full 67% reject the Republican power grab.[2]

Last week we saw a chilling example of how much we really have at stake
in this
fight. A conservative federal bankruptcy judge ruled that United
Airlines could
default on billions of dollars of pension payments, devastating over
130,000
retirees and their families. This landmark ruling will pave the way for
other
giant corporations looking to dump their pension obligations, and a
rush of
court cases where the security of millions of working families will
hang in the
balance.[3]

The "nuclear option" would give radical Republicans absolute power to
grant
lifetime appointments to more pro-corporate judges who will threaten
the most
basic protections American families count on-from pensions to minimum
wage laws
and even the 40-hour work week.[4]

Three brave Republicans, John McCain (AZ), Olympia Snowe (ME), and
Lincoln
Chafee (RI), have already come out against the "nuclear option" and to
win we
need just three more. Our opponents are saturating the airwaves in the
home
states of moderate Republicans-to win their vote, we must show them
that their
constituents are hearing both sides of the story.

Help us get on the air in these key states today:

http://www.moveonpac.org/donate/elep...ZKOUxB0wXg&t=6

This is going to be an intense week, and no one knows exactly how it
will play
out. The action will start tomorrow when Bush's rejected judicial
nominees are
brought to the floor of the Senate. From that point on, First could
pull the
nuclear trigger at any moment. When he does, we will only have a matter
of hours
to organize a massive public outcry to weigh in before the final vote.


To win this one we're all going to have to be on call for the next few
days. So
stay tuned and stay ready-it's going to be a heck of a ride.

Thanks for all that you do.

-Ben, Wes, Tom, Laura and the MoveOn PAC Team
Monday, May 16th, 2005

References

1. Philadelphia Inquirer, "Frist says he's ready to seek rule change,"
May 15,
2005
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/n...n/11648325.htm

2. National polls showing majority opposition to the "nuclear option"
include
those by

Time magazine as cited by The National Journal, May 16, 2005
http://nationaljournal.com/
The Washington Post / ABC News
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=702
USA Today / CNN / Gallup
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=726
Newsweek
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7240970/site/newsweek/
3. Newsday, "A judge's ruling to allow termination of United Airlines
pensions
may become ... A strategy that takes off," May 12, 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=727

4. New York Times Magazine, "Unregulated Offensive," April 17, 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=728

PAID FOR BY MOVEON PAC
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
]

On 16 May 2005 18:58:22 GMT, D Murphy wrote:


Let's see what a Pulitzer Prize winner has to say..

Seymour Hersh?
--
Cliff

Cliff wrote in news:nmth815c8ggpr0aip17avb2vosnicdoumv@
4ax.com:

On 16 May 2005 18:58:22 GMT, D Murphy wrote:


Let's see what a Pulitzer Prize winner has to say..

Seymour Hersh?

I haven't seen any.

--

Dan

On 16 May 2005 20:56:27 GMT, D Murphy wrote:

Cliff wrote in news:nmth815c8ggpr0aip17avb2vosnicdoumv@
4ax.com:

On 16 May 2005 18:58:22 GMT, D Murphy wrote:


Let's see what a Pulitzer Prize winner has to say..

Seymour Hersh?

I haven't seen any.

He broke many major stories and remains active.
http://archive.salon.com/people/bc/2000/01/18/hersh/

Gunner loves him.
He reported on the My Lai massacre in South Vietnam,
as an example.

He seems to have a clue what's going on now .....
--
Cliff

D Murphy wrote:
wrote in news:1116262791.045993.130170
@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

snip

PAID FOR BY MOVEON PAC

snicker

Let's see what a Pulitzer Prize winner has to say..
http://tinyurl.com/du9rp


http://mediamatters.org/items/200503160004

The Los Angeles Times reported on November 13, 2003: "As recently as
March 2000, several Republicans voted to filibuster two Californians
whom President Clinton had named to the 9th Circuit appellate court:
Richard A. Paez and Marsha L. Berzon. ... Ultimately, the Republican
stalling tactics failed, and both jurists now sit on the appellate
court." The Washington Post documented a third attempted filibuster of
a Clinton judicial nominee on October 5, 1994: The Senate "voted 85 to
12 to cut off a filibuster against confirmation of U.S. District Judge
H. Lee Sarokin as a member of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

-----

While CLinton was President the REpublicans relied on a variety of
procedural tricks to keep SIXTY FIVE (65) Judicial nominess from
coming up for a vote before the Senate. Most never even got a
commitee hearing.

In the thirty years prior to this administration there have been
on average about one fillibuster of a judicial nominee per
Congressional session.

--

FF

wrote in news:1116301397.508709.293200
@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:


D Murphy wrote:
wrote in news:1116262791.045993.130170
@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

snip

PAID FOR BY MOVEON PAC

snicker

Let's see what a Pulitzer Prize winner has to say..
http://tinyurl.com/du9rp


http://mediamatters.org/items/200503160004

The Los Angeles Times reported on November 13, 2003: "As recently as
March 2000, several Republicans voted to filibuster two Californians
whom President Clinton had named to the 9th Circuit appellate court:
Richard A. Paez and Marsha L. Berzon. ... Ultimately, the Republican
stalling tactics failed, and both jurists now sit on the appellate
court."

As stated in the opinion piece I linked to it was voted down 3-1 by
Republicans.

The Washington Post documented a third attempted filibuster of
a Clinton judicial nominee on October 5, 1994: The Senate "voted 85 to
12 to cut off a filibuster against confirmation of U.S. District Judge
H. Lee Sarokin as a member of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

-----

While CLinton was President the REpublicans relied on a variety of
procedural tricks to keep SIXTY FIVE (65) Judicial nominess from
coming up for a vote before the Senate. Most never even got a
commitee hearing.

By using the "Blue Slip Rule" which allows a senator from the judges home
state to block the nomination. A rule which both parties have used
extensively.


In the thirty years prior to this administration there have been
on average about one fillibuster of a judicial nominee per
Congressional session.


From Krauthammer today:

[There has certainly never been a successful filibuster in the case of a
judicial nominee who clearly had the approval of a majority of the
Senate. And there has surely never been a campaign like the one
undertaken by the Democrats since 2001 to systematically deny judicial
appointment by means of the filibuster.]


--

Dan

D Murphy wrote:
wrote in news:1116301397.508709.293200
@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

...
The Los Angeles Times reported on November 13, 2003: "As recently
as
March 2000, several Republicans voted to filibuster two
Californians
whom President Clinton had named to the 9th Circuit appellate
court:
Richard A. Paez and Marsha L. Berzon. ... Ultimately, the
Republican
stalling tactics failed, and both jurists now sit on the appellate
court."

As stated in the opinion piece I linked to it was voted down 3-1 by
Republicans.

So it would seem that most Republicnas are well aware that filibusters
ahve been used against judicial nominess in the past, having voted to
invoke cloture in the recent past.


The Washington Post documented a third attempted filibuster of
a Clinton judicial nominee on October 5, 1994: The Senate "voted 85
to
12 to cut off a filibuster against confirmation of U.S. District
Judge
H. Lee Sarokin as a member of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals.



Indeed, Frist was one of those 12 Senators who voted against
invoking cloture. Isn't Frist one of the politicians claiming
that no one has attempted to filibuster judicial nominess before?


While Clinton was President the REpublicans relied on a variety of
procedural tricks to keep SIXTY FIVE (65) Judicial nominess from
coming up for a vote before the Senate. Most never even got a
commitee hearing.

By using the "Blue Slip Rule" which allows a senator from the judges
home
state to block the nomination. A rule which both parties have used
extensively.


In the thirty years prior to this administration there have been
on average about one fillibuster of a judicial nominee per
Congressional session.


From Krauthammer today:

[There has certainly never been a successful filibuster in the case
of a
judicial nominee who clearly had the approval of a majority of the
Senate.

That doesn't even make any sense. It is only measures that enjoy
majority support that are filibustered as anything else can be
defeated by calling a vote. Obviously a filibuster against a nominee
who has the support of 60 senators will fail because cloture will
be invoked.

And there has surely never been a campaign like the one
undertaken by the Democrats since 2001 to systematically deny
judicial
appointment by means of the filibuster.]


Perhaps so. Was there ever anything like the prior Republican campaign
that denies 65 or more judicial nominees hearings?

Regardless, the rules allow it. Complaining about it is like
complaining
about a football team 'cheating' because they throw too many passes.

--

FF