Faux News Network

The Propaganda Network Called Fox

Just when you thought Fox News couldn't get any more ridiculous, they are now
attributing the rise in stock prices to the "Success in Iraq".
Yep, that's right. Fox News claims that the little invasion of Iraq that
took place a few years ago has been a major success?!?! That's exactly
what they claimed on a recent episode of "Bulls and Bears".

If you cannot see this video, please click here.

It's almost as if the White House is giving them scripts to read. I don't know
how or when it happened, but somewhere along the way, Fox News became a puppet
for the Bush regime. It is simply a government-run news organization.
I thought in a democratic society that we didn't have such things, but I was
wrong.

The White House is even hiring people directly from Fox. Tony Snow, A Fox News
anchor who once claimed that racism is no longer a problem, has just been hired
by the White House to be their spokesperson. Good luck with that!
It's sort of like taking people from within your own firm and just transferring
them into another department. I'd say it was a promotion, but Snow is
going to be taking a big pay cut from his regular job in the "private"
sector.

No wonder a survey conducted in 2004 found that Fox News viewers are the least
informed people in America.

Poll shows coming out wouldn't hurt

Poll shows coming out wouldn't hurt most politicians 72 percent of Americans would vote for gay candidate if they agree on issues

By DYANA BAGBY

A poll released Monday by the Gay & Lesbian Leadership Institute shows that a majority of Americans would continue to vote for a politician who shares their policy views even if they later found out he or she was gay.


Robin Brand of the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund said a recent poll offers an 'extremely positive' message about voters' willingness to support gay elected officials.
Conducted by Zogby International, the Victory Poll surveyed 1,007 people this spring and found that 72 percent of Americans do not believe a politician's sexual orientation is important as long as the candidate has a record of "getting things done for everyone in the community," according to a press release.
These numbers show a decrease in concern about candidates' sexual orientation over the last two decades when compared with poll numbers quoted by openly gay U.S. Sen. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) at a Utah Stonewall Democrats fundraiser April 21.
Frank, who came out as gay in 1987 when he was 47, had already served in Congress for three terms. He said a poll conducted at the time that asked if voters "were disappointed that he was gay" showed 42 percent thought his open homosexuality would hinder him and 21 percent said they would stop voting for him, according to an April 22 article in the Salt Lake Tribune.
Robin Brand, senior vice president for politics and strategy for the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, said Monday she was unfamiliar with Frank's comments, but noted that there is a difference when asking solely about politicians' sexual orientation versus asking about their sexual orientation in conjunction with their political views.
"If you only ask about their sexual orientation, it's different than putting this in context of issues they are fighting for," Brand said. "If you ask that question in a vacuum, answers will be different."
The Leadership Institute, which works to ensure gay inclusion in the electoral process and educate Americans about the contributions of gay elected officials, is a separate non-profit group affiliated with the Victory Fund, which supports openly gay candidates for public office.
Times were also different when Frank came out and people's attitudes toward lesbian and gay politicians are changing, Brand added. And the fact that Frank, who has served in Congress since 1981, continues to be reelected is proof his sexual orientation was not a major factor, she said.
Other findings of the Victory Fund poll:
• 60 percent of Republicans agree that sexual orientation is not important if a gay candidate has a strong record of getting things done for everyone;
• 80 percent of independent voters would "definitely" or "probably" still vote for an elected leader who shares his or her views if the official came out as gay or lesbian; as would 80 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of Republicans; and
• 72 percent of voters in small cities and 70 percent of voters in rural areas say they would "definitely" or "probably" still vote for an elected leader who shares his or her views if the official came out as gay or lesbian.
"This poll is extremely positive," Brand said. "It's not surprising, although the numbers were higher than I expected. But these are the kinds of results we are seeing on Election Day — our candidates are well-qualified and working on issues important to voters in their districts."

© 2006 A Unite Media Publication

Candidates Can Down Load Coming OUT Kit Here

The Coming Out Toolkit from The Victory Fund also includes both qualitative and quantitative research. The qualitative research conducted by Lake Associates and quantitative research conducted by Zogby America, evaluates the political climate for LGBT officials and offers strategies and information for those ready to serve as openly LGBT leaders.
The Zogby results can be found here

Add Your Corrupt Leader Here...

Join the Midterm Muck Project!

As The Washington Post reported yesterday, ethics should prove a big issue in elections this November. It got me to wondering - in just how many races will ethics be a defining issue?
This is the year of Jack Abramoff, after all, and though lobbying reform itself has turned into a joke, corruption itself should loom large as a political issue. But how large?
Here's where we need some help from you, the reader. Is your rep feeling heat about a lobbyist-funded junket, a particularly egregious instance of cronyism, or a sweet kickback deal? Let us know about it. We'll be compiling a master list of muck-heavy races to keep an eye on as part of our upcoming Elections 2006 project.

To help, send in your rep's name, a brief description of the muck, and, if possible, a link to a supporting article.

Our preliminary count looks like this:
In the Senate Race:
Conrad Burns (R-MT)
Katherine Harris (R-FL)
Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)


In the House:
Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH)
Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA)
Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA)
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA)
Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA)
Duke Cunningham special election - Brian Bilbray
Rep. Don Young (R-AK)
Rep. Charles Taylor (R-NC)
Rep. John Sweeney (R-NY)
Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-NY)
Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA)
Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA)
Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV)


SEND TIPS AND COMMENTS HERE


Posted at tpmmuckraker.com

Evil Dr. Rove is back

Election-Year Investigations
By Molly Ivins


An interesting semi-historical footnote concerning Dick Cheney's oft-reiterated references during the 2000 presidential campaign to President Clinton's weaseling under oath. "He knows what the meaning of 'is' is," says Cheney in his campaign stump speech to show the moral superiority of the Republican camp.
Which leads us to this story about Karl Rove, Bush's campaign manager and the man they call "Bush's brain."
Rove, as all the world knows, has been a longtime Republican political operative in Texas prior to heading to Washington with Bush. During that time, Texas Democrats noticed a pattern that they eventually became somewhat paranoid about: In election years, there always seemed to be an FBI investigation of some sitting Democrat either announced or leaked to the press.
After the election was over, the allegations often vanished, although in the case of Agriculture Commissioner Jim Hightower, three of his aides were later convicted. The investigations were conducted by FBI agent Greg Rampton, who was stationed in Austin in those years.
In 1989, Rove was nominated for a position with the federal Board for International Broadcasting. He answered a questionnaire from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that was later obtained by subpoena. One of the questions was: Have you been interviewed or asked to supply any information in connection with any administrative or grand jury investigation in the past 18 months? If so, provide details.
Rove responded, "This summer I met with agent Greg Rampton of the Austin FBI office at his request regarding a probe of political corruption in the office of Texas Agriculture Commissioner Jim Hightower."
In 1991, Rove was undergoing state Senate confirmation hearings for an appointment to the East Texas State University board of regents. Sen. Bob Glasgow was questioning Rove about his work for Gov. Bill Clements in the 1986 campaign against Gov. Mark White.
A now-forgotten incident of that campaign involved a listening device allegedly found in Rove's office by a private security firm a few days before a televised debate. The case made headlines around the state. It was investigated by Rampton, who never found the alleged perpetrator.
Glasgow: "Ah, Mr. Rove, would you now tell us publicly who bugged your office that you blamed upon Mark White publicly and the press statewide?"
Rove: "Ah, first of all, I did not blame it on Mark White. If, ah, if you'll recall I specifically said at the time that we disclosed the bugging that we did not know who did it, but we knew who might benefit from it. And no, I do not know. …"
Glasgow: "And are you now satisfied that Mark White and the Democratic Party did not bug your office as you -- as you released, ah, to the newspapers?"
Rove: "Senator, I never said Mark White bugged my office, I'm not certain he has an electronic background. I never said the Democratic Party bugged it either. … As to who bugged it, Senator, I do not know -- and the FBI does not know. …"
Glasgow: "How long have you known an FBI agent by the name of Greg (Rampton)?"
Rove: "Ah, Senator, it depends -- would you define 'know' for me?" Glasgow: "What is your relationship with him?"
Rove: "Ah, I know, I would not recognize Greg (Rampton) if he walked in the door. We have talked on the phone a var- -- a number of times. Ah, and he has visited in my office once or twice, but we do not have a social or personal relationship whatsoever. …"
Glasgow: "During the Rick Perry campaign (against Jim Hightower), did you have any conversations with FBI agent Rampton about the course and conduct of that campaign?"
Rove: "Yes, I did, two or three times. …"
Glasgow: "Did you issue a press release in Washington, at a fund-raiser, about information you'd received from the FBI implicating -- implicating, ah, Hightower?"
Rove: "We did not issue a press release. … We did not issue a news release. I talked to a member of the press …"
Glasgow: "I'm gonna let you expound on anything you want to. Ah, involved in campaigns that you've been involved in, do you know why agent Rampton conducted a criminal investigation of Garry Mauro at the time you were involved in that campaign, pulled the finance records of Bob Bullock at the time you were involved in that campaign, pulled the campaign records of Jim Hightower at the time you were involved in that campaign?"
Rove: "Well, Senator, first of all, as I said before, I was not involved in either Bob Bullock or Garry Mauro's campaigns or the campaigns of their Republican opponent. I'd be hard pressed to tell you who Garry Mauro's opponent was in 1986. Ah, and I'd -- think I'd be hard pressed even to remember who Bob Bullock's opponent was in 1986. So I can't answer that part of the question. I do know that I became involved in Rick Perry's campaign in November of 1989. At that point there was already an investigation ongoing of the Texas Department of Agriculture, prompted by stories which had appeared in August and September, I believe, in The Dallas Morning News regarding the use of Texas Department of Agriculture funds."
Glasgow shifts to the Board for International Broadcasting appointment: "And in answering a question for that perspective (sic) federal appointment, did you make a claim in there that you were involved in the Hightower investigation at the request of special agent Rampton of the Federal Bureau of Investigation?"
Rove: "No, sir."
Glasgow: "You did not make that statement in response …"
Rove: "I did not, and I was …"
Glasgow: "Let me finish my question. Did you make that statement in response to a written questionnaire?"
Rove: "Ah, Senator, ah, no, I did not make that statement, but I …"
Glasgow: "Thank you very much."
Rampton, who was subsequently involved with the FBI operation at Ruby Ridge, said that he had not talked to Rove about the Hightower case. Told that Rove had so claimed in his federal questionnaire, Rampton said: "Let me think. I couldn't recall talking to him on that particular case at all. My memory, if there was a conversation we had on that case, well, I can't recall it. He was not an integral part of that case. I don't even remember bouncing anything off him as somebody who was familiar with politics in Austin."
Molly Ivins writes about politics, Texas and other bizarre happenings.
© 2006 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at:
http://www.alternet.org/story/35168

GOP Goes Machiavellian Again

Ohio: Republicans' Machiavellian Maneuver in the 6th
House Republicans are pulling out all the stops in their attempt to keep state Sen. Charlie Wilson (D) from winning the May 2 Democratic primary in Ohio's open 6th District race:
Their latest gambit is decidedly Machiavellian, taking the form of a campaign ad sponsored by the National Republican Congressional Committee that attacks Bob Carr, one of the two little-known Democrats whose name will actually appear on the primary ballot on May 2. (Wilson failed to secure the 50 signatures required to qualify for the primary ballot and, as a result, is running as a write-in.)
The ads begins with an quick attack on Wilson ("We know we can't trust Charlie Wilson to do what's right," a narrator intones) before images of Carr flash on the screen accompanied by the phrase "liberal Democrat." The commercial's narrator goes on to note that Carr is "too far left to work with Republicans in Washington" and that he "hasn't even ruled out trying to eliminate President Bush's tax cuts." The ad's tagline? "Bob Carr: Too liberal for Congress." (To view the ad, click here; you'll need to have RealPlayer installed to watch it.)
What's so devilish (and potentially effective) about the ad? Republicans are trying to knock off the Democrats' strongest candidate -- Wilson. They are betting that Democratic primary voters, most of whom have never heard of Carr before seeing the commercials, will be motivated to back him because of the NRCC ads. After all, being described as a liberal by a national Republican organizations is a badge of honor to many progressives, and calling for an elimination of the Bush tax cuts is a long-held position among liberal Democrats -- a group that's likely to be over represented in the primary electorate.
Since Carr is not likely to be able to take to the radio or television airwaves to broadcast his message (he had not even filed a financial report with the Federal Election Commission as of press time), the NRCC has decided to take matters in its own hands to try and boost his prospects. The ad went up Friday night in the Wheeling (W.Va.) and Youngstown (Ohio) markets, which reach more than 70 percent of likely Democratic primary voters in the 6th District. Carl Forti, NRCC communications director, said simply that his committee does not discuss its internal strategy.
Bill Burton, Forti's counterpart at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said it's "no surprise that national Republicans would back the Republican in a Democratic primary in Ohio." Burton said Carr was the Republican nominee against Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) in 1996. Carr lost that race 71 percent to 27 percent while being outspent by Stupak $459,000 to $6,000.
Reached this afternoon, Carr said that the only reason he ran as a Republican previously was because he was concerned that the GOP's anointed candidate in that race would viciously attack Stupak. Carr ran in the primary (and won) to prevent that from happening. He insists he has been voting Democratic since 1976 and formally changed his voter registration in 2000.As for the NRCC ads, Carr said: "Bring 'em on."
This is not the first time the NRCC has dabbled in a Democratic primary. In 2000, House Republicans targeted Rep. Michael Forbes, who had switched party affiliation from Republican to Democrat in July 1999. In his first race as a Democrat, Forbes faced a little-known and poorly funded 71-year-old librarian named Regina Seltzer in the primary.
The NRCC spent between $75,000 and $100,000 on a series of direct-mail pieces that outlined Forbes's conservative positions on hot-button issues like abortion and guns -- issues sure to turn true blue Democratic primary voters against him. The NRCC also used phone banks to echo those attacks and cast Seltzer as the best choice in the primary.
Forbes outspent Seltzer by more than $1 million in the primary, but the NRCC's tactics proved devastatingly effective as the unknown librarian beat the congressman by 35 votes -- 6,077 to 6,042. Republicans went on to easily win the open seat in the fall.

Posted by Chris Cillizza at the fix

Federal legislation would give gay couples equality in Social Security

L egislation introduced in the U.S House of Representatives last week would amend the Social Security Act to afford same-sex couples the same benefits, responsibilities, and obligations as others who pay into Social Security. The Equal Access to Social Security Act, H.R. 5152, would add the term "permanent partner" to the Social Security Act in addition to the terms "husband" and "wife," which are already present in the legal code.
"Same-sex couples are denied more than 1,000 federal benefits that other taxpayers are entitled to," said Democratic congressman Jerrold Nadler of New York, who authored the bill. "The Equal Access to Social Security Act addresses this inequity. Ultimately, the only way same-sex couples will be treated equally is when they are allowed to marry—but until that can be a reality for the millions of same-sex couples in this country, we should act to make federal law fair to all."
Nadler's bill does not address same-sex marriage but does provide gay and lesbian couples with some of the benefits married couples enjoy under the Social Security system. Under H.R. 5152, children of same-sex couples would be able to collect survivor benefits in the event of a parent's death, just as children of federally recognized married couples may do.
"I've heard many conservatives say that other than the case of marriage, they don't want to discriminate against the LGBT community," Nadler said. "If they truly don't want to discriminate, here is their chance to prove it. Same-sex couples pay the same taxes as married couples, and they deserve the same Social Security benefits as everyone else."
Recognizing that the elderly often face difficulty maintaining their standard of living after a partner dies, the bill would also entitle elderly same-sex couples to the survivor benefits offered by Social Security to heterosexual widows and widowers.
Seventeen members of Congress have cosponsored Nadler's resolution: representatives Tammy Baldwin, Howard Berman, John Conyers, Joseph Crowley, Rahm Emanuel, Sam Farr, Barney Frank, Raúl Grijalva, Patrick Kennedy, Barbara Lee, Carolyn Maloney, Jim McDermott, George Miller, Charles Rangel, Pete Stark, Henry Waxman, and Lynn Woolsey.

(The Advocate)

Christo-Fascist sue To be Bigots

From the Los Angeles Times




Many codes intended to protect gays from harassment are illegal, conservatives argue.




Ruth Malhotra went to court last month for the right to be intolerant.Malhotra says her Christian faith compels her to speak out against homosexuality. But the Georgia Institute of Technology, where she's a senior, bans speech that puts down others because of their sexual orientation.Malhotra sees that as an unacceptable infringement on her right to religious expression. So she's demanding that Georgia Tech revoke its tolerance policy.With her lawsuit, the 22-year-old student joins a growing campaign to force public schools, state colleges and private workplaces to eliminate policies protecting gays and lesbians from harassment. The religious right aims to overturn a broad range of common tolerance programs: diversity training that promotes acceptance of gays and lesbians, speech codes that ban harsh words against homosexuality, anti-discrimination policies that require college clubs to open their membership to all. The Rev. Rick Scarborough, a leading evangelical, frames the movement as the civil rights struggle of the 21st century. "Christians," he said, "are going to have to take a stand for the right to be Christian."In that spirit, the Christian Legal Society, an association of judges and lawyers, has formed a national group to challenge tolerance policies in federal court. Several nonprofit law firms — backed by major ministries such as Focus on the Family and Campus Crusade for Christ — already take on such cases for free.The legal argument is straightforward: Policies intended to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination end up discriminating against conservative Christians. Evangelicals have been suspended for wearing anti-gay T-shirts to high school, fired for denouncing Gay Pride Month at work, reprimanded for refusing to attend diversity training. When they protest tolerance codes, they're labeled intolerant.A recent survey by the Anti-Defamation League found that 64% of American adults — including 80% of evangelical Christians — agreed with the statement "Religion is under attack in this country." "The message is, you're free to worship as you like, but don't you dare talk about it outside the four walls of your church," said Stephen Crampton, chief counsel for the American Family Assn. Center for Law and Policy, which represents Christians who feel harassed.Critics dismiss such talk as a right-wing fundraising ploy. "They're trying to develop a persecution complex," said Jeremy Gunn, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief.Others fear the banner of religious liberty could be used to justify all manner of harassment."What if a person felt their religious view was that African Americans shouldn't mingle with Caucasians, or that women shouldn't work?" asked Jon Davidson, legal director of the gay rights group Lambda Legal. Christian activist Gregory S. Baylor responds to such criticism angrily. He says he supports policies that protect people from discrimination based on race and gender. But he draws a distinction that infuriates gay rights activists when he argues that sexual orientation is different — a lifestyle choice, not an inborn trait.By equating homosexuality with race, Baylor said, tolerance policies put conservative evangelicals in the same category as racists. He predicts the government will one day revoke the tax-exempt status of churches that preach homosexuality is sinful or that refuse to hire gays and lesbians."Think how marginalized racists are," said Baylor, who directs the Christian Legal Society's Center for Law and Religious Freedom. "If we don't address this now, it will only get worse."Christians are fighting back in a case involving Every Nation Campus Ministries at California State University. Student members of the ministry on the Long Beach and San Diego campuses say their mission is to model a virtuous lifestyle for their peers. They will not accept as members gays, lesbians or anyone who considers homosexuality "a natural part of God's created order."Legal analysts agree that the ministry, as a private organization, has every right to exclude gays; the Supreme Court affirmed that principle in a case involving the Boy Scouts in 2000. At issue is whether the university must grant official recognition to a student group that discriminates.The students say denying them recognition — and its attendant benefits, such as funding — violates their free-speech rights and discriminates against their conservative theology. Christian groups at public colleges in other states have sued using similar arguments. Several of those lawsuits were settled out of court, with the groups prevailing.In California, however, the university may have a strong defense in court. The California Supreme Court recently ruled that the city of Berkeley was justified in denying subsidies to the Boy Scouts because of that group's exclusionary policies. Eddie L. Washington, the lawyer representing Cal State, argues the same standard should apply to the university."We're certainly not going to fund discrimination," Washington said.As they step up their legal campaign, conservative Christians face uncertain prospects. The 1st Amendment guarantees Americans "free exercise" of religion. In practice, though, the ground rules shift depending on the situation.In a 2004 case, for instance, an AT&T Broadband employee won the right to express his religious convictions by refusing to sign a pledge to "respect and value the differences among us." As long as the employee wasn't harassing co-workers, the company had to make accommodations for his faith, a federal judge in Colorado ruled.That same year, however, a federal judge in Idaho ruled that Hewlett-Packard Co. was justified in firing an employee who posted Bible verses condemning homosexuality on his cubicle. The verses, clearly visible from the hall, harassed gay employees and made it difficult for the company to meet its goal of attracting a diverse workforce, the judge ruled.In the public schools, an Ohio middle school student last year won the right to wear a T-shirt that proclaimed: "Homosexuality is a sin! Islam is a lie! Abortion is murder!" But a teen-ager in Kentucky lost in federal court when he tried to exempt himself from a school program on gay tolerance on the grounds that it violated his religious beliefs.In their lawsuit against Georgia Tech, Malhotra and her co-plaintiff, a devout Jewish student named Orit Sklar, request unspecified damages. But they say their main goal is to force the university to be more tolerant of religious viewpoints. The lawsuit was filed by the Alliance Defense Fund, a nonprofit law firm that focuses on religious liberty cases.Malhotra said she had been reprimanded by college deans several times in the last few years for expressing conservative religious and political views. When she protested a campus production of "The Vagina Monologues" with a display condemning feminism, the administration asked her to paint over part of it. She caused another stir with a letter to the gay activists who organized an event known as Coming Out Week in the fall of 2004. Malhotra sent the letter on behalf of the Georgia Tech College Republicans, which she chairs; she said several members of the executive board helped write it.The letter referred to the campus gay rights group Pride Alliance as a "sex club … that can't even manage to be tasteful." It went on to say that it was "ludicrous" for Georgia Tech to help fund the Pride Alliance.The letter berated students who come out publicly as gay, saying they subject others on campus to "a constant barrage of homosexuality.""If gays want to be tolerated, they should knock off the political propaganda," the letter said.The student activist who received the letter, Felix Hu, described it as "rude, unfair, presumptuous" — and disturbing enough that Pride Alliance forwarded it to a college administrator. Soon after, Malhotra said, she was called in to a dean's office. Students can be expelled for intolerant speech, but she said she was only reprimanded.Still, she said, the incident has left her afraid to speak freely. She's even reluctant to aggressively advertise the campus lectures she arranges on living by the Bible. "Whenever I've spoken out against a certain lifestyle, the first thing I'm told is 'You're being intolerant, you're being negative, you're creating a hostile campus environment,' " Malhotra said.A Georgia Tech spokeswoman would not comment on the lawsuit or on Malhotra's disciplinary record, but she said the university encouraged students to debate freely, "as long as they're not promoting violence or harassing anyone."The open question is what constitutes harassment, what's a sincere expression of faith — and what to do when they overlap."There really is confusion out there," said Charles C. Haynes, a senior scholar at the First Amendment Center, which is affiliated with Vanderbilt University. "Finding common ground sounds good. But the reality is, a lot of people on all sides have a stake in the fight."


Posted at the LA Times

Nancy Pelosi has her head stuck up her...

Nancy Pelosi is over at Kos drumming up support for her resolution to have the Ethics Committee investigate Tom DeLay. Now that’s a worthy goal, but as we all know in a Repubilcan-controlled House extremely unlikely to happen. Has she actually filed a complaint with the Ethics Commitee? According to Ari Berman in The Nation, the answer would be no.

We would rather hear an explanation for this:

“I think that things are going well for the Democrats right now,” Pelosi told reporters Thursday, alluding to recent data showing that a plurality of poll respondents would prefer a Democratic-controlled House.
So why, she implied, should Democrats risk spoiling the mood?

She rebuffed the call by Sen. Russ Feingold, D- Wisc., to censure Bush for ordering National Security Agency surveillance of al Qaida contacts with persons in the United States without seeking warrants from a court.
“I have no idea why anybody would censure someone before they have an investigation,” she said.


I really don’t think the Democratic leadership gets it. I don’t think they understand, as
Glenn Greenwald has stated over and over again, that the President admits he broke the law and therefore censure is appropriate. That no investigation is needed to determine that, nor will an investigation be forthcoming, especially after Chuck Schumer’s ego dictated that nobody would show up and support Russ Feingold at the Judiciary Committee hearing.
I know they don’t get that a lot of people feel this way. I’ve heard over and over again that the Democrats don’t think that the people are behind Feingold.
Nancy Pelosi is in the House. She’s not in the Senate. Why she had to pipe up and cut the legs out from underneath Russ Feingold I have no idea, but maybe someone should ask her.


posted at firedoglake.com