Did Father Twilight and the creatures of the forest accompany Kucinich to the hearing?

TenuredVulture wrote:It needs to be added that the executive increased its power because Congress let them. Congress has increasingly ceded its legislative power to the bureaucracy, with rulemaking by unelected bureaucrats now becoming more important than lawmaking.

Congressmen's hands are tied to a certain extent, because of the need to keep on getting elected. Anything which would rock the boat is pretty much out of hte question...so lashing back and trying to, you know, keep presidential power in check is pretty hard to do w/o it being spinned negatively by opponents.

edit: Or they are chided and called 'loony', see above post.

Because he's fucking insane.

Grandfather Twilight The classic children's book icon, Grandfather Twilight, broke twenty years of silence to endorse Congressman Dennis Kucinich for President in 2004. "In these extraordinary times we must act with extraordinary sincerity," he said.

Creatures of Forest Sign on for Kucinich

Among the Trees, 7 pm--A sober mood here broke into a raucous celebration as creatures great and small followed the Bear's lead in signing a statement endorsing Dennis Kucinich for President in 2004.

I apologize for linking to FreeRepublic, but it's the only place I can find the press release online, since the links that used to take you to it on his website now just take you to his homepage.

It remains the weirdest press release I've ever read.

I know he's a little out there, doesn't make him wrong here. It would be better if someone with credibility had any balls, but alas...

pacino wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:It needs to be added that the executive increased its power because Congress let them. Congress has increasingly ceded its legislative power to the bureaucracy, with rulemaking by unelected bureaucrats now becoming more important than lawmaking.

Congressmen's hands are tied to a certain extent, because of the need to keep on getting elected. Anything which would rock the boat is pretty much out of hte question...so lashing back and trying to, you know, keep presidential power in check is pretty hard to do w/o it being spinned negatively by opponents.

edit: Or they are chided and called 'loony', see above post.

Clearly, there are institutional issues. But I really don't think it can be traced to the need to get re-elected. When 90+% of incumbents are re-elected, and most represent what should be considered "safe" districts, to cite the need to get re-elected as a reason for the dysfunction of the legislative branch seems spurious.

Frankly, I would make the opposite argument--regardless of how little they do, and how poorly they govern, it's too easy for them to hold their seats.

shocked, Im just so shocked...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-OpIXfXKO8[/youtube]

The Red Tornado wrote:shocked, Im just so shocked...

Keith Olberman is really talking about a news organization and an anchor spouting a party's talking points? Really? Did the DNC give him the script? You'd think MSNBC would give the story to someone slightly more objective.

we ALL know this, but there's apparently no depth the government can sink to that would result in impeachment, so it's just infuriating to talk about.

I'm disappointed about that. Nothing could have made the Republican Party more sympathetic than a long Democratic vendetta against Bush. If they'd just done this, the Republicans would win a lot more seats. Please tell me that after the election they'll spend years investigating, hounding, and indicting every member of the Bush White House. 2010 elections are only two years away.

Perhaps if Obama wins, the Republicans will suddenly rediscover their commitment to fighting against concentrated power. It'd be nice if they did so on principle, of course, but as long as it happens, great.

Of course they will. They fought Clinton and then when Bush came in, it was suddenly okay. The thing that concerns me most about Obama's new FISA stance is that he seems to be saying it wasn't okay to give a President that kind of power if he's the President.

Laexile wrote:

The Red Tornado wrote:shocked, Im just so shocked...

Keith Olberman is really talking about a news organization and an anchor spouting a party's talking points? Really? Did the DNC give him the script? You'd think MSNBC would give the story to someone slightly more objective.

we ALL know this, but there's apparently no depth the government can sink to that would result in impeachment, so it's just infuriating to talk about.

I'm disappointed about that. Nothing could have made the Republican Party more sympathetic than a long Democratic vendetta against Bush. If they'd just done this, the Republicans would win a lot more seats. Please tell me that after the election they'll spend years investigating, hounding, and indicting every member of the Bush White House. 2010 elections are only two years away.

Perhaps if Obama wins, the Republicans will suddenly rediscover their commitment to fighting against concentrated power. It'd be nice if they did so on principle, of course, but as long as it happens, great.

Of course they will. They fought Clinton and then when Bush came in, it was suddenly okay. The thing that concerns me most about Obama's new FISA stance is that he seems to be saying it wasn't okay to give a President that kind of power if he's the President.

what i hope, is for a bipartisan commission to be created by president obama with the goal, not of digging up all the dirt of the bush administration, but of investigating the way that the acts can be reversed if an idiot as dangerous as bush was ever again elected to an office as high as president.


oh, and olbermann has called both hillary and obama out on multiple occasions in multiple special comments. maybe he'll turn into an obama administration talking head once elected, but if right now you're calling him dead in the pocket of obama, you need to watch him more often.

steagles wrote:

Laexile wrote:

The Red Tornado wrote:shocked, Im just so shocked...

Keith Olberman is really talking about a news organization and an anchor spouting a party's talking points? Really? Did the DNC give him the script? You'd think MSNBC would give the story to someone slightly more objective.

oh, and olbermann has called both hillary and obama out on multiple occasions in multiple special comments. maybe he'll turn into an obama administration talking head once elected, but if right now you're calling him dead in the pocket of obama, you need to watch him more often.

I don't see Obama anywhere in my quote. I called him in the pocket of the DNC, not Obama. I'm sure he's occasionally been critical of Democrats, but he shows the most liberal bias of any cable network anchor. Him calling out Fox News is the pot calling the kettle black.

what i hope, is for a bipartisan commission to be created by president obama with the goal, not of digging up all the dirt of the bush administration, but of investigating the way that the acts can be reversed if an idiot as dangerous as bush was ever again elected to an office as high as president.

If Obama is President, we'll have... well... I wouldn't use those terms, but we'll have someone who is inexperienced and naive who stubbornly refuses to admit he's wrong and ignores facts that differ from what he believes. How will it be different? There are people who believe that electing Obama will be dangerous, just as I'm sure people believe the same about John McCain. Obama supporters seem to completely ignore all critique of their candidate and dismiss those with real concerns as racists.

Laexile wrote:

steagles wrote:

Laexile wrote:

The Red Tornado wrote:shocked, Im just so shocked...

Keith Olberman is really talking about a news organization and an anchor spouting a party's talking points? Really? Did the DNC give him the script? You'd think MSNBC would give the story to someone slightly more objective.

oh, and olbermann has called both hillary and obama out on multiple occasions in multiple special comments. maybe he'll turn into an obama administration talking head once elected, but if right now you're calling him dead in the pocket of obama, you need to watch him more often.

I don't see Obama anywhere in my quote. I called him in the pocket of the DNC, not Obama. I'm sure he's occasionally been critical of Democrats, but he shows the most liberal bias of any cable network anchor. Him calling out Fox News is the pot calling the kettle black.

what i hope, is for a bipartisan commission to be created by president obama with the goal, not of digging up all the dirt of the bush administration, but of investigating the way that the acts can be reversed if an idiot as dangerous as bush was ever again elected to an office as high as president.

If Obama is President, we'll have... well... I wouldn't use those terms, but we'll have someone who is inexperienced and naive who stubbornly refuses to admit he's wrong and ignores facts that differ from what he believes. How will it be different? There are people who believe that electing Obama will be dangerous, just as I'm sure people believe the same about John McCain. Obama supporters seem to completely ignore all critique of their candidate and dismiss those with real concerns as racists.

You can't be serious? You are calling Obama out on grounds of inexperience? This is a joke right? And you think he's "dangerous"? In what way? What could be more dangerous that proto-facist, neo-con idealogs with puppet evnagelists with former cocaine and booze habits?

You know as well as I do, that no figure that becomes President can just act on their own. There's a system and a machine and a way things work. As long as big business is thriving, things go on. As long as the facade is maintained.

The "real" differences between these two are there, but not that great in the big scheme. And if you dislike Obama, or the DNC or the Dems or liberals -- that's fine. But don't try to act like Obama isn't qualified to play the part, or could get us in worse trouble that W who is universally hated the world over.

steagles wrote:

Laexile wrote:

The Red Tornado wrote:shocked, Im just so shocked...

Keith Olberman is really talking about a news organization and an anchor spouting a party's talking points? Really? Did the DNC give him the script? You'd think MSNBC would give the story to someone slightly more objective.

we ALL know this, but there's apparently no depth the government can sink to that would result in impeachment, so it's just infuriating to talk about.

I'm disappointed about that. Nothing could have made the Republican Party more sympathetic than a long Democratic vendetta against Bush. If they'd just done this, the Republicans would win a lot more seats. Please tell me that after the election they'll spend years investigating, hounding, and indicting every member of the Bush White House. 2010 elections are only two years away.

Perhaps if Obama wins, the Republicans will suddenly rediscover their commitment to fighting against concentrated power. It'd be nice if they did so on principle, of course, but as long as it happens, great.

Of course they will. They fought Clinton and then when Bush came in, it was suddenly okay. The thing that concerns me most about Obama's new FISA stance is that he seems to be saying it wasn't okay to give a President that kind of power if he's the President.

what i hope, is for a bipartisan commission to be created by president obama with the goal, not of digging up all the dirt of the bush administration, but of investigating the way that the acts can be reversed if an idiot as dangerous as bush was ever again elected to an office as high as president.

There's this thing called a constitution, and it provides these people, in Congress, all the means necessary to stop a President from overstepping his constitutional boundaries. Too bad they haven't been interested in donig their job for some time.

It's not up to the executive branch to police itself. That's not how the system was designed.

TenuredVulture wrote:

steagles wrote:

Laexile wrote:

The Red Tornado wrote:shocked, Im just so shocked...

Keith Olberman is really talking about a news organization and an anchor spouting a party's talking points? Really? Did the DNC give him the script? You'd think MSNBC would give the story to someone slightly more objective.

we ALL know this, but there's apparently no depth the government can sink to that would result in impeachment, so it's just infuriating to talk about.

I'm disappointed about that. Nothing could have made the Republican Party more sympathetic than a long Democratic vendetta against Bush. If they'd just done this, the Republicans would win a lot more seats. Please tell me that after the election they'll spend years investigating, hounding, and indicting every member of the Bush White House. 2010 elections are only two years away.

Perhaps if Obama wins, the Republicans will suddenly rediscover their commitment to fighting against concentrated power. It'd be nice if they did so on principle, of course, but as long as it happens, great.

Of course they will. They fought Clinton and then when Bush came in, it was suddenly okay. The thing that concerns me most about Obama's new FISA stance is that he seems to be saying it wasn't okay to give a President that kind of power if he's the President.

what i hope, is for a bipartisan commission to be created by president obama with the goal, not of digging up all the dirt of the bush administration, but of investigating the way that the acts can be reversed if an idiot as dangerous as bush was ever again elected to an office as high as president.

There's this thing called a constitution, and it provides these people, in Congress, all the means necessary to stop a President from overstepping his constitutional boundaries. Too bad they haven't been interested in donig their job for some time.

It's not up to the executive branch to police itself. That's not how the system was designed.

It's more than "the means" it's their duty to protect the COnstitution and the people and re-election is irrelevant. The elected officials are merely supposed to be the PEOPLE'S representatives, not lifers with special privelege.

Philly the Kid wrote:You can't be serious? You are calling Obama out on grounds of inexperience? This is a joke right?

What experience does Barack Obama have? George Bush spent six years as governor of Texas. That was a full time job. Obama spent eight years in the Illinois State Senate. The Senate meets for only five months. That's a part time job. In the three years he's been in the Senate he's authored two bills of any note and has spent almost as much time on the campaign trail as in office. Barack Obama's inexperience is the single biggest non-ideological complaint people have about his candidacy.

And you think he's "dangerous"? In what way? What could be more dangerous that proto-facist, neo-con idealogs with puppet evnagelists with former cocaine and booze habits?

While your rhetoric is full of hyperbole, what can be more dangerous is a man who doesn't seem to understand that if we fail in Iraq, Iran, our single biggest threat, will step into the vacuum. Iraq is at the center of numerous potentially troublesome countries that have oil, something America seems to want stable every time they fill up their cars. Obama is someone who made up his mind about Afghanistan and Iraq without going to the countries, talking to their leaders, or our commanders. After doing so, all he could say was that everything he thought before he went was right. He somehow believes that al Quaeda has bases in Afghanistan and that a country that has no strategic value and an insurgency of 19th century fighters is more important. For hundreds of years foreign countries have learned that you can't win in Afghanistan. Yet Obama wants to fight there anyway.

What's dangerous is someone who seems to have no concept of how the American economic system works and whose positions need to be "clarified" every time he gives them out. His economic policies are eerily reminiscent of Jimmy Carter's, a time when inflation was double today's.

The "real" differences between these two are there, but not that great in the big scheme. And if you dislike Obama, or the DNC or the Dems or liberals -- that's fine. But don't try to act like Obama isn't qualified to play the part, or could get us in worse trouble that W who is universally hated the world over.

There are certainly differences between Bush and Obama, but the similarities are what disturb me. I like a lot of Democrats. I've voted for them in the last four Presidential elections and in Senate and Congressional elections. I like liberals for standing up for the little guy and being idealistic. Barack Obama doesn't have the experience to be President and that's an important qualification for me. I'd have thought he'd try to have a more distinguished Senate career before running for President. He's chosen to treat it as a part time job.

I don't care if the President is hated the world over. I care that the President does the right thing. Richard Nixon wasn't liked, but he dealt from a position of strength when he went to China and the USSR. Ronald Reagan was perceived by the Europeans as a war monger. Yet he brought the Soviets down. A President needs to negotiate from strength. These countries needed to be afraid of our President to negotiate. The Europeans think Obama is going to take their advice in forming American foreign policy. That's why they love him.

Laexile wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:You can't be serious? You are calling Obama out on grounds of inexperience? This is a joke right?

...what can be more dangerous is a man who doesn't seem to understand that if we fail in Iraq, Iran, our single biggest threat, will step into the vacuum....

then again, cartographer in chief McCain has already consigned Iran to the vaccuum

More and more, McCain seems on his way to becoming just another Karl Rove Klient.

He can't inspire, he's tied to Bush's policies (actually, now he's to Bush's right on the war), and it's probably difficult to think straight with one's head wedged so far up Grover Norquist's pucker. So what's left is this.

Stay classy, McNasty!

dajafi wrote:More and more, McCain seems on his way to becoming just another Karl Rove Klient.

He can't inspire, he's tied to Bush's policies (actually, now he's to Bush's right on the war), and it's probably difficult to think straight with one's head wedged so far up Grover Norquist's pucker. So what's left is this.

Stay classy, McNasty!

Does this stuff really work? Are people that stupid? That easily manipulated. So there's no discussion of policy just a bunch of emotional manipulations and posturing? I can't wait for debates -- although they are so controlled with all the questions and formats pre-approved and determined. I'd luv to see a free form no preview of anything debate!

Philly the Kid wrote:

dajafi wrote:More and more, McCain seems on his way to becoming just another Karl Rove Klient.

He can't inspire, he's tied to Bush's policies (actually, now he's to Bush's right on the war), and it's probably difficult to think straight with one's head wedged so far up Grover Norquist's pucker. So what's left is this.

Stay classy, McNasty!

Does this stuff really work? Are people that stupid? That easily manipulated. So there's no discussion of policy just a bunch of emotional manipulations and posturing? I can't wait for debates -- although they are so controlled with all the questions and formats pre-approved and determined. I'd luv to see a free form no preview of anything debate!

I think it works if you don't develop a powerful counter-narrative. Certainly it did against Kerry four years ago. The Obama people claim that they've learned from the mistakes of past Democratic candidates; guess we'll see.

More "straight" talk:

STEPHANOPOULOS: What is your position on gay adoption? You told the “New York Times" you were against it, even in cases where the children couldn’t find another home. But then your staff backtracked a bit. What is your position?

MCCAIN: My position is, it’s not the reason why I’m running for president of the United States. And I think that two parent families are best for America.
...
STEPHANOPOULOS: So, you’re against gay adoption.

MCCAIN: I am for the values and principles that two parent families represent. And I also do point out that many of these decisions are made by the states, as we all know. And I will do everything I can to encourage adoption, to encourage all of the things that keeps families together, including educational opportunities, including a better economy, job creation. And I’m running for president, because I want to help families in America. And one of my positions is that I believe that family values and family traditions are preserved.

I heard Osama didn't want to visit the injured troops in Germany! This, combined with that crazy muslim minister of his, is why people are wary of him.

gnashing of teeth!