Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (17233)	5/24/2005 1:50:05 PM
From: tsigprofit	Respond to of 20773

President Bush, Bill Frist and the radical right-wing of the Republican Party have failed in their attempt to seize absolute power over the courts. Together, we've stopped the "nuclear option" — for now. Last night at 7:30pm, with only hours to go before Senator Frist rose in the Senate to try to break the rules and seize power to appoint extreme judges, 14 senators announced they had struck a deal. As powerful far-right leader James Dobson put it, "This Senate agreement represents a complete bailout and betrayal by a cabal of Republicans and a great victory for united Democrats...The rules that blocked conservative nominees remain in effect, and nothing of significance has changed." For once, we agree with Mr. Dobson. With 7 Republicans pledging to oppose Frist's scheme as long as the Democrats stick to the standard for filibusters they've used all along — only using them in extraordinary circumstances — the "nuclear option" is dead unless Republicans break their word. And if that happens we will be in a much stronger position to stop them. Last night's resolution was a real victory, but it came at a heavy price. Three of the nominees the Democrats agreed not to filibuster, Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, and William Pryor, will now head to confirmation votes in the Senate where they may well be approved. Their record of corporate bias and outright hostility to the basic rights of ordinary Americans poses a serious threat that we will have to contend with for years to come. You can see the full, original text of the agreement at: c-span.org Had Senator Frist succeeded in executing the "nuclear option" we wouldn't just be facing three terrible judges on the US Courts of Appeals — we'd be watching one party take absolute control of all branches of government for the first time ever. And radical Republicans would have had complete power to stack the Supreme Court with unchecked extremists and to roll back decades of progress on all our most cherished rights. Of course, the Republicans could still decide to go back on their word and break the agreement at some point in the future. But even if that happens they have already failed in their primary goal: to eliminate the filibuster now, before there's a vacancy on the Supreme Court -- before Americans are watching and it's clear how much is at stake. So why wasn't Republican Leader Frist able to translate his 10-vote advantage in the Senate into 51 votes for his "nuclear" scheme? A large part of the answer is you. Frist couldn't get 50 of his 55 Republicans to support the "nuclear option" in large part because we and our allies convinced them it would be political suicide to do so. If there had been no grassroots movement to stop the "nuclear option," it's almost certain that today George Bush and Bill Frist would hold absolute power to stack the Supreme Court and we would be powerless to protect our most basic rights. Preventing that nightmare is an accomplishment to feel proud of. The fight to protect our courts and, as the Star Wars fans say, to "Save the Republic," goes on. There are more Republican assaults we need to block, from John Bolton to Social Security privitization, and we'll need all hands on deck to help shift the balance in Washington in the 2006 elections. Our next immediate focus will be on Tom DeLay and Republican leaders' abuse of power in the House — starting with petition deliveries to local Republican offices next Wednesday (more on this soon). With a failed Republican leadership transparently consumed with power and out of touch with the nation, and a growing, powerful grassroots community churning out victories against overwhelming odds — the prospects for change are looking good. Thank you — really, THANK YOU — for everything you've done. Democracy won the night, because of you. Sincerely, –-Ben, Eli, Carrie, Matt and the MoveOn PAC Team Tuesday, May 24th, 2005 PAID FOR BY MOVEON PAC

To: TigerPaw who wrote (17233)	5/24/2005 3:12:28 PM
From: Bucky Katt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

Are we due setrecs for Iraq error evidence?> Setting the record straight is good policy, even for the president Leonard Pitts, Knight Ridder/Tribune, a syndicated columnist based in Washington Published May 24, 2005 Dear President Bush: I see where your administration took Newsweek magazine to task over a report alleging that U.S. military personnel at Guantanamo Bay defiled the Koran by flushing it down a toilet. Your spokesman declared you outraged. Who can blame you? The item led to protests across the Middle East and rioting in Afghanistan that reportedly left at least 15 people dead. The Muslim world was infuriated at the supposed mistreatment of their holy book. Frankly, the fury mystifies me a bit, given that there have been numerous similar reports over the last two years. The fact that this small item suddenly leads to demonstrations in the streets feels a bit ... orchestrated, if you know what I mean. It leaves me wondering if somebody over there didn't fan this fire specifically to embarrass the American military. Which is not to take the onus off Newsweek. In retracting the offending item, the magazine said its source could no longer verify the information. That raises questions not only about the reliability of the magazine's sources, but also about its policy toward their use. It is, I can promise you, a painful time at Newsweek. But in the news business, we believe nothing is more important than credibility and that maintaining it requires a commitment to reporting truth and a willingness to be transparent when you fail to do so. Meaning that you correct mistakes forthrightly and level with readers about how they occurred. My newsroom calls them "setrecs," short for "setting the record straight." Nothing I've ever written has led to rioting and bloodshed, but I've got a few setrecs on my record. Over the years, I have headquartered an electronics firm on the wrong continent, mislabeled a Bible quote, called a Robert, Richard. I don't enjoy rereading those columns. But I console myself with the reminder that getting it wrong will occasionally happen so long as news outlets draw their workforce from the ranks of the human race. And also, with the reminder that being open about error is good for us in the long run. Point being, I'm pleased by your concern for Newsweek's accuracy. And I'm wondering if this means you will soon evince similar concern for your own. Because if there is one trait that has characterized your response to the errors that attended our invasion of Iraq, it's a refusal to concede that they happened. Indeed, asked during a news conference last year if you ever admitted mistakes, you got a look on your face like an unprepared 5th grader called to work out a math problem in front of the class. You hemmed a little, hawed awhile, and finally said you couldn't think of any. Your admirers call that refusal to admit to error evidence of your resolve. But you know, it's a short leap from resolve to stubbornness and an even shorter leap from there to rigidity. So, Mr. President, I've taken the liberty of writing the following setrecs for you. Tell me what you think: (1) "In 2002 and 2003, my administration made the case for invading Iraq by claiming that nation had weapons of mass destruction. It did not. We regret the error." Or: (2) "In 2002 and 2003, my administration encouraged Americans to believe Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. It was not. We regret the error." Or: (3) "In 2003, my administration said Iraq's oil wealth was such that the invasion would pay for itself. It has not. We regret that error too." See how it works, Mr. President? It's not that bad, once you get the hang of it. OK, granted, it will never be fun. But in my business, we believe owning up to error ultimately makes you better. You should try it sometime. chicagotribune.com