Where do Republicans come from? Are they born in pods or are they normal and crysilize later? Has any research been done on the phenomon? Is it something, or the lack of something in the diet that causes Republicans, or is it a genetic throwback of some sort?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Ann in AZ @ 141

Helpless Dancer @ 66

I am beginnig to see the start of a horrible catch-22. Congress puts forth charges of perjury and comtempt against DOJ officals and the DOJ refuses to prosucte. The only person who could break the impasse(Bush) is the one person who has the least motive for doing so. The Dem leadership needs to take a page from the Repugs and leave all options on the table, because the threat of impeacment is the only other thing that could get things moving. Add in the fact that Bush is the type who will bring everthing and everyone down with him and things look even worse.

I thought that was in the event that Congress wants to charge them through the courts. But I think there is no need to charge them through the courts. If they think they have enough evidence and votes, I think they can impeach them. Is this right? Are any of you lawyer types out here tonight?

This bums me out but the only value of impeachment is the publicity of it, at least until things are soooo bad we can get 67 votes in the Senate. I am starting to wonder if the best approach is a slow tearing back of the veils right up to 2008 when the country will be so disgusted we will through them out. The we’ll have DOJ and can pursue prosecutions against real criminals.

But we are talking about impeachment of DOJ officials and Gonzo. I think there very well might already be enough votes to impeach Gonzo. He’s got quite a few Senators really angry at him and at his department. They’re starting to realize that their power is being eroded, or they’ve given it away, and they don’t like it. I was very surprised to see the post this evening indicating that Kyl was not pleased with the change of the USA here in AZ. Apparently they bypassed him completely, and then publicly declared that he was ok with it. (That is if you believe a word Kyl says. I don’t put much stock in someone that has been known to falsify a brief to the Supreme Court like he and Lindsey Graham did.) Plus, most of them know he’s an utterly incompetent boob. A shill. This USA thing is hardly all they have on him. His fingerprints are all over most of the overreaches of the Administration. Torture, NSA wiretaps, the loss of Habeas Corpus, extraordinary Rendition, Patriot Act abuses of several different forms, and the list goes on. I think things are starting to come to a head. With all the crap that’s coming down the line, Gonzo may only be the first. If Bush keeps up his shit, he may eventually get impeached, too. I’d like to do both Bush and Cheney with the same shot. On the other hand, by the time people are ready for that, elections will be upon us, and the Repugs would probably block any efforts to put Pelosi in the White House, even temporarily. I don’t really think that can or will happen. But I’d settle for everybody but Bush, and yes, I mean Cheney has to go, too. I want Gonzo, then Rove, then Chertoff for his sheer incompetence. Then we’ll just have to wait and see what comes down the pipes. I wish us a lot of luck!

I was sad to see Carol Lam let go. She was a great rep. for the people. I don’t think she was a member of the Federalist Society, like Rachel Poulose the snot nosed newly confirmed USA in Minn. at the tender age of 33. She didn’t donate money to the GOP like a ranger,but she was super conservative, very bright, Yale grad, minority and a woman. She replaced an experienced prosecutor, also Republican who didn’t complain that he was let go. I hope all this manipulation comes back as egg on their faces.

What I think will happen will be similar to Rumsfeld. He’ll stall and then he’ll ‘accept’ Al-GONEZO’s resignation. Astrology says he’s a goner too…..

Helpless Dancer @ 66

I am beginnig to see the start of a horrible catch-22. Congress puts forth charges of perjury and comtempt against DOJ officals and the DOJ refuses to prosucte. The only person who could break the impasse(Bush) is the one person who has the least motive for doing so. The Dem leadership needs to take a page from the Repugs and leave all options on the table, because the threat of impeacment is the only other thing that could get things moving. Add in the fact that Bush is the type who will bring everthing and everyone down with him and things look even worse.

I thought that was in the event that Congress wants to charge them through the courts. But I think there is no need to charge them through the courts. If they think they have enough evidence and votes, I think they can impeach them. Is this right? Are any of you lawyer types out here tonight?

This bums me out but the only value of impeachment is the publicity of it, at least until things are soooo bad we can get 67 votes in the Senate. I am starting to wonder if the best approach is a slow tearing back of the veils right up to 2008 when the country will be so disgusted we will through them out. The we’ll have DOJ and can pursue prosecutions against real criminals.

RealWorld @
14

EPU’d

Back here at comment 121 I put together a little analysis of the work on the disproportionate prosecution of Democrats done by Shields and Cragen. I noted:

It is also interesting that the % of cases involving repub’s is 14% for this group vs 21% for the country as a whole. However, when you factor out the East and Central CA areas and Michigan (MI had 18 dem’s and 0 repubs) the remaining USA’s in this group had a 26% repub case load, notably higher than average.

But it has been bothering me that I had to factor out MI. That seemed just odd. So I finally woke up and asked how many USA’s are in Michigan. Well, there are two, East and West. It turns out, only two of the eighteen cases in MI were handled by the Western MI office, the remaining sixteen were handled by the Eastern office. So guess who ran the Western office. Surprise: None other than the former USA Margaret Chiara. Her democrat hit rate was actually very low, roughly half of the national average. (Her district had a population of roughly 3 million). This just reinforces the point that the fired USA’s did have a productivity issue and that the metric was: cases involving democrats.

I would still like to see a study of previous administrations, say from Ford through Clinton, each separate stats of course. This should prove quite useful in considering just how blind justice has been over time throughout the various administrations. I wonder if that’s possible. It certainly would seem so, since this should be public information, seeing as how all of it is done with our tax dollars.

This may be more difficult than it seems since the original research was based on public data available on the internet and while some of it may be available for the Clinton years I suspect it won’t go back with nearly as much detail even that far. Keep in mind that this study reported cases that became in some way public so many were investigations that were leaked but never became indictments.

OT: You know what you call an alumnus without a degree? A dropout…or Jeb Bush.

Jeb Bush Gets Florida Honor After Snub
Isn’t that interesting! After all, an honorary degree ain’t worth that much even when conveyed by the faculty senate…

so how much less is an honorary degree worth that has been rejected by the faculty and is only awarded by the alumni?

Hmmmm…

the Bush family tradition continues

Excerpt: The university’s [U of Florida] Alumni Association’s Board of Directors passed a resolution Saturday to make Bush an honorary alumnus. The move came on the heels of a 38-28 Faculty Senate vote on Thursday to deny Bush an honorary degree.

newtonusr @ 113

PW – zampolit… Beautiful!

I like to use that term for BushCo’s political officers early and often: a) because it fits (classic zampolit were worthless hacks whose sole qualification was loyalty to the Party officials employing them), and b) because it drives the wingnuts berzerk (they hate hate HATE the idea that they are more like Stalin than like Lincoln or Jefferson).

if you don’t mind, I am going to start using this term as well because–
1) It certainly fits those in this regime
2) I love to annoy wingnuts

pachelbelle @ 112

I’ve noticed that Repubs always talk about voter fraud which by their definition means that “we’ve got to make sure that no one votes who (we think) shouldn’t (because it might screw up the election for us), even if that means that people who have the right to vote are denied that right” while Democrats talk about Voter Rights and Voter Suppression. Repubs focus on ‘fraud’ to disenfranchise voters. Dems focus on ‘rights’ to um, make sure that everyone who is entitled to vote actually gets to vote.

Yep. Republicans are all about vote denial and vote suppression. The fewer people who vote, the better it is for them, because they rely on a small group of hardcore voters to win elections. The fewer people outside that group who vote, the bigger that small group is proportionally.

Thank you Eli ( and great post, by the way!)
This is exactly the point–

progressives need to frame this ‘voter fraud’ issue as:

When Republicans talk about voter fraud it means they want to suppress the vote so that they have a better chance of winning

When Democrats talk about voter fraud it means they want to ensure that everyone who is entitled has the right to vote without suppression or intimidation or any of the other Republican dirty tricks

If I am able to find it, who should I send it to? I could pass it on to Christy and she could pass it on to you. Or you could leave me your email address her with the dot spelled out. Otherwise, I’ll look for it and send it to Christy with a note. It was in one of those “Guess who the celebrity is” type things with a bunch of other pics.

Can you upload it to ImageShack and post a link? I think ImageShack is pretty self-explanatory – you just upload the file, and then you can copy-and-paste the link (you’ll want the direct link, which should be towards the bottom of the links page).

Ann in AZ @ 187

Millineryman @ 98

I wonder if that’s what Babs looked like in her prime.

Oddly enough, I had a picture of Babs sent to me in an e-mail. It was vintage 1940s or early 1950s. Would you believe, she was a truly pretty woman. No really, very good looking…I may still have the pic somewhere in my e-mail. If anyone is particularly interested, I will look. Otherwise, I have better things to do with my time. (on the other hand, you wouldn’t have to twist my arm. It was in the last 6 months or so, so it probably wouldn’t be that hard.)

I would be interested in seeing that; I find it really hard to imagine.

If I am able to find it, who should I send it to? I could pass it on to Christy and she could pass it on to you. Or you could leave me your email address her with the dot spelled out. Otherwise, I’ll look for it and send it to Christy with a note. It was in one of those “Guess who the celebrity is” type things with a bunch of other pics.