Sorry for the problems!

!

Click here: Windows media player while our other server is down!

Jack Burkman, a Republican strategist wants President Bush to chop the heads off of moderate republicans so Christian conservatives can rule the party! In another outburst from the Christian right, there is a fight brewing for control of the Republican party. Already CC's are unhappy with Bush. Will the moderates give way to the evangelicals?

...difficulty on the video clips

LA Times:

WASHINGTON — Ailing Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said today that judges must be protected from political threats, including from conservative Republicans who maintain that "judicial activists" should be impeached and removed from officeThe Constitution protects judicial independence not to benefit judges, but to promote the rule of law: Judges are expected to administer the law fairly, without regard to public reaction," the chief justice, whose future on the court is subject to wide speculation, said in his traditional year-end report on the federal courts. In his report, the chief justice did not name names, but instead spoke of his concern for the "mounting criticism of judges for engaging in what is often referred to as 'judicial activism.' " read on

Rehnquist comes out swinging against these judge bashers like Tom Delay.

AMericablog - 1/1/2005 10:43:48 AM

According to The New York Times (registration required as you know), the Reverend Dr. James Dobson, President of Focus on the Family, has set his sights on the U.S. Senate. Seems the good Reverend has sent a letter to his followers about six Democratic Senators who he will defeat them if they block Bush's judicial appointments. Seems Reverend Dobson believes that he single-handedly elected Bush and defeated Tom Daschle. Now, he wants to control the Senate.

Obviously the only thing that matters to evangelical leaders is the supreme court nomination. They have made it very clear that the state of the economy, health care, gov't spending, the Iraq war, and education have no meaning to them. Only the appointment of a suitable judge. Sure seems anti-Christian to me!

Via Suburban Guerrilla

Via Kos, Scoop (the Australian site) has posted the raw exit polling data from Mitofsky, the pollster who refused to release the numbers. They were updated around 4 p.m. on Election Day.

Now, I'm no statistician but I looked at a least a dozen reports and they sure look like a Kerry landslide to me. (They're .pdf files - scroll down to the last question, asking for whom they voted.) Not only did people overwhelmingly say they voted for Kerry, the other questions indicated the majority of voters had a deep dissatisfaction with Bush and the way the country is headed.

Yet on Nov. 2, and only after 4 p.m., that suddenly came to a screeching halt (like the Road Runner at the edge of a cliff - meep meep!) and was followed by a rapid and radical turnaround.

No wonder Emperor Caligula thinks he can walk on water.

The Wingnut of the Year 2004 voting is still on going. lol :-)

Enjoy your day off.

From Editor and Publisher [article no longer posted] December 31, 2004 11:00 am ET

Robert Novak "Failing as a Journalist" in Plame Affair?

NEW YORK -- In its first major look at Robert Novak and his role in the Valerie Plame/CIA probe, The New York Times today reports that a growing number of media ethics specialists, lawyers and journalists are criticizing the columnist “as failing as a journalist” by not outlining for the public his dealings with the investigation...Manly and Liptak observe:

“Lawyers for other reporters in the investigation say Novak's role is a mystery. It is inconceivable, they say, that he has not received a subpoena from the independent prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald. But they add that none of his possible responses - naming his sources, objecting on First Amendment grounds or asserting his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination - seem to fit any plausible scenario in this case, given Novak's few cryptic statements. A spokeswoman for Fitzgerald declined to comment.”

LA Times [article no longer posted] "Justice Thomas Reports Wealth of Gifts"

In the last six years he has accepted free items valued at $42,200, the most on the high court.

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has accepted tens of thousands of dollars worth of gifts since joining the high court, including $1,200 worth of tires, valuable historical items and a $5,000 personal check to help pay a relative's education expenses. The gifts also included a Bible once owned by the 19th century author and abolitionist leader Frederick Douglass, which Thomas valued at $19,000, and a bust of President Lincoln valued at $15,000.

"I don't see anything wrong in this....I don't see why it is inappropriate to get gifts from friends," said John C. Yoo, now a law professor at the UC Berkeley. "This reflects a bizarre effort to over-ethicize everyday life. If one of these people were to appear before the Supreme Court, Justice Thomas would recuse himself."

When Scalia had the chance to recuse himself in the Cheney case he didn't!

Scalia rejected a demand from the Sierra Club that he withdraw from the case, arguing that his trip on Air Force II did not amount to something of value. Scalia noted that he, his son and his son-in-law had bought round-trip tickets so they could return home on a commercial flight. "In other words, none of us saved a cent by flying on the vice president's plane," Scalia said in a March 18 opinion. He subsequently voted for Cheney in the court case. By law and tradition, the Supreme Court justices are exempted from many of the rules that govern lesser federal judges. Moreover, each of the justices is free to decide how the general ethics guidelines apply to them. For example, when the Sierra Club filed its motion with the high court asserting that Scalia should step aside in the Cheney case, the court referred the matter to Scalia for him to decide.

So sayeth Fred Phelps. Didn't you know this was about to happen. (h/t Atrios)