A little over a week ago Bush had been hitting hard at Democrats even insinuating that a vote for a democrat was a vote for a terrorist. Eequating differences in opinion with being anti patriotic is, well, un-American. Besides, Bush lies, his lies have filled volumes.

The Bush administration hampered by intolerance, absolute certainty, incompetence, a lack of planning, ignorance of the ways of different countries, and filled with megalomaniacs short on healthy doses of reality. (from Bob Woodward's book State of Denial).

Lucky for him that the public is paying so much attention to the Mark Foley affair rather than listening to a man who wrote a book detailing how the neocons all knew that there was a good possibility of attack by terrorists.

While it took the spot light off of Bush and Condi's insistence that she had not been briefed on a possible spectacular attack by Al Qaeda (which we now knew she actually heard despite her protestations), the revelations about Mark Foley have put a dire spot light on the corruption of the Republican Party and the almost certain cover-up attempts by its' leadership. Even Bush thinks they covered it up, at least that is what the New York Daily News is reporting,"Moreover, Bush's personal disgust with the GOP sex scandal involving ex-Rep. Mark Foley has exacerbated his already-strained relations with congressional Republicans. While publicly embracing House Speaker Dennis Hastert, sources close to Bush say he thinks Hastert and other GOP House leaders have bungled their handling of the Foley affair and look like they've been engaged in a cover up."

One has to has the obvious question, 'no @#$% Sherlock?' When did you come to the conclusion that Republicans ain't really that value oriented? Maybe when Jack Abramoff decided to take down half the leadership, or was it when Randy "Duke" Cunningham showed us his darker side, maybe it was when Santorum, Gingrich, Abramoff and others conspired to have all the lobbyists in their camp and not all Democrats to play, maybe it was the idea that they could lie their way into a war and not have to pay any consequences, and don’t forget DeLay.

Now we have Hastert, Foley and Shimkus, plus ‘how many more?’ We are sure they are working overtime in their cover-up efforts, we know that John Shimkus R- IL-19 is.

With the release of Bob Woodward's book on the stubbornness of the Bush Administration and the Mark Foley scandal and possible cover up by Hastert, Shimkus and others, still fresh in the public eyes it is easy to see why we need a change both in local government and in the national arena.

"The question that looms for everyone, is this just a failure to provide
oversight in this situation or was there a cover up?" Danny Stover the Democrat running for the IL-19 seat said. "I truly do hope for the best because Americans have already lost too much faith in their government in the past few years. But, I fear the worst because there is plenty of evidence that suggests the worst."

A retired college professor, Stover said he finds it "regrettable" that it took
a sex scandal to energize his campaign.

"I think I had a full and robust set of issues to campaign on before this
happened," Stover said. "I am diametrically opposed to a lot of what
Congressman Shimkus sponsored. But, I have to play with the hand I've been
dealt. I'm going to insist that we talk about these other issues as well."

Stover admitted he has noticed a marked turnaround in campaign contributions,
but still called his campaign fund "laughable" when compared to Shimkus'
campaign war chest.

Stover said his campaign has generated approximately $200,000 but again pointed
out that amount is 10 percent of the campaign funds Shimkus has to work with in
his re-election bid.

Help Stover in November, Please Donate NOW! http://www.actblue.com/page/wedemocrats
Ron McBride
CEO www.USLINX.com
Exec Dir www.WeDemocrats.com
Join WeDemocrats at: http://dfalink.com/group.php?id=2043

Speaker J. Dennis Hastert said that members of his staff should be fired “if there was a cover-up” in the way they had handled complaints about Mark Foley’s conduct toward teenagers in the Congressional page program. But notice nothing was said about his role or that of other republican leaders, why not fire or censure them as well? Better yet lets prosecute the whole bunch.

The remarks by Mr. Hastert, made to reporters in his Congressional district in Aurora, Ill., were the first time he had used the term “cover-up” in talking about the case. *It can’t be ignored any longer.

Hastert, the House speaker, said that he took responsibility for his handling of the Mark Foley matter and that “the buck stops here.” Both phrases strongly imply that missteps were made. One does not take responsibility for a success, one takes credit for it. Similarly, a buck doesn’t need to stop anywhere in the wake of a triumph.

Yet at every opportunity Mr. Hastert has failed to acknowledge that he made any mistakes, claiming he had been unaware of the full situation. So if Mr. Hastert did nothing wrong, why is he using the language of someone who has not lived up to his duty? I suspect that everyone, including Mr. Hastert, knows the true reason.

Foley's one-time chief of staff testified before the investigative panel for nearly five hours Thursday. Kirk Fordham has said publicly that he raised alarms with House Speaker Dennis Hastert's top aide nearly three years ago.

Hastert spokesman Ron Bonjean said after Fordham's testimony: "The ethics committee is investigating this matter and we are confident in its ability to determine the real facts. The speaker has said that any person who is found guilty of improper conduct involving sexual contact or communication with a page should immediately resign, be fired, or be subjected to a vote of expulsion." *But that’s not what Hastert said, he said any aides found to be involved in a cover-up.

"I think Congressman Shimkus acted in an expedited manner to find out what happened," while respecting the wishes of the family, Hastert said in support of Shimkus' decision to keep the two other lawmakers out of the loop.

As part of their damage control, the Republican Organized Cover-up Systems (ROCS)* The trot out an employee of Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Oklahoma and his Attorney Stephen Jones one of his biggest contributors Jones is no stranger to high-profile cases. The prominent Oklahoma attorney counts Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh among his previous clients. The attorney also has contributed $5,000 to the campaign of Rep. Istook, who is running for Oklahoma governor.

Jordan Edmund, 21, now an aide to Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Oklahoma, was among the pages that Rep. Mark Foley allegedly emailed with sexually teasing chat. Edmund described himself on MySpace.com as “deputy campaign manager for Istook.” And described himself as a U.S. House page from September 2001 to June 2002. “He said he is straight.”

It is clearly evident that this was a well-planned event, if he had nothing to contribute to the FBI, or anything to hide, then why hire a high-powered criminal lawyer such as Jones? Isn’t it obvious they have to keep their lies straight, they can’t afford to be caught up in another one this close to the elections.

Speaking of LIES, yesterday, Thursday 10/12/06 President Bush came to the home turf of the House speaker, J. Dennis Hastert, on Thursday to give him a resounding pledge of support before a revved-up group of Republican donors, activists and leaders who were clearly glad to witness a presidential lift for the buffeted dean of their state party.

Bush, wearing a smile that lasted for minutes, gave him a hearty handshake as Mr. Hastert, beaming, patted him on the back.

Mr. Bush came here with a far larger retinue of photographers and reporters than usual for such campaign trips. It was evidence of the anticipation surrounding his visit as questions continued to swirl about what Mr. Hastert’s office knew, and when, about former Representative Mark Foley’s e-mail to male pages.
Mr. Bush seemed more than happy to oblige, after Mr. Hastert introduced the president as “our friend” and “our leader.” *And as 2,744 dead service men and women in Iraq since 2003 can stand as evidence of, OUR EXECUTIONER!

“Before I liberate the speaker so he doesn’t have to stand up here for that long, Speaker, I want to say this to you,” Mr. Bush said. “I am proud to be standing with the current speaker of the House who is going to be the future speaker of the House.” *Do you think Bush knows something we voters don’t know, does he have a Florida or Ohio plan in place somewhere that will ensure a Republican victory with this poor excuse for a President in office anything can happen, we have already lost our liberties, we have already been spied on, we have already been dragged into a war that should not have been. We are so far behind the eight ball on minimum wage that is taken in stride by republicans that the rich get richer and to hell with the poor.

Mr. Bush’s appearance completed what has appeared to be a gradual but now unmistakable White House embrace of Mr. Hastert since news first surfaced that Mr. Foley had sent risqué e-mail to Congressional pages. The visit reflected in part a calculation by the White House and party leaders that providing a protective phalanx for the speaker would help cool some of the heat from the controversy and press ahead on the party’s election-year message on terrorism and taxes. *If Bush wants to immerse himself into the Foley Scandal so be it, Congress should appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the whole affair from Bush down to the Janitors in the House, let us find out once and for all who has done what, without limitation to just a narrow group such as pages, as they have done to divert attention from their subsequent “alleged” cover-ups.

Mr. Bush seemed to provide an object lesson to his party on that strategy here, weaving praise for Mr. Hastert into his standard stump speech that takes Democrats to task as trying to block his terrorism initiatives and threatening to end his tax cuts. *We need to end the cuts just to pay for the War that he created out of thin air with lies and fake evidence of WMD.

Mr. Bush broke off and said, “By the way, the speaker led the charge in making sure the House passed the Patriot Act the first time and then reauthorized it.” *As if taking away Americans Freedoms is something to brag about, reminds the older readers of the words and actions of Hitler before WWII as he wove his net around Germany. Where Hitler used the Youth of Germany as his spy network, Bush uses high technology to achieve the same thing.

Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., scheduled for questioning today before the House ethics committee, says he kept the two other House members overseeing the pages in the dark as he confronted Foley last fall. Shimkus, chairman of the House Page Board, said he was following the wishes of the boy's parents by not telling the other members. *So if someone is raped, and the police and prosecutors know who did it, but failed to follow-up on it because the rape victims parents wishes were to not tell anyone, do you think they would be believed? It’s a lot of Bull, Shimkus is continuing the cycle of Cover-ups and will continue till we put him out to pasture.

Ron McBride
CEO www.USLINX.com
Exec Dir www.WeDemocrats.com
Help Stover in November, Please Donate NOW! http://www.actblue.com/page/wedemocrats
Join WeDemocrats at: http://dfalink.com/group.php?id=2043

*Author’s Opinion

If current trends continue, this year is shaping up to be one of the worst for job growth since 2003 and will mark the worst post-recession recovery since World War II, according to a new analysis.
New jobs have been created at an annualized rate of 1.2 percent so far in 2006. That compares with a 1.5 percent growth rate in 2005 and 1.6 percent in 2004, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington, D.C., think tank.

By this point in previous post-war recoveries, employment had increased by about 12 percent compared with less than 4 percent growth in the current recovery, the study noted. The gap represents about 11 million jobs.

During the first two years of the current recovery (which began in November 2001), the economy actually lost jobs, the study added.
Yet Rep. John Shimkus R-IL said, “The economy is our most important challenge on the domestic front. And I am fully committed to fighting for jobs.” But he failed to understand that he and a Republican administration has dropped the ball, as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities pointed out above.

On another issue, Shimkus said “while our soldiers stationed in Iraq and elsewhere look forward to packages from home, families can incur great expenses. The Supply Our Soldiers Act (HR 2874) would allow families and charities to send packages to troops in combat zones, up to $150 per quarter.” Well I have a son in Iraq, how come I haven’t heard anything about this? Shimkus failed us again on the benefits for men serving in Iraq.

Shimkus promised us that he wouldn’t run again in IL-19, he LIED, here he is spouting his lies and avoiding any chance of debating these and other issues with Danny Stover, his Democratic opponent.
In the Foley Scandal, Shimkus is up to his ears in the cover up. Once again he failed us.

What else can one say, how about “John Shimkus you are a failure”.

Ron McBride
CEO www.USLINX.com
Exec Dir www.WeDemocrats.com
Help Stover in November, Please Donate NOW!http://www.actblue.com/page/wedemocrats
Join WeDemocrats at: http://dfalink.com/group.php?id=2043

What Do I Believe, Am I a Progressive?

I consider myself a Progressive, and yet in some things I feel I am a conservative, does that make a “middle of the road” individual as many politicians like to claim they are?

I don’t know, but progressive conservatism, or conservative progressive might be a better term. We must reach-out to those in the Democratic Party who are not considering themselves as progressives, so how do we go about it…. Any one have suggestions.

A cover piece in the New York Times Magazine several years ago, calling for a new “progressive conservatism.” The editorial, by columnist David Brooks, opined that conservatives had lost the battle for small government, and lamented that “[n]ow it is conservatives who often embrace special tax breaks, special subsidies, special regulatory sinecures.” Brooks proposed a “progressive conservatism” which would use government, but in limited and “energetic” ways.

The term “progressive” is an ill defined the term: Is it something to which both liberals and conservatives both can subscribe? And if so, what can this group of people with this common interest in progressivism do to advance it?

In my opinion, progressives believe government must serve the public interest rather than private interests and fight the influence of big business and big money. Similarly, a progressive believes in the rights and worth of the individual, including (especially) the underrepresented, and constantly strives to improve the lives of people who have traditionally been treated less well by government, the market and fate.

Below are comments emailed about this subject:

A progressive believes in the interest of the people over the interests of the powerful; a progressive takes stands on this principle. -- Jack Holzhueter

A progressive is someone unafraid to take on powerful interests in order to protect things more valuable than wealth or power. -- Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin

Progressives perceive the economic, political, and social inequalities of life and seek to remedy those inequalities through careful and thorough research and the development of thoughtful and well-planned public policy. -- Jon Kasparek

"Progressive" incorporates the ideas and purposes of the writers of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, especially the principle that money (big corporations) must be prevented from influencing our governing process. True democracy means the rights of the little person must be supported, preserved, celebrated. -- Arlene Kanno

To me, progressives do not subscribe to party lines or traditional labels, answering the question of whether both liberals and conservatives can be progressives. To wit:

To me, the progressive tradition encompasses a belief in civility, bipartisanship, and respect for the public dollar, as well as the highest ethical standards in government and a real fight for the rights of all families. Folks here in Wisconsin identify with the tradition of Bob LaFollette, Gaylord Nelson, Frank Zeidler, and Bill Proxmire, who looked beyond traditional allegiances to solve problems, treated the people’s money with respect, and worked to root out corruption. -- Senator Russ Feingold

A progressive is someone who approaches issues with a fresh, open mind and is not bound by political allegiance or past policy or approaches. -- Bob Beck

A progressive is a liberal who is not a spendthrift and a conservative who is not callous to the needs of people that only government can provide. -- Ken Artis

In a capitalist society like ours, there inevitably comes times when too few people have too much money and too much power, and the rest have too little of either. It is not only the right, but the obligation of our free government to readjust the balance. A true progressive fights for this rebalance. -- Senator Tom Harkin

Progressivism, like many important concepts, is many things to many people. Nevertheless, it has its own history, its own culture, and its own politics – all wrapped into a potent package that is making its comeback in the political discourse of this great country.

Those called ‘progressives’ of the late 19th and early 20th century, including such figures as presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, were renowned for checking the rise of corporate power and abuses and expanding democratic rights domestically. Later, leaders who followed the progressive line on foreign policy created an American nation that was an international leader in an economic, military, and moral sense.

“At its core,” John Halpin, senior advisor on the staff of the Center for American Progress writes, “progressivism is a non-ideological, pragmatic system of thought grounded in solving problems and maintaining strong values within society.” Progressivism is practical and driven by the values that define America morality and have made our country stronger and better. It’s a dynamic concept giving the leadership of an up-and-coming generation of politicos – you – the tools to make this nation’s future brighter for all.
Sound enticing? It should be: The future of America’s progressive political landscape is in your hands.

The first key to understanding progressivism is that it’s not the same as liberalism, as many might assume. “Progressivism is an orientation towards politics,” Halpin said in an interview with Campus Progress. “It’s not a long-standing ideology like liberalism, but an historically-grounded concept … that accepts the world as dynamic.” Progressivism is not an ideology at all, but an attitude towards the world of politics that is far less black-and-white than conservatism or liberalism, breaking free from the false and divisive dichotomy of liberal vs. conservative that has dominated American politics for too long.

Said simply (perhaps oversimplifying), American liberalism is an ideology grounded in traditionally liberal American values: individual freedom, democratic government, freedom of thought and belief, and equal opportunity. Government intervention is generally seen as the solution to society’s problem.

Progressivism, on the other hand, is far more flexible than any one ideology. Traditionally, conservatives see the world, especially human nature, as predictable and static. Liberals are often burdened with endless optimism – a belief that all problems can be solved through implementing utopian visions (especially through government intervention).

Progressives aren’t simply liberals; progressives see the world for what it is, accept it as ever changing and dynamic, and choose the best course of action in line with decidedly American values.

Free of ideological structures that tie leaders to strict policy courses, progressivism is averse to simple answers and flourishes within the details of the problems facing our society. That’s why asking others – and ourselves – what ‘progressive’ means to them (and to us) is a crucial part of the never-ending development and growth of the progressive movement, and a key part of progressives’ participation in American democracy.

Certainly, government involvement is one solution among many. Progressives understand that government can be used as a force for good. But progressives don’t simply ask “How can government help this situation,” but with the tools we have, both public and private, how can we solve this problem?

Conservatives often accuse progressives of rejecting a values- or morality-driven perspective on society and government. Nothing could be further from the truth: Progressives encourage personal and moral responsibility, and promote respect for ethical values.
Compare that with the false and empty chants of compassionate conservatives, who gladly engage in reckless and unjustified war; deny gays, lesbians and transgendered Americans their rights as citizens; condemn working families to a cycle of poverty; and err on the side of big business over public health and nature’s untouched beauty. Protect alleged pedophiles in Congress, and then cover-up those crimes as John Shimkus evidently did. These are the same ‘principled’ conservatives who whole-heartedly defend the most crooked legislator in decades, Tom DeLay.

In the end, each of us must define what progressive means to us. And to answer my own question Am I a Progressive, you bet I am. That is why I support Danny Stover in IL-19 for Congress over John Shimkus the conservative Republican ‘Yes” man of President Bush.

Ron McBride
CEO www.USLINX.com
Exec Dir www.WeDemocrats.com
Help Stover in November, Please Donate NOW!http://www.actblue.com/page/wedemocrats
Join WeDemocrats at: http://dfalink.com/group.php?id=2043

Bush is no JFK
House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) told The Washington Post that he had talked with the Speaker about e-mails Foley exchanged with a page who was 16 years old at the time.
Boehner later called The Post to say he could not recall having that conversation and the newspaper changed its article on its website. But Boehner told a Cincinnati radio station three days later that he had talked to the Speaker about the e-mails and that Hastert told him “it had been taken care of.”
Well, which is it?
The inaction and possible cover-up leads one to believe that the Republican leadership was concerned with suppressing a scandalous story about one of their own instead of what should have been their top priority: protecting vulnerable young people who walk the halls of Congress with very powerful men.
Child Lures Prevention based in Vermont explains that sexual predators use many “lures” to prey upon children. One of the most successful lures is the “authority figure lure” when a teacher, coach, priest or parent uses their authority to lull victims into believing that sexual conversations and sexual contact between adults and kids is acceptable.
There are few authority figures as powerful in Washington as a Congressman, and statistics show that most predators have many, many victims. So one can only guess that ex-Rep. Foley, as a powerful member of the Republican leadership in Congress, has other victims who have not yet come forward.
It is the intoxication of power and the addiction that congressional leaders have for it that can enable such behavior and allow it to go undetected like it did for Foley since before 2000.
With the culture of power that exists on Capitol Hill, there indeed may be other Members of Congress or even U.S. Senators who abuse their power and pursue young pages for sexual gratification while their leaders look the other way.
Edmund Burke said, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”
There will undoubtedly be many excuses made by Republicans about the causes of this controversy.
The Speaker dismissed claims made by a former aide to Foley and Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-N.Y.) that Hastert’s staff knew about Foley’s inappropriate relationships with former pages as early as 2003.
Hastert’s fellow Republicans continue to suggest that the Speaker and his staff knew of Foley’s emails long before news broke last week, but Hastert defended his own knowledge of the emails.
In doing so, Hastert continues to distinguish between an email Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-La.), whose office sponsored the page, told Hastert’s staff about and more explicit Instant Messenger messages that were reported later.
"I, first of all, learned about this last Friday," Hastert said. "That’s the first time I learned of the explicit language."
Members of Hastert’s own leadership team have said they had conversations with the Speaker about the emails last spring.
So is the Speaker lying to everyone, you bet he is.
Hastert has to worry about keeping his job and retaining the House. It is widely expected that Hastert would not stay in Congress should House Republicans lose their majority.
Hastert and former Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) got along beautifully, partly because DeLay helped engineer Hastert’s ascension to Speaker.
Dick Morris writing in The Hill, the newspaper for and about the U.S. Congress, said “In one deadly moment, North Korea has succeeded in doing what no amount of backtracking by Speaker Dennis Hastert or his beleaguered Republicans could do: It has changed the subject of the national debate. With nuclear weapons in the hands of the most deranged regime in the world, e-mails to pages will have to fade from the forefront of the public’s attention.”
There is nothing like a national security crisis to revitalize Republican fortunes in up coming elections, the only thing Bush can do is push this issue hard, and hope that he can deflect attention from the Foley Scandal. He could take a hard line like JFK did in 1962 when Cuba obtained missiles capable of reaching American shores, but then Bush is no JFK.