Lieberman isn't in our camp. He left in a huff after Connecticut Dems decided to run someone else for "his" Senate seat. He caucused with the Dems for the past couple of years to give them a bare majority in exchange for the chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee. The Dems need to fill that role with someone more reliable.

Sure, he may actually carry out his threat of going all the way over to the Repubs. [shrug] Maybe better so, really. Repubs will crow about it for a few days and pretend that Dems "kicked him out for daring to disagree with them" or some such garbage. Then they'll ignore him for the next four years. Pundits will stop calling him up, except when they can't get any of the either reliable Israel-firsters to answer the phone.

Lieberman's political worth dropped like a rock on November 4th. Reid's just trying to handle this politely, but Lieberman is evidently still nursing the wounds to his sense of entitlement.

(Question: A codename is not necessarily like a password, but shouldn’t it be kept secret?)

Answer: From the article you link to: "The monikers are a throwback to a time when electronic communications were not encrypted, and they no longer serve a security function."

To whatever extent Obama issues Executive Orders that merely reverse Bush (and maybe even pre-Bush) Executive Orders, I'd be perfectly fine with that. It'd feel like an undo. Then Congress can, if it so chooses, decide what to do about the issue.

If non-citizens can vote, access healthcare, have the same legal rights as everyone else, what value is there in being a US citizen? Would anyone like to respond to that?

Non-citizens can't vote in the US.

mav·er·ick (mvr-k, mvrk)

n.

1. An unbranded range animal, especially a calf that has become separated from its mother, traditionally considered the property of the first person who brands it.

Funny thing about English -- words often have multiple meanings.

I'm also guessing that the subjects of these code names are allowed to veto them.

By your reasoning, I can also commit murder in the United States.

I can't do it legally, and I might not get away with it, but I can certainly kill someone.

Gosh, whatever is this country coming to? "Dogs and cats, living together -- mass hysteria!"

These guys need to accept that most of the electorate has never heard of Norman Rockwell.

Never met the guy, but I suspect if he was still alive, he'd have voted for Obama.

His name has become synonymous with nostalgia for a "simpler time" in America, but he wasn't all rose-colored glasses. Follow the link at my name for his "The problem we all live with". There's also his powerful and wonderfully inclusive "Do Unto Others". And maybe I'm biased, but I can't see the artist who was inspired to illustrate FDR's "Four Freedoms" speech voting for either Bush or McCain.

... I didn't think he was funny even when I was far more libertarian-leaning than I am these days. He always reminded me of the sort of college guy who attended the same school his father did and was never quite sober, even at breakfast.

Matter of taste, I guess.

Why wasn't Ayres asked about the murders or killings as a result of the armed robberies and bombings?

Because he wasn't involved in any.

The only deaths that resulted from Weathermen activities were three of their own who died when the bomb they were constructing went off.

They made a point of targeting property and carefully warning people away from their targets.

And if all you battlefield detectives think you can do it better, then you go out there and fight.

Did you not read the article nor most of the posts? Or are you intentionally changing the subject?

Most people understand that it's simply not possible to completely and always prevent friendly fire incidents. What's unacceptable is pretending that a friendly fire incident wasn't one. Maybe this really and truly wasn't one, but the self-exoneration isn't convincing ... evidently not even to the soldiers who were there.

That puzzles me, too. I am not a lawyer, but I think the initiative opponents are arguing that that it shouldn't become part of the state constitution. The court has essentially said, okay, let's for the time being act like it is part of the constitution, but we have to take a closer look to see if really should be there.

Constitutional law is essentially meta-law. In this case it there may be self-referential meta-law issues involved. Hence the suggestion that this initiative may cross the fuzzy line between amending the constitution into revising it, the latter reasonably being a more difficult thing to do.

(Simpler example: making it even easier to pass amendments would -- I presume -- would have to be done in a revision rather than an amendment.)

I have no idea how the judges will rule, but the revision argument sounds reasonable, given that that the initiative is trying to define who the constitution does and does not apply to.

Do we go ahead and take the gamble and bail-out the Big 3 (since were already in the hole to the banks Big Time)? Not without specific guarantees that GM brings back the equivalent of the Red Cars to SoCal.

That would be bittersweet irony.

I can't wait to hear the whining from the right.

No doubt they will continue to ignore the fact that 6 out of 7 of the current justices were appointed by Republicans, just like they ignored it after the decision last May.