Pulled up CSPAN on my computer and had to hit the bottle early when I found Rudy speechifying on his "big ideas", "big accomplishments"....he sure has him one "big" obsession with size.

A modern-day Napoleon, sans horse of accomplishment.

Such fun to watch him flail around in his big, fancy hat.

He's speaking of rosters?

I'd like to be respectful?

bad roosters and chickens.

The clapping, dc, and np?

What planet is this place?

Gads, he mentions robust.

kitchen tables,clap.clap.

"rostrum". One definition of which is

a: the beak, snout, or proboscis of any of various insects or arachnids b: the often spinelike anterior median prolongation of the carapace of a crustacean (as a crayfish or lobster)

the Administration had assured them it was legal and vital.

I replied:

Thank you for your well thought out and articulate response to my concerns about retroactive immunity for telecoms. I will agree to disagree, but would like to make a final point in response to your position.

As Thomas Paine said, in America, the Law is the King. Private assurances by government officials should not be allowed to take precedence over current laws. Your position reverses Thomas Paine's statement, in effect saying that the Law is to be obeyed when the people in power believe in it, but not when it is inconvenient or contrary to their wishes. (The King is the law.)

When approached by the Administration, one of the telecom companies adhered to the law, stating that they would be more than happy to comply with the Administration's requests provided that the Administration produced a warrant, pursuant to FISA. The other telecoms faced the same choice, and put the wishes people in power ahead of the law. We are both aware of the success rate of requests for warrants from the FISA court, yet it maintains the Checks and Balances our Founding Fathers created and patriots since then have died to defend.

This is truly a seminal moment in our nation's history. We are facing a Constitutional crisis. We are called to stand up and vote for whether we will remain a nation of Laws, bound by our Constitution, or whether we will create a new government, wherein people in positions of power and authority can circumvent the law without consequence.

I respectfully urge you to reconsider your position,"

http://gop.com/news/NewsRead.aspx?Guid=ce48cd21-931a-4c00-b8b6-bf6bde3795a7

Monday, January 28, 2008
RNC Statement on Clinton, Obama FISA Votes

WASHINGTON – RNC Chairman Robert M. “Mike” Duncan released the following statement today:

“Senators Obama and Clinton can talk tough on national security, but America won’t ignore their weak and inconsistent records. Today’s vote is one more in a litany of votes against funding our troops and giving law enforcement the resources they need to beat the terrorists. Barack Obama wants to sit down and negotiate with terrorists, but he is not willing to give our intelligence agencies the tools they need to prevent future attacks. And it’s ironic that Senator Clinton says she doesn’t trust the government with power, when Democrat voters – much less the American people – don’t trust her to be honest or straightforward. If Senators Obama and Clinton were serious about national security they would realize that while our ability to monitor terrorist communication expires in a matter of days, the terrorist threat against our families will not.”

- - RNC Chairman Robert M. “Mike” Duncan

The Republican National Committee cites three "news" sources in defense of their peculiar claims (such as their implicit claim that the Bush Administration had NO ABILITY to monitor terrorist communication until six months ago): an Op-Ed in the WSJ, an Op-Ed in the Washington Times, and an article in The Politico.

But of course it's not just right-wing noise outlets like the WSJ's op-ed page and the WaTimes op-ed page and The Politico that are trumpeting this folderol.

Other "news" outlets -- CNN, MSNBC, etc. -- are almost as bad.

How do the beltway reporters unlearn so much, so quickly? Not only have they unlearned that the US was actually listening to terrorists prior to the PAA, but they've also unlearned that the "additional procedures" (codified in 50 USC 1805b) can remain in force for up to a year after the PAA "sunsets" (expires). That is, any "additional procedure" approved by Mukasey last week or this week can outlive the PAA and outlive the Madministration.

Chris Shays planted a big kiss on W as he entered the chamber. I'm sure the YouTubes will be up soon.

As of now the Washington Post is still reporting FISA is set to expire on Friday. It is inconceivable that they do not have staffers sufficiently knowledgeable to be able to accurately report that it is the Protect America Act set to expire on Friday, rather than FISA itself and able to define the difference between the two and why the PAA is being so hotly debated. Given this administration's tactic of keeping citizens in a perpetual state of fear their blatant misrepresentation is more than just a little inconvenient, it is utterly irresponsible. Allowing citizens to think FISA is at imminent risk of expiring is an act of aggression and criminal in my mind.

"We have to give telecoms immunity for breaking laws because if we don't give them immunity they may not be willing to break laws in the future."

It actually should be called the Protect the Administration Act.

The White House must have tremendous leverage on the Senate for some Democrats to actually favor immunity.

The Bush Administration not only illegally spied on Democratic politicians, but citizens like you and me. If the cases against the Telecoms continue, discovery will reveal this someday. The bottom line is, this has nothing to do with protecting anybody but who broke the law.

was more pleasant to me than sitting through this speech. Then again, I like my dentist and he actually is interested in helping me.

Glad he talked me into one of those nice bite-guard/night things. Soon as I finish drinking, it's going in. I feel the headache coming on already.

Except, my jaw keeps sort of opening whenever he makes what seem to me to be not just uncharacteristic but exactly opposite of what he has actually done while in office.

He just said "the Constitution means what it says" -- I don't think I can continue.