The following timeline (below the jump) is culled together by combining several timelines.
Cooperative Research
Dkosopedia: Plamegate
David Kelly: CNN
Some info is from less comprehensive timelines and my own research. It ties together Judith Miller, David Kelly, Valerie Plame, and the case for WMD, concentrating most heavily on the June-July 2003 period.
I’ll update this is this investigation goes along.
Read MoreIf there is one thing I’ve noticed about the Bootrib community, it’s that we all want more Democrats to stand up for our beliefs and values, and we want more Democrats to come straight out and tell the truth about what a corrupt bunch of goons the Republicans have become.
If you’re looking for congressional candidates to support in 2006, candidates that fit the above criteria, you need look no further than Lois Murphy who is running in Pennsylvania’s 6th District. I just got off an hour long conference call with her and several other Philly bloggers. She had three main messages. She’s strongly and unapologetically pro-choice, she wants to focus on homeland security, health care, and education, and her opponent is a corrupt tool who is completely beholden to the criminal, Tom DeLay.
Above Average Jane has a good piece on Representative Jim Gerlach’s relationship with indicted (and soon to be indicted) members of the Republican leadership.
While that might make some fodder for Lois Murphy’s campaign, it might not have long enough legs to last until next fall. Fortunately for Murphy, Gerlach also have close ties to Tom DeLay. In fact, he is ranked (by someone who sits down and does such things) as among the congressmen closest to DeLay. He voted in favor of weakening ethics rules to keep DeLay in power, and to allow him to stay in power even if indicted. For those working people who can be fired for so much as a bad urine test or being late on the job a few times, the idea that you can keep a position even after being indicted might seem a bit much. Gerlach has received a lot of money from DeLay’s PAC. Last October, the only Pennsylvanian to receive more was Pat Toomey. Plus, Gerlach was the only congressperson from Pennsylvania to contribute to DeLay’s legal defense fund.
If Gerlach is a transparent hack, Lois Murphy has a very impressive resume:
After graduating from law school, Lois clerked for a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. She then joined the U.S. Justice Department before serving as associate legal counsel for NARAL Pro-Choice America, where she defended reproductive rights and worked to reduce the need for abortion through more effective and accessible family planning.
Lois is now on leave from her job as a member of the growing law firm of Heckscher, Teillon, Terrill & Sager, P.C. She has been an adjunct professor at Temple University’s School of Law. She has also served as president and as a board member of NARAL Pro-Choice Pennsylvania. Lois is a trustee of the Women’s Law Project and was appointed in 2003 by Governor Rendell to the Pennsylvania Commission for Women.
On top of that, she is a very personable, friendly, down-to-earth person. She’s exactly the kind of candidate that we need in Washington. With any luck, Gerlach will be swept away along with Frist, DeLay, Santorum, Rove, Libby, and the rest of the crooks running our country.
Read MoreTake the poll:
Read MoreRemember this Washington Post article from September 28, 2003?
“Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge,” the senior official said of the alleged leak.
Who the hell was the ‘senior official’ that was the source for that article?
And then there is this, from last night’s Hardball with Chris Matthews:
You believe that the fight between those who may be headed toward indictment, the vice president‘s chief of staff, Karl Rove, there is a war between them and the people who are going to survive them, Andy Card, et cetera.
FINEMAN: Yes.
Howard Fineman also said:
Can rumor and innuendo get more compelling that that?
Imagine! People within the White House are telling Howard Fineman that they are out to get Karl Rove. Unless Rove is already as good as in jail it is almost impossible to imagine anyone openly defying him. Even to bad-mouth Rove off the record would ordinarily be too risky for members of the administration.
And I go back to that senior official from 2003 that jumped at the opportunity to slam Rove and Libby. How long have they been gunning for them. To me, that person may be as significant as Deep Throat, maybe more so, when all is said and done.
Read MoreSince Philadelphia is the democratic blogging capital of the world, we have the most interesting Drinking Liberally meet-ups. For those of you that don’t know, Drinking Liberally is a national organization that convenes every Tuesday in over three dozen cities. Their purpose? Getting liberals together to have a few brewskis and to discuss politics.
Last night I had a long conversation with Duncan Black about voting reform, and talked with Chris Bowers about Act Blue, Lois Murphy, and the fact that google lists Booman Tribune number one when you type in muff shots. No kidding.
But I also had a long conversation with an activist from Brooklyn, who is trying to organize and promote a growing contingent of Democratic veterans of the Iraq War and former members of our intelligence services. He started out with the Draft Zinni movement, and has just kept going.
We talked for a long time over a couple of beers. And we had quite a lengthy conversation over the subject of abortion. I don’t know whether I was able to persuade him to my position or not, but the conversation was a microcosm of the discussion that has been going on on this site, and throughout the blogosphere.
He opined that the average swing voter does not want to talk about abortion and is totally turned off by the issue. He suggested that the best advice for a candidate, when questioned about abortion, was to change the subject to Iraq and national security. Something like: “This is not the most pressing issue right now, what is important is that we have over 100,000 troops bogged down in Iraq…”.
I countered that only 20% of Americans support overturning Roe and that any issue where we enjoy 80% support should be an advantage, not a disadvantage. I gave Clinton’s 1996 Mediscare campaign as an example where we enjoyed a similar 80% advantage, and where highlighting, even demagoguing, such an issue worked to our advantage.
My argument was basically as follows: the Supreme Court is on the verge of overturning Roe v. Wade even though only 20% of the American public supports such a move. This is only possible because the Democratic Party has failed to raise awareness of the stakes involved in Presidential elections. The most underrepresented group of Democrats (those with the lowest turnout) are single women of childbearing age. And we haven’t made it clear why they should turn out to vote, and to vote for us.
As a counterpoint, I looked at the issue of gay marriage. Opposition to gay marriage is one of the few issues where the GOP actually holds a real advantage with the public. Even though swing voters do not particularly enjoy, or want to discuss, gay marriage, the Republicans are unapologetically against it. They even went so far as to put the issue on numerous state ballots, and the issue boosted their turnout.
So, I suggested, it is better for us to raise the volume of our pro-choice stance than it is to soft-pedal it. Soft-pedalling our support for Roe does not inspire anyone, and it still makes swing voters uncomfortable. Soft-pedalling our support for choice has led us to a point where the federal protection of choice may be lost. It has been a failing strategy, and it is high time that we learned the lesson and began making it crystal clear to the populace where we stand.
He understood my argument but still believed that the issue was a loser. Wherever you stand on the issues and on strategy, it is always fun to drink liberally.
Read More
