Why Didn't Senators Running For President Vote On Mukasey?

Comments (88)

merryll wrote on November 9, 2007 2:22 PM:

Who is this 'leadership' referred to so many times in the article. Names, please.

Betty Hager wrote on November 9, 2007 2:26 PM:

John Mcain and Lindsey Graham promised that Mukasey would declare that he is opposed to torture AFTER being confirmed...They should now INSIST that Mukasey make this declaration.

Sully18 wrote on November 9, 2007 2:34 PM:

Democracy is not dead; it merely smells funny.Real funny.

TheraP wrote on November 9, 2007 2:35 PM:

So, with all this warrantless surveillance, don't you wonder who they've bought and paid for?

Wren wrote on November 9, 2007 2:35 PM:

Maybe the "leadership" decided to hold the vote at midnight because they were so ashamed of themselves. They ought to be.

Arlean Guerrero wrote on November 9, 2007 2:37 PM:

We will be listening to hear Michael Mukasey say that water-boarding is torture; that would be a surprise because I believe he is there to protect those who authorized torture. I certainly would LOVE to be surprised in this case.

Anyone who needs to know the "circumstances" to decide if water-boarding is torture does not inspire me to confidence.

Kucinich for prez wrote on November 9, 2007 2:38 PM:

My apologies for going off topic, but TPM's surgical avoidance of the 'K' word makes it impossible to comment elsewhere. Don't look on the calendar, but Kucinich is appearing in Boston and Ashville on Nov 9 & 11 with Ani Defranco. Don't know why TPM prefers more conservative candidates.

Duckman GR wrote on November 9, 2007 2:42 PM:

I'd say it's because the "leadership" is anything but leadership.

Sackless cowards, timid fools, prevent defense specialists, take your pick. The DC chattering classes might say something mean about them and paint them as anti-Bush, and that would be bad, seeing how popular and all Bush is.

They're playing Old maid while the GOP and some Progressive Dems are playing for real.

Anonymous wrote on November 9, 2007 2:46 PM:

Something seems awfully fishy about this.... I suspect we will see a similar maneuver (sp) on the FISA vote as well.

ihatebeets wrote on November 9, 2007 2:53 PM:

Could it possible that the vote was held very late precisely because the 4 candidates would never make it back? Was Harry Reid actually trying to give them some sort of cover?

melior wrote on November 9, 2007 2:53 PM:

Whatever the reason, it surely had nothing to do with money.

Mary wrote on November 9, 2007 2:55 PM:

merryll - it does seem kind of like an oxymoron, doesn't it? Democratic leadership.

So none of the four Senate candidates for President individually, and not even a the unanimous combined force of all four, musters up enogh leadership in the party to toe the line on this one?

But somehow, they are going to lead the country.

Yeah.

Right.

SocraticGadfly wrote on November 9, 2007 2:55 PM:

Harry Reid smells like a mackerel rotting in the moonlight on this one.

loki wrote on November 9, 2007 2:56 PM:

I think it is pretty clear there is something to what reader RM said on the home page. What's the alternative? Who's the alternative?

Schumer and Reid and the others--and I would expect even with tacit approval from the candidates--decided this is the best we can get. Why let this go on into the primary season?

I still wish they all had showed up and cast a vote...but I think the "leadership" new this was not going to get any better with a massive fight.

And maybe there is also something to the stories about behind-closed-door comments about his true feelings on torture. Who knows. It's done.

phil james wrote on November 9, 2007 3:00 PM:

The gutless Dems had to get this over with as "under the radar" as they could. They gave the candidates cover by holding the quick vote as soon as the 4 were safely out of town. The 4 either knew what was going down or didn't. Either way this was a failure of Dem leadership, pure and simple.

gregor wrote on November 9, 2007 3:01 PM:

One of the charges often leveled against the democrats is that they are unprincipled, and they do not have any core values.

Sadly, they do not ever fail to take care of any opportunities to prove the critics wrong.

What a bunch of cowards.

AngryAmerican wrote on November 9, 2007 3:04 PM:

I think Kucinich for prez has a very valid point about the avoidance of the mention of Kucinich. It's not just TPM, but elsewhere in the "left" blogs such as firedoglake. I tried to engage people at firedoglake about Cynthia Mckinney running for president as a Green in '08, and was treated as if I were a republican for even mentioning it. This goes to the point that I have observed a very suspicious trend in the blogging left that they are now what they hate. In other words, two years ago all of these same people (posters at various sites) were mad that republicans couldn't put their country above their party, and now that Dems are faced with the realization that most Dem reps and senators have sold them out, they can't see the reality that they need to find and vote for people who actually represent their views. It hypocritacl, and it's why I stopped registering as a Dem many years ago.

Kucinich is very qualified to be president, he already has a plan that he would be very happy to explain to you, is the only candidate to actually do his job by trying to hold anyone in this adminstration accountable through impeachment, and is squarely representative of the majority of American's views and desires as to the direction this country should go.

The last 3 elections (at least) have been rigged by the repugs. This time around it's being rigged with help from the Dems. How long before people wake up and realize there are more than two Party's? How long before people stop voting for x, because if they don't, y might win?

To those that think Kucinch doesn't have a chance: he doesn't have a chance if you don't vote for him.

John H. Farr wrote on November 9, 2007 3:07 PM:

I honestly wonder how much more of this it will take to stop progressive blogs from breathlessly reporting on the happy prospects for more Democrats in Congress. Dear God in heaven, why elect more Dems???

Talk about your battered wife syndrome, boy howdy.

AngryAmerican wrote on November 9, 2007 3:09 PM:

"loki wrote on November 9, 2007 2:56 PM:
I think it is pretty clear there is something to what reader RM said on the home page. What's the alternative? Who's the alternative?

Schumer and Reid and the others--and I would expect even with tacit approval from the candidates--decided this is the best we can get. Why let this go on into the primary season?

I still wish they all had showed up and cast a vote...but I think the "leadership" new this was not going to get any better with a massive fight.

And maybe there is also something to the stories about behind-closed-door comments about his true feelings on torture. Who knows. It's done."

Precisely the kind of thinking that perpetuates the broken and corrupt two party system. The very least the Dems could have done is refuse to confirm him, and then refuse to take a vacation for the rest of Bush's term (which could be brought down to a mere few weeks if they would impeach bush and cheney). The reason congress has such a low approval rating is directly tied to this kind of cowardly action. Most of us want to see this adminstration held to account for their actions and we expect our congress, no matter who is in charge, to actually stand up against an Executive branch willing to break the law.

Johan wrote on November 9, 2007 3:12 PM:

Leadership is exactly what is and has been the problem with the Democrats for decades. The moment " US, THE VOTERS", helped them take over the 'House', they turned into Machiavellian creatures.
They adapted the arrogance of their counterparts and changed the color of their skins. Their decisions were only going to be based on their short term ideas for a long term gain. The same mistaken path the Republicans took.
And as the Republicans they will fail and fall into a trap, 4 years from now, that will be impossible to overcome for decades.
They will find out that they will be blamed for the disasters of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc. Maybe rightly so, as only a very few dared to stand up and most of them were cowardly hiding behind their "leadership".

AngryAmerican wrote on November 9, 2007 3:14 PM:

"John H. Farr wrote on November 9, 2007 3:07 PM:
I honestly wonder how much more of this it will take to stop progressive blogs from breathlessly reporting on the happy prospects for more Democrats in Congress. Dear God in heaven, why elect more Dems???

Talk about your battered wife syndrome, boy howdy."

You are dead on. It's time for American's to actually do research into potential candidates of all Party's and pick the one that represents their values. There are far more than just Dems and repugs out there. We could have far more choices and far less gridlock if we were more diverse. Besides, at this point the Dems have clearly shown they are far to concerned with how their actions look over what good their actions actually do our country. At this point, with a few exceptions such as Kucinich, what difference is there between the R's and D's?

DaveW wrote on November 9, 2007 3:16 PM:

This sure smells like a setup to me. The candidates didn't want pressure to go beyond a No vote and on to a filibuster or other leadership-type activities. I tend to believe Dodd's excuse, the others not so much.

It can't surprise anyone to watch the congressional Dems buckle yet again, or the prez candidates let it slide. What does seem puzzling is that leading a filibuster attempt would have been a credible Hail Mary pass for Dodd and Edwards, getting them free publicity and being the straight-talking hero types that the public is longing for. The beltway-consultant private party is so out of touch with reality that it has begun to poison the whole country.

Personally, obvious missed opportunities like this one keep me off the CW that says Dems will run away with the upcoming election. We may instead see the largest third-party vote, or the smallest turnout, in history. Neither side offers any real hope.

Sparkatus wrote on November 9, 2007 3:20 PM:

Kucinich for Prez and AngryAmerican make the point that Kucinich isn't covered that often and otherwise given short shrift by the left.

Kucinich almost always shows up as "my preferred candidate" in the various "Who's your candidate?" match-the-positions/salience-quizzes all around the web. Yet I never consider him my candidate. Why? He's always seemed kooky. I know that's the MSM slant on him (and no I could give a crap about UFOs actually, though hanging with Shirley is another matter) it's other things like mock hugs of the audience.

That said, I saw him in the Tucker clip linked on Atrios. Damn he was good and totally unflappable. That's the other thing you notice about him. When he's talking policy he's goooooood.

I'm giving him a second chance. Kooky is just another word for interesting. And we've tried frat boy.

AngryAmerican wrote on November 9, 2007 3:21 PM:

Johan,
Well said. the blame will be on the Dems, and really isn't it already? How can we be almost a full year out from an election that clearly told the Dems what we wanted them to do, and still not have any of those things taken care of? I'll tell you, I place the blame largely on Pelose and Reid. Mostly Pelosi. Her outragous, cowardly, unconstitutional claim that impeachment is off the table is going to go down in history right next to "mission accomplished" when it comes to political blunders.

Pelosi and the Dems could already be national heroes with decades of majority power locked up if they had just impeached bush and cheney as soon as they took power. Now they look feeble and foolish, and worse, are making fools of those who voted for them. And as chimpy once said, fool me once...

selise wrote on November 9, 2007 3:22 PM:

greg - i fear somebody(ies) is not being entirely truthful with you - perhaps to provide cover for those presidential candidates who missed the vote.

first, when i called senator clinton's office this morning, i was told that her official statement was that she missed the vote because she had a scheduling conflict.

second, and more importantly, the senators were told first thing thursday morning that majority leader reid hoped that the mukasey nomination would be "disposed" of yesterday. look at the time stamps - this was before 10am.

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/?q=node/77531&id=8137288

Mr. REID. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will be in a period for the transaction of morning business for 1 hour, with the first half controlled by the majority and the second half controlled by the Republicans. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the veto message on H.R. 1495, the Water Resources Development Act. There is 30 minutes of debate on the veto message. Senators Boxer and Inhofe will control 7 1/2 minutes each, and the other 15 minutes in support of the veto is under the control of the Republican leader or his designee.

For planning purposes, Members can expect a rollcall vote on the veto override about 11:40 this morning. As I have indicated, we will vote on the President's veto override. The House of Representatives voted yesterday 361 to 54 on the veto override.

This is one of the bipartisan measures we have done. We have had Senators Boxer and Inhofe working together on legislation, which any day should be a day of celebration, and they have worked so hard on this legislation. I am confident Members on both sides of the aisle will support the two managers.

Later this afternoon, we will receive the Defense appropriations conference report from the House which will include a continuing resolution to keep Government agencies funded until the middle of next month. We hope to reach agreement so we can dispose of that matter quickly and send it to the President today. It is essential we do this quickly so we can send our men and women in uniform, who have sacrificed so much in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world, the support they deserve. It is about $470 billion.

Finally, I have had some discussion with the distinguished Republican leader to try to work out an agreement to dispose of the Mukasey nomination. I thought I had that all worked out. Last night, a little wrinkle appeared, but I hope we can reach agreement on that today as well.

lambert strether wrote on November 9, 2007 3:26 PM:

This makes passing the FISA “reform” abomination at midnight look even less like some sort of procedural trainwreck, and even more like a modus operandi, doesn’t it?

Fool me once...

steve duncan wrote on November 9, 2007 3:26 PM:

"Meanwhile, it still remains unclear exactly why the leadership suddenly declared at 6:30 P.M that there would be a vote -- and that it would have to happen by midnight at the latest."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Probably has something to do with pumpkins and chariots.

bougallou wrote on November 9, 2007 3:29 PM:

Sudden, unexplained urgency. So the leaders weren't leading. They had to be following somebody. What is about to happen that required that Mukasey be sworn in?

audit the polls wrote on November 9, 2007 3:31 PM:

Are the 'leadership' really democrats?

selise wrote on November 9, 2007 3:33 PM:

correction and addition to my comment at 3:22 PM:

1) the last paragraph (and the most important one) should be included in the blockquotes

2) h/t to pow wow and hugh (commenters at firedoglake) for drawing my attention to reid's statment

thanks.

Anonymous wrote on November 9, 2007 3:34 PM:

I like the way you think, audit the polls.

Southernwayfarer wrote on November 9, 2007 3:40 PM:

This is pure speculation but could it be that the "Senate Leadership" was acting for the benefit of one particular Senate presidential candidate? If one candidate with particularly good ties to the "leadership" preferred not to cast a vote rather than having to cast vote one way or the other, then by moving quickly this particular Senator/presidential candidate just looks like the others ... everyone didn't vote. Just wondering...

snark alert wrote on November 9, 2007 3:43 PM:

bougallou writes:

"Sudden, unexplained urgency."

See, if they had only watched the evening news and taken that new medication! The urgency would have disappeared!

Richard H. Davis wrote on November 9, 2007 3:44 PM:

We really need to find a primary opponent who is a genuine progressive to run against Harry Reid the next time he runs (2010).

willyjsimmons wrote on November 9, 2007 3:44 PM:

'This is pure speculation'

Certainly the understatement of the day?

What's UP? wrote on November 9, 2007 3:44 PM:

If the guy had to be confirmed and sworn in by today.... then what do they have up their sleeve over the weekend?

Kathy wrote on November 9, 2007 3:44 PM:

The American People WAN'T a Fight. Our Representatives & alleged leaders should FIGHT *every*inch*of*the*way* on these awful bills & people. Even if they loose.

brendancalling wrote on November 9, 2007 3:56 PM:

"I honestly wonder how much more of this it will take to stop progressive blogs from breathlessly reporting on the happy prospects for more Democrats in Congress."

Umm, other than kos, most progressive blogs are infuriated by the current leadership. You do not see much cheerleading for incumbents at FDL or even Booman Tribune anymore. And even kos has posted some highly critical front page diaries about the Democrats.

Anonymous wrote on November 9, 2007 3:56 PM:

Conspiracy theories abound. It makes absolutely ZERO sense that all 5 campaigns (including McCain) sought political cover for this vote. Dodd, of all of the candidates, had the most to gain by being there for the vote and I seriously doubt that he would miss it for the benefit of Clinton, Biden or Obama.

This is Reid folks. Reid.

anna belle wrote on November 9, 2007 3:59 PM:

"Meanwhile, it still remains unclear exactly why the leadership suddenly declared at 6:30 P.M that there would be a vote -- and that it would have to happen by midnight at the latest."

Easy. Leadership are DINOs. As such, they pulled a Republican maneuver. End of story.

Asher Miller wrote on November 9, 2007 4:01 PM:

This is just the Dem leadership in the Senate providing cover for the candidates... gives them an excuse for why they couldn't be there to vote on record.

TheraP wrote on November 9, 2007 4:01 PM:

Smells like a cave in to bushco. And yes, that would mean Reid was complicit. But the guy is not acting alone. And it just does not make sense how quickly this happened, and that candidates did not make it back.

Let's look farther afield and consider what else was going on. What if bushco was taking so many hits this week, due to the torture hearings and the att surveillance hearings. And there was that over-ride.

So, would it not be less of a stretch to consider that bush was looking for a win, somehow, somewhere. And, bingo! Mukasey on a fast track!

borussky wrote on November 9, 2007 4:05 PM:

Maybe the Dems arent't stupid cowardly or incompetent. Maybe they are on the other team.

Maybe the teams are really rich hack Repubs and rich hack Dems versus middle and working class and poor chumps.

Maybe most of what we see is carefully scripted TV Wrasslin.

Maybe the hacks in both parties work together to keep reformers of either party out of power.

Not what they teach in 9th grade Civics or academic Political Science but it does explain the available evidence and allow us to make verifiable predictions which then become true,,,

Richard L. Adlof wrote on November 9, 2007 4:07 PM:

Muasey was sworn in about forty minutes ago.

Reid blasted the candidates yesterday with a memo that he expected them in WDC to do the Senate's business M-Th.

Obama's campaign put out a press release saying his vote was useless to effect a change so he chose to avoid a chance to display leadership by staying in Iowa.

Everyone else is playing it mum . . .

WTF . . .Canada back to looking better every day.

greg wrote on November 9, 2007 4:11 PM:

I tend to come down on the reasonable, take half-a-loaf side of things, but a lot of the actions of the Democrats lately have even made me sick. And this is the sickest so far. "Better let 'em have the torture guy. The next guy might be worse." How could he be worse? I say do without an Attorney General for a year if we have to. We've managed the last three years without one.

totallynext wrote on November 9, 2007 4:17 PM:

Something is so up with HArry Reid he is not even hiding behind his decisions any more.

TPM - lets take a look at Harry Reid, land deal, ethic dropped? and why he is now allowing the Republicans in the Senate to set the agenda. I think there needs to be a leadership revolt.

If he is not going to be a strong front and actually set the agenda then some one needs to step up. I think that Dodd does not have a snow ball chance in hell to win the nomination. He and Kerry need to have a coup and take over the leadership roles.

cynical jim wrote on November 9, 2007 4:21 PM:

Maybe the cowardly 4 should have come back to the Senate (that is their job) to make sure their votes were counted.

I guess they really didn't want to have their vote for Mukasey on record.

Cowards.

The deal was done for the vote early in the morning. Go see firedoglake for better info on this.

They had time to get back.

greg wrote on November 9, 2007 4:25 PM:

On the Kucinich discussion:

I personally find it embarrassing that the anti-war right is far more behind its candidate (Paul) than the anti-war left is behind Kucinich. I remember seeing Dennis on C-Span with I think two other Dems at a poorly attended press conference announcing they would oppose the Iraq war resolution, and in less than a month more than half of House Democrats voted with them. That's leadership. He's had a well-considered and realistic plan -- as realistic as anything can be with respect to Iraq -- to get our troops out since 2003. But no -- "Better not take any chances. Better support one of the candidates who WON'T promise to get us out Iraq, not even in FOUR YEARS."

Yes, he can be a little quirky. Guess what? So was Gandhi. He lived on orange juice and raisins and dressed in a loin cloth!!!! In front of the KING!!!!

Seth H. wrote on November 9, 2007 4:26 PM:

It is very clear to me, and I don't mean to offend, that there are a few (or rather, more than a few) of you who have a very superficial understanding of how politics work.

That aside, I'm not really ready to blame Reid for this one. Otherwise said, I don't know what a filibuster would've accomplished, or, for that matter, if anything at all would've been different if the vote had been help today at 5pm, giving everyone almost 24 hrs.' warning.

Of course Mukasey was going to be confirmed. It's not some villainy on the part of Democrats giving in to the Bush administration. Please shove any anger toward the the leadership up your ass. You'd prefer we vote Republican? The Democrats need a stronger majority and a friend in the White House before anything really dramatic starts to change. Alas, checks and balances, you know... sometimes they work for you, sometimes against. That's government. If you'd like to, let's overthrow our Republic in favor of a single philosopher-king. I'll help out as best I can.

Barry Champlain wrote on November 9, 2007 4:35 PM:

I cannot believe that anyone still thinks this is about Mukasey's saying he is "against torture".

HE HAS SAID THIS ALREADY. And, that's NOT the issue (although the bamboozlement on this has been pretty effective)!

Mukasey testified that of course, torture is against the law, and of course, he is against torture. But he hastened to clarify that even if "something" is illegal (torture, spitting on the sidewalk, removing tag under penalty of law), AND THE PRESIDENT FEELS HE NEEDS TO DO SOMETHING IN ORDER TO "PROTECT" THE COUNTRY, HE SIMPLY MAY DO SO.

Meaning, law, schmaw, he's the Decider. Bush trumps law.

As abhorrent as torturing some Iraqi guy may be, this is much, much worse. This is the Nixon (Cheney, Addington) doctrine that "If the president does it, then it is NOT illegal". We once considered that nothing less than a Constitutional crisis.

Today, we're confronting this exact same challenge to the rule of law... but we're approaching it by debating the finer nuances of waterboarding. Once again, the fascists have framed the issue.

phred wrote on November 9, 2007 4:39 PM:

I assume the last sentence in your post is rhetorical. Every capitulation of this Congress has occurred on short notice and late at night (PAA leaps to mind). The Senate Majority Coward didn't want this to happen during the light of day or with enough notice for the public to flood the Senate with calls. Leadersheep indeed.

knowbuddhau wrote on November 9, 2007 4:42 PM:

John H. Farr wrote on November 9, 2007 3:07 PM:

I honestly wonder how much more of this it will take to stop progressive blogs from breathlessly reporting on the happy prospects for more Democrats in Congress. Dear God in heaven, why elect more Dems???

Talk about your battered wife syndrome, boy howdy.
____________
NAILED IT!

It's obvious that many of us mistake the discriminatory powers of our brains, our "line-making" function, for an absolute tyrant of the universe. Many of us fear and worship our own binary, ratio-making mind. Bush and Bin Laden have that much in common. Their binary minds (good vs. evil, with vs. against, believe MoveOn or condemn them, etc.) are the poles of the battery that powers terrorism.

[Side A] --- [Side B]
[Good | God |USA, sometimes UK| Us, Ours | Me, Mine] --- [Evil |Devil, Allah, even the mortal Buddha, Kali, etc.| Iran, Burma, Syria, Palestine, etc.| Them | You, Yours]

Earth's every visual system can discriminate 'things' on either side of 'lines.' But do you see the field in which all things have their source? The field surrounding these words is our common ground. We all share common ground, even with those who despise and enrage us. Binary thinking imposes absolute divisions where none exist.

We stand, united in our inalienable sovereignty, just exactly as these words are standing right here in this field right now.

But to Bush and Bin Laden, to admit that we are all composites is to alloy their precious selves with "ee-vil." By defining their side of the line as pure good, they terrorize themselves with their other half. So "we don't talk to evil." Evil is always over there somewhere, absolutely divided from Us.

The Republicans aren't the only ones who think this way. Even on "liberal" blogs, if you aren't shouting "hooray for our side" loudly enough, you're suspect.

Kucinich is the Other to many Democrats. He's not the pretty boy, the telegenic one, the one with the corporate endorsements. No matter what happened in the Senate, contrast that with what Kucinich did Tuesday. Kucinich walked into a firestorm with little support. The Senators were away when a crucial vote was held, under murky circumstances.

The Dem leadership failed to prepare for his impeachment resolution. When the Repubs saw that, they switched their votes and made the Dems run from their own best chance of uniting the nation behind them.

The Dem leadership isn't leading, they're collaborating, being played for fools by people who have no intention of following the rules they apply to others.

Why can't the Dems see that it'd be like lighting a single candle in a cavern? Light travels just as fast for small candles as for big. It won't take much to enlighten this benighted land.

"Who's got a match?"
--David Byrne at the beginning of the live version of _Burning Down the House_

Mary wrote on November 9, 2007 4:44 PM:

This sure smells like a setup to me./i>

It has had that smell from the time the name was picked. Mukasey, despite his failings, seemed to not even begin to be in the other candidates league when it comes to partisan hack. So it was pretty clear a deal had been made. Not a deal for Consitution or Country, more likely a deal for water resources pork and to cover some Democrats ass along with the Republican criminals and maybe get Justice to back off some of its partisan targeted political hackery pursuits. Still, deal made.

Then a Junior Senator from Rhode Island who wasn't in on the machinations went and asked a real question. I'm guessing Schumer was ballistic.

In any event, the scheduling of the vote allowed all the Dem candidates to have their "on the record tsk tsk" and not have to actually show up and show how pathetically unable they are to lead or how involved they were in the deal making.

Seriously - if all four together can't get even align the Dems behind them or keep something like this held in committee, much less get even one crossover Republican vote, how can anyone begin to believe the fiction that they can lead the country.

The only ones able to lead the Dems continue to be the GOP, which routinely picks up as many or more Dems than it needs, whenever and wherever it wants them.

knowbuddhau wrote on November 9, 2007 4:45 PM:

John H. Farr wrote on November 9, 2007 3:07 PM:

I honestly wonder how much more of this it will take to stop progressive blogs from breathlessly reporting on the happy prospects for more Democrats in Congress. Dear God in heaven, why elect more Dems???

Talk about your battered wife syndrome, boy howdy.
____________
NAILED IT!

It's obvious that many of us mistake the discriminatory powers of our brains, our "line-making" function, for an absolute tyrant of the universe. Many of us fear and worship our own binary, ratio-making mind. Bush and Bin Laden have that much in common. Their binary minds (good vs. evil, with vs. against, believe MoveOn or condemn them, etc.) are the poles of the battery that powers terrorism.

[Side A] --- [Side B]
[Good | God |USA, sometimes UK| Us, Ours | Me, Mine] --- [Evil |Devil, Allah, even the mortal Buddha, Kali, etc.| Iran, Burma, Syria, Palestine, etc.| Them | You, Yours]

Earth's every visual system can discriminate 'things' on either side of 'lines.' But do you see the field in which all things have their source? The field surrounding these words is our common ground. We all share common ground, even with those who despise and enrage us. Binary thinking imposes absolute divisions where none exist.

We stand, united in our inalienable sovereignty, just exactly as these words are standing right here in this field right now.

But to Bush and Bin Laden, to admit that we are all composites is to alloy their precious selves with "ee-vil." By defining their side of the line as pure good, they terrorize themselves with their other half. So "we don't talk to evil." Evil is always over there somewhere, absolutely divided from Us.

The Republicans aren't the only ones who think this way. Even on "liberal" blogs, if you aren't shouting "hooray for our side" loudly enough, you're suspect.

Kucinich is the Other to many Democrats. He's not the pretty boy, the telegenic one, the one with the corporate endorsements. No matter what happened in the Senate, contrast that with what Kucinich did Tuesday. Kucinich walked into a firestorm with little support. The Senators were away when a crucial vote was held, under murky circumstances.

The Dem leadership failed to prepare for his impeachment resolution. When the Repubs saw that, they switched their votes and made the Dems run from their own best chance of uniting the nation behind them.

The Dem leadership isn't leading, they're collaborating, being played for fools by people who have no intention of following the rules they apply to others.

Why can't the Dems see that it'd be like lighting a single candle in a cavern? Light travels just as fast for small candles as for big. It won't take much to enlighten this benighted land.

"Who's got a match?"
--David Byrne at the beginning of the live version of _Burning Down the House_

merryll wrote on November 9, 2007 4:48 PM:

Kucinich has lots of support. The media just refuses to mention him. Anti-war AND liberal? The Murdoch dominated media will not hear of it. Air-time is oxygen to candidates, and Kucinich is being denied. And they will not cover his impeachment bill, even though only 9% [who are they?] approve of him.

merryll wrote on November 9, 2007 5:03 PM:

Just to be clear the 9% approval is Cheney's

The Liberal Democratic party of the United States wrote on November 9, 2007 5:07 PM:

Unfortunately we have a set of conservatie Democrats in the senate that makes it harder to get progressive legislation passed through the Senate, and similarly for the House.

Citizens will have to take their petitions to the companies that give money to senators and representatives.

Do this and spread the word.

Get as many people to make these phone calls.

Call GOP contributor and war contractor General Electric Corporation at 203 373 2211 and ask for the public relations department. Tell the person in public relations that you want the GE CEO to get Bush to end the war in Iraq and then Bush resign with Cheney and until that happens you will not buy any GE products and that you will tell your friends about this.

Call GOP contributor Rite Aid at 1-800-325-3737 and tell the person to get the CEO to get the GOP to enact HR 676 Single payer health care and repeal Medicare Part D and place the drug benefit in Medicare Part B covering 80% of drugs with no extra premiums, no extra deductibles, no means tests, no coverage gaps, and remove the means test for Medicare Part B and until that happens, you won't buy ANYTHING from Rite Aid.

Call GOP contributor Wendy's restaurants at 614 764-3553 and Tell the person in public relations that you want their CEO to get the GOP to help enact a $10/HR MIN. WAGE into law and until this happens you will not go to a Wendy's Restaurant.

After you call these companies please send email to info@dmocrats.org with the subject CALLED.

mkolb wrote on November 9, 2007 5:07 PM:

What was Harry Reid promised and who promised it to him!

slb wrote on November 9, 2007 5:09 PM:

Selise,

I think you have misinterpreted what Harry Reid was saying.

Finally, I have had some discussion with the distinguished Republican leader to try to work out an agreement to dispose of the Mukasey nomination. I thought I had that all worked out. Last night, a little wrinkle appeared, but I hope we can reach agreement on that today as well.

I read that as saying only that Reid hoped to finalize an agreement with the Republican leadership by the end of the day as to how to proceed on the Mukasey nomination, not an announcement that he intended to vote on it that night.

NCSteve wrote on November 9, 2007 5:10 PM:

All the conspiracy theorists who insist that all of the senators who were running could have gotten back on five hours notice are going to need to tell me what magic teleportation devices they were supposed to use and where they were located.

Jesus people, every damn one of them (on the Dem side) wanted desperately to get their C-SPAN time on this one. But if they were all either in Iowa or New Hampshire, the only way any of them could have made it back to the Capitol on five hours notice was if they happened to be sitting in their plane, fueled, flight plan filed and cleared for takeoff when they got the call.

This "missed the vote" crap is the cheapest cheap shot in politics and I had my fill of it back in 2004, thank you very much. And, yeah, we're all going to hear a bunch more of if anyone but McCain gets the Republican nomination. Until then, get the f**k over it. If sitting politicans are running for higher office, they're going to miss some votes and if the leadership wants, they can take advantage of that fact. What's the alternative? Only allowing people who currently aren't in office to run? In the cruel lingo of politics people who aren't in currently in office get called one of three things, "inexperienced," "has beens" or "losers."

beth in cary wrote on November 9, 2007 5:15 PM:

Ironic too, that MCain-who is GOP and AGAINST torture did not make the vote either---all this seems to be very well choreographed. Gee, it's almost like someone could listen to phone calls and know exactly how certain Senators were going to vote-to puposely exclude them!
Durbin is the one to schedule for Senate-just FYI for anyone interested in calling. I suspect Blue Dog tampering with DLC-Hoyer, Reid neckdeep in it.

Lee wrote on November 9, 2007 5:16 PM:

Can we persuade TPM to continue investigating? I too smell a large rat.

Doug wrote on November 9, 2007 5:17 PM:

Has anyone considered the possibility that this was done to prevent a filibuster by Dodd? That would have really forced Democrats to actually stand up for what they have been saying - and many apparently don't like that idea.

slb wrote on November 9, 2007 5:24 PM:

NCSteve: Hear, hear!

audit the polls wrote on November 9, 2007 5:25 PM:

This 'leadership' is the same bunch that took impeachment off the table. Doesn't sound like leadership[ to me.

Kucinich for prez wrote on November 9, 2007 5:35 PM:

I think 'The Liberal Democratic party of the United States' has a good point; calling their sponsors is a good idea. I would just reverse the messages. Talk to GE about healthcare, and RiteAid about war.

The Liberal Democratic Party of the United States wrote on November 9, 2007 5:48 PM:

Finally a political party for progressives and liberals. We don't have conservatives attempting to turn back the clock on America or bowing to too much corporate power.

You can also reach our progressive forum at

http://progressives.dmocrats.org

for progressives and liberals only.

Zoyd Wheeler wrote on November 9, 2007 5:54 PM:

In this case, I'm thinking that we can equate the waterboarding issue with collaborative obfuscation. I'm mean think about it, is the main issue with the DOJ whether or not the AG embraces a certain semantics regarding "waterboarding"? Or would it be say, the total politicizing of the DOJ by the GOP, to steal the 2008 election? Come on people, don't be fooled again (by your own party leadership).

knowbuddhau wrote on November 9, 2007 5:56 PM:

greg wrote on November 9, 2007 4:25 PM:

On the Kucinich discussion:

I personally find it embarrassing that the anti-war right is far more behind its candidate (Paul) than the anti-war left is behind Kucinich. I remember seeing Dennis on C-Span with I think two other Dems at a poorly attended press conference announcing they would oppose the Iraq war resolution, and in less than a month more than half of House Democrats voted with them. That's leadership.

[snip]

Yes, he can be a little quirky. Guess what? So was Gandhi. He lived on orange juice and raisins and dressed in a loin cloth!!!! In front of the KING!!!!
_________________________

My Man the Mahatma! What was it he said? A tiny number of British can't rule millions of Indians unless the Indians let them. Or something like that.

The spark that started California burning didn't hesitate and say, "Oh! what a big area! I couldn't possibly burn all that, I'm just a little tiny spark." So why do the Dems hesitate?

Kucinich 08

Ross Best wrote on November 9, 2007 6:09 PM:

The underlying scandal here is that legislative leaders are allowed to schedule votes with barely any advance notice.

There should be a minimum period of at least twenty-four or forty-hours between the time a substantive vote is scheduled and publicly noticed and the time it is taken.

That would take away some of the ability of the leaders to play games. But it would take away some of their ability to play games.

UnEasyOne wrote on November 9, 2007 6:38 PM:

Why were there 40 opposed to this nomination and not one willing to filibuster?

Don't explain the 3/5 rule to me more than 2/5 of the Senators present voted against confirmation!

Apparently not one single Senator was willing to filibuster this Nazi!

It does not take 41 votes to sustain a filibuster unless all 100 Senators are voting!

Final vote: 53 for confirmation - 40 against. Do the math.

The gutless jerks who cast a meaningless vote against this jerk get exactly zero credit from me. At least Lieberman is honest.

ARG in Chicago wrote on November 9, 2007 7:03 PM:

Well, I'm a little late to this thread, but I am VERY encouraged by the number of Kucinich posts I see here today. (Who knew this would become a pro-Kucinich thread?) Most days I've felt like practically the only guy out here committed to Kucinich.

People, if you're disappointed in the Democratic Congress we elected a year ago, if you're dissatisfied with the (so-called) "leadership" of the Democrats in the House and the Senate, then please, please give second (or first) look at Dennis Kucinich.

The man is quirky, yes. But all visionaries and idealists are, to some degree.

Look, I'm not raising the man to sainthood. But he speaks truth to power, and I find myself agreeing with at least 90% of what he says.

I've been frustrated that DK gets no coverage in the MSM, *and* gets practically ignored by the allegedly liberal blogs, as well (including TPM).

And, frankly, I'm embarrased that the Libertarian wing of the Repbulican party is fully committed to Dr. Ron Paul (and can raise for him more than $4 million on one day -- resulting in coverage by the MSM as well as TPM), while the courageous positions and actions of Dennis Kucinich seem to be met with a big yawn (or titters of laughter) by the theoretically-existant-but-yet-to-be-found-in-the-wild Liberal wing of the Democratic party.

C'mon people! What are you afraid of?

Are we so enthralled by the thought that we could actually win the presidency again that we can't be bothered to support the one and only candidate who actually has all the right positions?

The man is pushing impeachment, for crying out loud! And he actually advocates Medicare for All -- single payer universal health care coverage. Imagine it!!

I'm going to http://www.dennis4president.com/ and adding to my contribution this weekend. I hope you'll all consider doing the same.

-- ARG

greg wrote on November 9, 2007 8:05 PM:

Liberal Democatic Party --

I appreciate your thought, but it would be all but impossible to boycott General Electric. They don't just make light bulbs and refrigerators. They're into plastics, power plants, jet engines, God knows what all, plus GE Finance is about the biggest commercial lender in the country. I would venture to say one could hardly be alive in the US without somehow patronizing GE. And when you die, they probably made some of the parts of your casket.

Oh, and knowbuddhau, if I remember the movie right, it was 50,000 British and 300 million Indians.

Go Dennis!

selise wrote on November 9, 2007 8:49 PM:

slb wrote on November 9, 2007 5:09 PM:

Selise,

I think you have misinterpreted what Harry Reid was saying.

Finally, I have had some discussion with the distinguished Republican leader to try to work out an agreement to dispose of the Mukasey nomination. I thought I had that all worked out. Last night, a little wrinkle appeared, but I hope we can reach agreement on that today as well.

I read that as saying only that Reid hoped to finalize an agreement with the Republican leadership by the end of the day as to how to proceed on the Mukasey nomination, not an announcement that he intended to vote on it that night.

no, i don't think so - reid was making his morning statement about what would be covered that day on the senate floor.

check out his other morning schedule statements. that's what he does every morning.

greg wrote on November 9, 2007 10:25 PM:

Kucinich supporters:

You will find the results of the Democracy for America poll quite interesting. Over 150,000 votes cast.

http://democracyforamerica.com/pulsepoll/results

urbino wrote on November 10, 2007 12:37 AM:

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this article is pretty much useless.

Q: Why was the Mukasey vote held at night and on short notice?

A: Because the leadership scheduled the vote at night and on short notice.

Gee, ya think? TPM, why did the leadership schedule the Mukasey vote at night and on short notice? Dig. Tell us something we don't know.

Pointing out the incredibly obvious is Tim McCarver's job.

MedallionOfFerret wrote on November 10, 2007 1:55 AM:

Is this another bad time to bring up impeachment?

HarpboyAK wrote on November 10, 2007 2:29 AM:

LeaderSHEEP. That's all we have.

Silly Sock wrote on November 10, 2007 6:57 AM:

Many who comment here carry academic degrees in the studies of government or politics - like me for instance. Witnessing the emergence of a new political entity be quite energizing enervating challenging. As accredited poligeeks they should know how important it can be to attempt to take as objective as possible a view of such phenomena. Also - it may provide the way of seeking solace in the wake of what appears superficially at least an extremely discouraging development: constitutional confirmation of an admitted torture –obfuscator & an enthusiast of such a chronically unpatriotic cell of unAmericanism as the Federalist Society.

Near as I can determine this latest outbreak will eventually end up being titled “INDECENT”*.

It clearly has the following “Charter” members - adding the state each member represents in the national body:

Lieberman Connecticut
Bayh Indiania
Carper Delaware
Feinstein California
Landrieu Louisiana
Nelson Nebraska
Schumer New York

It also seems clear it has the following “Auxiliary” members – yet again with the state each represents:

Biden Connecticut
Clinton New York
Dodd Delaware
Obama Illinois

The nativity of the Coalition may be best represented pictorially.

Positioned in the immediate foreground is a robust muscled heavily tattooed figure his face & head obscured by hood holding a small black cloth & wetting it from a stream of water from a canine rescue keg strung about the neck of a yellow mongrel dog –

both of them situated directly in front of a humanoid figure blind-folded supine & tied down & stretched lengthwise along a sturdy board.

Positioned in the medium foreground to the right of it is a group of four males each in a business suit standing in close proximity –

the overall effect reeking faintly of uniformity yet with an unmistakable impression of deference flowing from the much taller & fuller of the 2 figures on the flanks of the group towards the more proximate of the two they flank -

the taller & fuller bearing a likeness to OVP Chief of Staff D. Addington shown bending slightly stiffly from the waist in an effort facilitate his being heard in confidence by the figure proximate - who bears a likeness to Vice President R. Cheney -

one hand of the former clenching what appears to be a memo sized document with words printed on it among which he appears to pointing with the index of his free hand to a passage of apparent relevance -

while the figure appearing like Cheney has his mouth slightly open in its right third & aimed up towards the underside of the lobe of the left ear of his other neighbor- bearing a likeness to President G.W. Bush -

whose eyes act like those seen in chilren’s Magic Eye books – each appearing to dart like heated mercury from one point located between his head & the scene immediately before him to another located somewhere well past any figure or object within the frame – all while his right hand is perched dynamically at the top of back of the shoulders of the smallest & oldest in the group with its fingers posed in dynamic towards either massaging or firmly squeezing the neck of smaller older neighbor -

who is situated immediately in front of him bearing a likeness to the recently confirmed M. Mukasey –

with the ground beneath the feet of all in this group strewn with torn & crumpled pages one of which is pinned under the toe of one shoe worn by the figure bearing the likeness to the President which is obscuring part of a line of printing on it allowing only these letters to be seen: CONSTI - & another of which is immobilized under the heel of one shoe worn by the figure bearing the likeness to the Vice President which is obscuring part of a line of printing allowing only these letters to be seen: DECLA.

Positioned in the medium background is a grouping of 7 figures each bearing a likeness to a member of the Charter group standing in a mildly self-consciously constructed arc behind & above the figure tied to the board –

four of whom have their eyes set on some point or other in the scene before them & whose faces bear that placid impression associated with dismissive disbelief –

while two of the remaining wear thin smiles as they tolerate whatever is being said by the only Independent whose eyes appear to focus on a point definitely beyond the back of the head of either of listener.

Positioned in the far background is the membership of the Auxiliary not grouped with any notable cohesion other than each appears to be making a speech in a direction disassociated from any others in the group & is oblivious to anything in the scene depicted in the foreground.

Experience has proven that the long term prospects of such a coalition can benefit of an identifiable symbol - such as a widely recognizable non-human mammal chosen for its easy anthropomorthic association to some defining characteristic of membership in the group –

in this instance example the symbol being the yellow mongrel dog in the foreground.

Longer range policy objectives would appear to flow from the nature of the Yellow Dog Coalition’s success in its inaugural initiative:

[A] Ultimately the achievement of a form of national government primarily characterized by that level of clarity most likely to appeal to the largest possible amalgam of the credulous & eligible & easily motivated to vote all at a cost [1] malleable to exploitation for group empowerment & personal gain [2] superficially defensible to facilitate marketing it to that amalgam as so nominal as to be devoid of practical significance & [3] highly resistant to forensic detection.

[B] On a continuing basis the embedding the Unitary Executive theory as the generally accepted standard for interpreting the Constitution [through such by ongoing programs as linguistically merging the idea of government with its concepts of accountability & the supremacy of the rule of law & socializing the amalgam into accepting government as being worth no more than its most repugnant images - such as inefficiency & waste & bureaucrat opacity - to better market into a broadly accepted core cultural value not just that government ought to be limited but that the only reliable means to advance that goal necessitates the elimination of oversight by any of its other branches.

[C] In the medium term ensuring against criminal charges being made or advanced against officials of a particular administration or those who executed on its orders – which in the case of the current administration would encompass insulation of the current President & Vice President & many of those in Congress from the human consequences of programs such as the interrogation of those persons selected for it by the current administration.

[D] In the near term framing limitations to & ensuring expandable weak points within key legislative firewalls from executive power such as habeas corpus & limiting the intrusion of government into individual privacy – such as in the former category tolerating official kidnapping & indefinite confinement & abuse & in the latter facilitating social advancement & personal wealth accumulation to privateers acting with official blessing.

Notes:

[1] With confirmation of the Mukasey nomination in a plenary session of the Senate Nov 8 07 by a vote of 53 FOR & 40 AGAINST - the Yellow Dog Coalition has experienced seminal success in its inaugural initiative.

[2] The significance of the individual members of Auxiliary group & the rationale underlying recognition of them both as a group & one operating within the agenda of the Yellow Dog Coalition may be appreciated by considering that a switch by the 6 Democrats among its Charter members would have failed to forestall confirmation – barely.

[3] Though quite possibly of primary interest to trivia buffs such a marginal confirmation would still have held some potential for limiting the mandate of the successful nominee given that would stand not only as the narrowest approval margin conceivable but underline its being narrower than that received by his disgraced predecessor.

[4] Viewed from an anthropological perspective that 6 of the Coalition’s 11 Charter & Auxiliary members represent only 3 states in a union comprised of 50 is inconsistent with chance.

[5] It as well inconsistent with chance to say nothing of ironic that the 3 states whose entire representation in the Senate is solid Yellow Dogs - Connecticut & Delaware & New York - number among the union’s 13 originals.

[6] It may add nothing to that inconsistency but equally it does nothing to detract from that irony to note that none of those 3 states are from the so-called “Southern Colonies” among the original 13.

[7] In what must surely be an encouraging portent for the Yellow Dog Coalition agenda all reliable pre-election polls on the 2008 Presidential election strongly predict it will be won by the candidate who succeeds in securing the nomination of the Democratic party & all four members of the enabling auxiliary currently are candidates for that.

* INDECENT: IN-dependent and DE-mocratic senators Cravenly EN-abling Torture.

gloria reo wrote on November 10, 2007 10:56 AM:

Is there any chance that Reid would respond directly, himself, not through staffers, to the intense criticisms he has received in these comments? Can someone ask him to respond on TPM?

Garth Sullivan wrote on November 10, 2007 5:07 PM:

W's nominee, Michael Mukasey's defining moments are his refusal to call waterboarding torture, refusal to promise an independent investigation into the commission of war crimes and explicit endorsement of some aspects of the ludicrous interpretations of the unitary executive theory of rule.

It is now apparent that Democratic nominees and US Senators Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Chris Dodd all got the hell out of dodge when the key vote came. What a critical failure of leadership on one of the defining moments in our history. The fact that they are on record as opposing Mukasey's nomination is not enough. Our country needed more than their votes. We needed their leadership on a matter fundamental to America's moral fiber. Was a filibuster warranted? Maybe. Was lobbying their colleagues and twisting arms warranted? Definitely. Was making themselves available to cast a critical vote expected? Absolutely.

The claim that their votes would not have mattered in hindsight obscures the fact that they made no effort to oppose this nomination because they made the calculated decision not to rock the boat. Selfishly, they decided to once again let Bush slide because there is no benefit to their candidacy in creating a controversy. They should know better, and, if they don't, they are not fit for the office.

In all fairness, there were others who could have spoken, but none had the platform of a presidential candidacy to take a strong, courageous and, truly American stand, for what's best in this country.

Americans are tired of the tortured logic, the mean-spirit, the fear mongering, lying and corruption. Never has a President deserved impeachment more than the criminal currently sullying our highest office with the worst of our American spirit.

I want a candidate who will speak to the moral majority of America.

Hillary, Biden, Dodd and Obama blew it.

Big time.

GREYDOG wrote on November 10, 2007 5:27 PM:

Dennis Kucinich is the only Democrat I trust.
VOTE FOR HIM AND HE CAN WIN (if Rove doesn't fix the election, again).

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi can go to hell.
I don't know what kind of threats are being hurled at Reid and Pelosi, but to sellout their country is inexcusable. They both need to resign. They are not leaders, nor do they represent us. They make me sick.

rabbit wrote on November 10, 2007 10:18 PM:

Nice to see so much support for Kucinich. I wonder: is this Mukasey thing and the lack of action on Iraq, etc., designed to keep progressives disaffected so they'll stay home and not vote? It couldn't be better designed to that purpose, but I don't credit the Democratic leadership with being that smart.

Anon wrote on November 11, 2007 1:10 AM:

"Dear God in heaven, why elect more Dems???"

More Kucinichs, more Feingolds, more Dodds, more Waxmans -- that's why.

Pick your Democrats, though. Don't waste your money on the DCCC, DSCC, or similar organizations.

Chonny wrote on November 12, 2007 10:46 AM:

Well I got my laugh for the day on here. You all sit there typing away about the failure of Democratic Candidates voting on this??? Easy peasy for you to sit there in your chair and playing like you have it all in your capable hands. Do you know what was going on this week? I don't think so. Get your facts..then decide to post. This was the weekend of Jefferson Jackson dinner in Iowa. Major thing for anyone running for President next year. Was their vote going to be a major push in the NO category. NO it wasn't. We can play armchair politics day in and day out. Do you want to be in their positions? Think about it....

marilyn wrote on November 12, 2007 10:54 AM:

Hey Silly Sock,
You've got the senators and states mixed up. Biden is from Delaware, Dodd from Connecticut.

JimOates wrote on November 12, 2007 11:15 PM:

Harry Reid is a dodering old man and is out of touch. He is weak and we cannot depend on him at all. Strategic Leadership?! Hardly! It is a better bet that he will fold early on contentious issues. He is used to being pushed around and doesn't know how to take a strong stand. He is a loser and we are losers as well with this so-called leadership. The Repubs love having this guy on the other side of the table. Puppet on a string comes to mind.
I am not a single issue person and I do know that the art of compromise is fundamental to democracy. But I have had it with these politicians that profess to represent me and seek my support, but then turn out to have no backbone. He projects weakness. He thinks compromise means giving in. I ignore him now.

slb wrote on November 13, 2007 1:11 PM:

selise: no, i don't think so - reid was making his morning statement about what would be covered that day on the senate floor.

Depends on how you interpret the pronouns. I read "we" as referring to Reid and the others on the Republican side he was conferring with (not the Senate as a whole), and "that" as meaning "an agreement [on how] to dispose of the Mukasey nomination," not "a vote on the Mukasey nomination," since those antecedents are to be found in the previous sentence.

In any event, it is certainly not a crystal clear declaration that "I intend to hold the vote on the Mukasey nomination tonight without fail." That declaration did not come, apparently, until 6:30 or 7:00 PM. He couldn't possibly have made it much before then because he was in closed-door negotiations with the Republicans for most of the day over when to hold the vote. How could he have declared before meeting with them that the vote would be that night?

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)