Cynthia McKinney Losing
Again I say, it does not look good for Cynthia McKinney. I am so sad….
Georgia, U.S. House Democratic District 4
Precincts Reporting: 87 of 167 (52%)
Hank Johnson 17907 58%
Cynthia McKinney (I) 12934 42%
Entries Tagged as ''
Joe Lieberman Losing
I have to say, I am of two minds about Joe Lieberman losing the Democratic Primary for Senator of Connecticut. First, if Joe loses to Ned LaMont, I truly believe it will drag the Democratic Party to the left. Just look at what Howard Dean did to the Presidential Primary, he pulled it way to the left. Ned will do the same thing, pulling the party way to the left. Make no mistake about it, Ned Lamont is a single issue candidate, the Iraq war. From now on any candidate for the Democrats will be expected to toe the same line. If nothing else, the perception of the Democratic Party by the rest of the country will be to view them as very much to the left. In either case, this will be good for the Republican Party. We need more Howard Deans among the Dems.
At the same time, I do not want Joe to lose. Personally, I like him, even though the Connecticut Senator voted against President Bush 90% of the time. Joe Lieberman is not afraid to stand on principals, unlike many other wishy-washy Democrats. He understands this war is important as Israel’s war against Hezbollah has shown.
Tonight, Joe is fighting for his political life, at least as a Democrat. Come November, we may have another Independent in the Senate.
Update: Drudge Report reports Ned LaMont has just won the Democratic Primary.
France Gives Up…Again.
France has assumed their normal position in the face of opposition, they put their hands up. Giving up once is a problem. Giving up twice is a habit. Giving up three times is a way of life. France gave up once during WWI, they gave up again during WWII, and now they have caved in to pressure from the Arab League. US and French negotiators spent a lot of time working on a cease-fire agreement to forward to the UN. With a little criticism from the Arab League, the French admit defeat in once again.
An Arab League delegation wants the United Nations to include the immediate Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon as part of any deal to end the nearly four-week-old war between Israel and Lebanese-based Hezbollah.
A U.S.-French plan under consideration by the Security Council does not require an immediate Israeli withdrawal, an omission Lebanon’s government and Arab League diplomats call unacceptable.
With the French assuming their normal position, what does the Lebanese government want to do, go back to the status quo leaving Israel defenseless against Hezbollah.
Late Monday, Lebanon’s government approved the deployment of 15,000 of its national army troops to southern Lebanon, where Hezbollah has held sway since 2000 when Israeli troops withdrew.
Under Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora’s proposal, Israeli forces would cede control of southern Lebanon to the U.N. observer mission UNIFIL, which would in turn hand over the territory within 72 hours to Lebanese forces.
I may have a short memory, but wasn’t Lebanon supposed to take control over the southern region after Israel left the last time? And wasn’t it the UNIFIL that was supposed to keep Hezbollah on their side of the border?
CNN has the plan the Arab League has proposed. Nothing has changed. The way the plan is worded, it totally ignores Hezbollah; in fact they are not mentioned at all. The plan treats this conflict as if it were between Israel and Lebanon with Israel as the aggressor.
There is an old saying, “No guts, no glory!” The French have no glory, so ……. I just hope John Bolton has the guts it to take on world opinion and the spineless French, and veto this plan if it comes up to a Security Council vote. The US can not leave the Israelis at the mercy of an armed to the teeth Hezbollah, especially when such actions are sanctioned by the UN.
Futile Care Law Enters the Texas Governor’s Race
Apparently bloggers are having a larger impact on Texas politics than I originally thought. Let’s turn the time machine back to…about four months ago. Andrea Clarke, age 54 had surgery at St. Luke’s Hospital in Houston. After developing an infection, she became weak and had to be intubated. On April 21st of 2006, the hospital citing state law, informed the family they were going to remove her tube and they had ten days to make other arrangements. Obviously the family was upset. They contacted the Democratic Underground (for who know what reason) hoping to get the word out. Word of this travesty was picked up by Right Wing News, Lone Star Times, The Right State, and others. With Andrea Clarke coming on the heels of the high profile case of Terri Schiavo, news of another right to life case lit up the blogosphere.
The word has gotten out enough even to affect the race for the Texas Governor when KTRK of Houston asked each of the candidates for Texas governor what they thought about the law.
Two candidates for Texas governor have called for abolishing a state law that allows hospitals to stop life-sustaining treatment against the wishes of the patient’s family.
Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn and Kinky Friedman, both running as independents, said the law should be repealed. Democratic nominee Chris Bell said the law should be reformed, while Republican Gov. Rick Perry said he supports a legislative review of the law.
The controversial “futile care law” allows hospitals to remove life support in cases deemed medically futile. It requires that a hospital committee review the decision and give the family 10 days notice to find another facility to take the patient.
The response of the candidates have been all over the place.
Governor Rick Perry wants the law to be ‘carefully scrutinized,’ whatever that means. Grandma Strayhorn, a recovering Democrat (not recovered enough in my opinion), calls the law “government intrusion of the worst kind,” wanting the decisions of life and death to be decided by both the doctor and the family, but then goes on to say she is willing to listen to both sides.
Spoken like a true politicians, both of them.
Kinky Friedman…. ah…you decide.
“….doctors should advise, but families are the only ones who should be able to decide to withdraw care.” He said if disagreements can’t be resolved, “throw it to the courts. At least courts don’t have agendas.”
Spoken like someone who has not been watching the news for the last twenty years.
Bell supports the law as long as there is an “impartial review process.”
An impartial review process is what we have now, but it’s too impartial. It could care less about the wishes of the family or the patient. This law does not allow the family a say in what happens to their sick family member. Rick Perry as the ‘true Republican’ of the bunch should come right out and say that as a the ‘right to life’ candidate, he advocates the repeal of this ‘impartial’ law. These are human beings we are discussing here, not some animal. Actually, people like Andrea would most likely have more rights as a sick animal than a sick human with the law as it stands now.
Did I really say bloggers have affected the race for governor? Okay, maybe I was wrong on that part. Politicians will still be politicians, always trying to ride both sides of the fence. I guess Texas politics is no different.
-
Subscribe
-
Unknown Feed
Recommended Books for True Patriots
