Scooter' Libby Trial Could Be a High-Profile Bloodletting

Jury selection begins today in the trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.

Libby is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice in the leaking of the identity of a former CIA operative.

Libby is on trial for allegedly lying to a grand jury about the source of a leak that outed former CIA operative Valerie Plame. Plame's identity was leaked to the media after her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, was critical of the Bush administration's handling of the war in Iraq.

Libby has been called a master of discretion, and the trial promises to be a high-profile bloodletting. It will pit senior White House officials against senior vice presidential staffers as well as vice presidential aides against prominent journalists.

Among those on the star-studded witness list are former White House press secretary Ari Fleisher and NBC "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert.

Perhaps potentially more damaging for the White House is that the trial shines a spotlight on some of the questionable tactics used to justify the war in Iraq, just as President Bush tries to gain some traction on the issue.....

Harold Ford Jr. To Be DLC Chair?

Radaronline.com is reporting that Harold Ford Jr. has been offered the chairmanship of the Democratic Leadership Committee, a centrist "think tank."

To wit: "Radar has learned that Ford has been offered the chairmanship of the Democratic Leadership Council, the centrist think tank founded in the mid-'80s by Al From and other New Democrats as a tool for cultivating like-minded candidates, particularly at the presidential level.
"According to a draft memo that sources provided to Radar, Ford has agreed to replace Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack as chairman of the influential organization. Vilsack, a centrist with little national name recognition, recently announced that he would run for president in 2008. After interviewing a number of high-profile candidates for the job, DLC honchos decided that Ford would be the ideal choice to run the group.

"In the Jan. 8 memo obtained by Radar, Ford seemed to eagerly anticipate the prospect. "I have enjoyed our conversations and am excited about becoming the Chairman of the DLC," Ford wrote to Al From, the DLC's CEO. "Your stewardship of the organization over the years has made the DLC one of the premiere Democratic think tanks."

This is perhaps the most astonishing news for all Democrats. Harold Ford Jr. probably didn't win his U.S. Senate race but he surely took a lot of attention off other races and probably singlehandledly helped Democrats across America prevail in these past November elections that led to the Democrats taking back Congress after 12 years. Therefore, Harold Ford Jr. being the Chairman of the Democractic Leadership Committee is a great joy for Democrats. He possesses the type of energy and charisma that should help Democrats everywhere in terms of becoming better leaders. While some might criticize the decision, it is surely one that will benefit many in the long term.

STONEWALL DEMOCRATS ISSUE STRONG CALL OF CONCERN OVER HAROLD FORD, JR.

Today, the National Stonewall Democrats issued deep concern over the decision to name former Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. as Chair of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). Stonewall also urged the DLC and the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community to closely scrutinize the record of Congressman Ford in light of the development. On Thursday, Former Iowa Governor, and presidential candidate, Tom Vilsack announced that he is stepping down of Chair of the DLC while indicating his replacement by Congressman Ford, who possesses a poor record on issues that impact LGBT families.

"Congressman Harold Ford has demonstrated a lack of leadership and judgment on family issues that causes our members great concern," said Joanne Wyrick, NSD Executive Director. "His willingness to lightly amend the U.S. Constitution and to exploit gay families for political gain should alarm Democrats across the country. The Democratic Leadership Council is in need of leadership that supports and affirms all American families."

In 2004, with his eye on his senate race, Harold Ford reversed his past opposition to an amendment to the United States Constitution that would permanently bar the legal responsibilities of domestic partnerships, civil unions and civil marriage to same-sex couples. In 2006, Ford again joined only a small minority of Democrats who voted for the amendment, which was dramatically defeated by both the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate.

"This is not about ideology," continued Wyrick. "Conservative, centrist and progressive Democrats agree that those who support such a constitutional amendment threaten the stability of thousands of American homes. Given that Harold Ford is at odds with the past position of the Democratic Leadership Council, we hope that this presents the DLC with an opportunity to reaffirm their supportive position and for Congressman Ford to rejoin Democrats across the country in rejecting the divisive policies of the Bush administration and discredited Republican leadership."

Harold Ford Jr. to be Visiting Professor at Vanderbilt; Congressional veteran to teach class on political leadership

I never thought I would be saying this but imagine being taught a class from a former U.S. Congressman. Well former U.S. Rep. and Senate candidate Harold Ford Jr. has been appointed visiting professor of public policy at Vanderbilt University and will teach a class on American political leadership.

Ford, who spent a decade in Congress before running for a Senate seat last year, will lead a seminar entitled “Foundations of American Political Leadership” for Vanderbilt undergraduates during the spring semester, which begins this week.

“I am delighted to welcome Harold Ford Jr. to Vanderbilt,” said Chancellor Gordon Gee. “As one of the most visible and respected politicians of his generation, Harold will provide our students with a unique insight into politics and government.”

Ford, who earned a bachelor’s degree in American history from the University of Pennsylvania and a law degree from the University of Michigan Law School, served five terms in the House of Representatives. He was a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of moderate and fiscally conservative Democrats that has built a reputation for promoting positions that bridge the gap between ideological extremes.

I for one would love to seat on on this class and learn from someone who is wise enough to spark students minds, bodies and souls with his articulate speech and charismatic charm. No matter if you are a Republican or Democrat, you have to admit that Congressman Ford ran one of the most decent and talented campaigns in years. He pulled from all sides in his Senate bid and I can promise you that those who voted against him, surely gained respect for him and how he handled himself throughout the campaign. Harold Ford Jr. as a visiting professor is something that should really bring attention to more politicians wanting to spread their knowledge to young and talented college students. So I hope Vanderbilt students know that they will be challenged on all sides of the aisle and they better take full advantage of this opportunity.

Martin Luther King Jr. Day

Today, we celebrate the life of a great civil rights leader and peacemaker in America. However on this day I want many of you to think about the civil rights movement and all that was accomplished. From racial barriers and walls being torn down so that equality and equal rights for all could be obtained. Think about how Jim Crow laws separated Blacks and Whites and how integration and desegregation uplifted lives.

Today, we are not only celebrating the life of Martin Luther King, Jr. but we are celebrating a movement that needs to continue. Well, equality and integration are well in effect, there are some who still are trying to take it away. The civil rights movement and all it gains were not just for Blacks but they were for minorities in general. Affirmative Action wasn't started for Blacks, it was started for white women who wanted to be treated equal as their counterparts white men. We have to ensure to that Affirmative Action remains in America on all levels because people still feel like men can do a better job than women on all levels. Enough is enough, why can't a women be President? Why has it taken so long for a women to be Speaker of the House?

When you look around America today, we all need to realize what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. legacy was. We need to understand that he fought for all Americans to obtain equality and equal justice. Today we must energize ourselves to the point of understanding that everyone deserves the opportunity to have a good education that is equal in standards. Today we celebrate the civil rights movement through the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. so let's not forget the struggle but while America has come far, it has not come far enough because we haven't had a black Senator from the South since Reconstruction. African Americans only represent 15% of all the politicians in America. American has come far people but we must realize that the struggle is never over and that we must continue to fight no matter what. So realize Dr. King's dream and let's continue to fight for it and strive to bring it to reality.

Murtha to Block Bush's Troop Surge by Limiting Funds

Democratic Representative John Murtha, chairman of a House subcommittee on defense spending, said he will try to block the increase of U.S. forces in Iraq and force the closing of a military prison in Guantanamo Bay by withholding funds for those operations.

Murtha said his panel will draft a set of conditions to be attached to the emergency spending legislation for military operations that President George W. Bush is to submit to lawmakers next month.

Now if this is to take place, what does withholding funding for such operations means. Will the American public view Murtha's actions as being anti-military? Will his fellow Democrats support him and will any Republicans support him? No matter how it is looked it, Murtha's actions would be a risk because he would be playing with fire because withholding funds for the troops in Iraq if a troop surge is to take place, will only put more men and women at risk. However, Murtha and President Bush might be in a poker game to see who can call the other's bluff. So far, President Bush holds all the cards but if Murtha gets his way, than President Bush will have to make a decision on whether to continue with his announcement and plans of a troop surge despite not having enough funds to support such a surge so that the troops in Iraq will have the proper equipment and weapons to get the job done this go round.

Now President Bush could go ahead and risk being ridiculed for putting our troops in harms way knowing that the funding wouldn't be there. However President Bush could reverse public opinion by putting to the fact that Murtha and Congress put our beloved men and women of the military at risk by limiting funding. So either Murtha or President Bush will have to bend on this issue because we can't afford to put our men and women at any more risk than they will already be in Iraq.

There has to be a better way to work out a plan that will not involve limiting funding to our troops. President Bush should perhaps sought Congress on its plan even further and both sides should present a plan that will involve getting our troops out while at the same time securing Iraq for the future by eliminating the insurgents in the country.

Murtha to Block Bush's Troop Surge by Limiting Funds

Democratic Representative John Murtha, chairman of a House subcommittee on defense spending, said he will try to block the increase of U.S. forces in Iraq and force the closing of a military prison in Guantanamo Bay by withholding funds for those operations.

Murtha said his panel will draft a set of conditions to be attached to the emergency spending legislation for military operations that President George W. Bush is to submit to lawmakers next month.

Now if this is to take place, what does withholding funding for such operations means. Will the American public view Murtha's actions as being anti-military? Will his fellow Democrats support him and will any Republicans support him? No matter how it is looked it, Murtha's actions would be a risk because he would be playing with fire because withholding funds for the troops in Iraq if a troop surge is to take place, will only put more men and women at risk. However, Murtha and President Bush might be in a poker game to see who can call the other's bluff. So far, President Bush holds all the cards but if Murtha gets his way, than President Bush will have to make a decision on whether to continue with his announcement and plans of a troop surge despite not having enough funds to support such a surge so that the troops in Iraq will have the proper equipment and weapons to get the job done this go round.

Now President Bush could go ahead and risk being ridiculed for putting our troops in harms way knowing that the funding wouldn't be there. However President Bush could reverse public opinion by putting to the fact that Murtha and Congress put our beloved men and women of the military at risk by limiting funding. So either Murtha or President Bush will have to bend on this issue because we can't afford to put our men and women at any more risk than they will already be in Iraq.

There has to be a better way to work out a plan that will not involve limiting funding to our troops. President Bush should perhaps sought Congress on its plan even further and both sides should present a plan that will involve getting our troops out while at the same time securing Iraq for the future by eliminating the insurgents in the country.

Democrats eye alternative to U.S. troop surge plan

While Democrats seem to have won the moment by effectively pillorying President Bush's plan to inject 21,500 more U.S. troops into the Iraq war, a strategy that garnered little public support and has proved divisive on Capitol Hill, they now face the dilemma of coming up with a better alternative to stem the sectarian bloodletting.

Earlier this week, Democrats floated a plan to stop the escalation by blocking funding of the war. But Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, acknowledged that such action was unlikely because it would "send the wrong message to the troops."

Still, Levin, who has called for a phased withdrawal to begin in four to six months, said he hoped to garner bipartisan support for a non-binding resolution voicing dissatisfaction with Bush's Iraq policy. Levin said that passing such a resolution could help lay the groundwork for the start of a drawdown of troops in the coming months.

Now with all this being said and done, what will the Democrats alternative to a U.S. troop surge result it. Are the Democrats simply just going to withdraw troops without looking at what the implications of such a rapid withdraw of troops might entail. Thus it has become apparent that whatever Congress does that their plan is totally different than President Bush's. Democrats simply what to try to avoid putting more men and women live's at risk and that is something that I truly want to try to avoid myself.

However, the United States can't afford to just withdraw troops without getting the job done. We do need a better plan and as I stated before, pressure needs to be put on the Iraqi government to secure their country. So let's give President Bush's plan a try and see if we can produce better results in 6 months. Now if we can't identify any positive results in 6 months than truly, we need to get out of Iraq and abandon our mission because we can't afford to lose any more good men and women. Time is of the essence but we need to try to see if we produce better results in Iraq. So let's give securing Iraq one last try and see what can be done.

Denver will host Democrats in '08

Democrats yesterday announced that Denver will host the 2008 Democratic National Convention, rewarding the Rocky Mountain West for the party's recent electoral gains despite problems over the city's lackluster union presence.

The Mile High City beat out New York as the convention site after months of delays stemming from Denver's labor pains, concerns over hotel rooms and fundraising questions.

New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's lack of enthusiasm ultimately may have sealed the decision, especially when compared with the unbridled excitement of Denver's political leaders.

No matter how you look at it, it looks great to that the 2008 Democratic National Convention won't be held in New York because many experts would have thought it was going to held there because of the potential of Hillary Clinton possible Presidential Bid. However with it being in Denver, this cold be what the Democratic Party needs to get their Presidential nominee a boast in the West particularly the Midwestern states such as Colorado, Utah, Montana, Idaho, etc.

Plus Denver showed a lot of eagerness to host the Convention and that is a plus for a city that looks to showcase all it has to offer to the movers and shakers of not only America but the World.

Bush's new buddy, Lieberman

When President Bush cited Joe Lieberman's "good advice" in his address to the nation Wednesday night, it was the most public evidence yet of how Republicans have embraced the Connecticut senator.

And he has been embracing them back.

Lieberman won re-election in November by winning about 70 percent of the state's GOP vote and 33 percent of the Democrats. He calls himself an independent Democrat, and continues to caucus with Senate Democrats.

But the Connecticut lawmaker's smooth glide between the congressional aisles quietly annoys a lot of Democrats. They just won't say so publicly, not when a party switch would create a 50-50 Senate and a Republican majority.

Last Friday, for instance, Lieberman left an all-day Senate Democratic retreat to head uptown. He was on the program to address the American Enterprise Institute about Iraq, appearing with Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain.

Now what does all this mean? Well to me personally, I think Liberman might be a wild card int he Senate and could decide a lot of key legislation down the road for both Republicans and Democrats. I find no problem with Liberman lobbying with both because technically he's an Independent. However he needs to put politics aside and do what's best for the American people and not try to pay the Democrats back for not backing him and not try to give favors to Republicans for getting him elected. Instead Liberman needs to try to build bridges between Republicans and Democrats in the Senate so that legislation can pass that will help the American people. Build the bridge Liberman and show the way for the rest of your colleagues.

U.S. Embassy in Athens Is Attacked

Shortly before sunrise today, a missile ripped through the United States embassy here, causing minor damage to the building but no injuries. The missile was fired from the street over a 10-foot high security wall, smashing the glass in front of the embassy and spraying debris inside. Why would such an attack take place? No one knows for sure but it goes to show that if this is a terrorist attack as experts assume that it might. What can we do to protect ourselves in this world from future terrorist attacks?

CBO faults Democrat drug plan

Requiring the federal government to negotiate Medicare drug prices won't save money, as Democrats contend, the Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

"The secretary would be unable to negotiate prices across the broad range of covered Part D drugs that are more favorable than those obtained by (the plans) under current law," Donald B. Marron, the CBO's acting director, told Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich.

Dingell is author of a bill that the House will take up Friday requiring the secretary of the Health and Human Services Department to negotiate drug prices on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries. The measure is a priority of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Current law prohibits the government from negotiating drug prices in Medicare Part D. Rather, insurers have that role. House Democrats say that the government can use its leverage to strike a better deal. Dingell was not dissuaded by the letter, which quickly made its way around Capitol Hill.

This isn't the first time Congress and the Congressional Budget Office has disagreed on a budget. However this might be a very important budget that needs to be discussed and finalized to determine what will save not only the government money but its citizens. Time will tell it all hopefully many American's can benefit from a better deal being stroke.

Stem cell research bill resurfaces in Congress

Congress and the White House begin a political science experiment today as the House prepares to vote on whether to override President Bush's restrictions on federal funding of stem cell research.

In the House, voting will proceed on the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, which is identical to the one that was passed in the House and Senate last year and then vetoed by the president. A Senate version of the bipartisan bill should come up for a vote after committee consideration in coming weeks, says Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, a bill sponsor.

Is stem cell research necessary and will the benefits of this type of experimentation help save future lives without killing potential lives? According to the latest research that might just be the case and the debate on this issue could finally be put to rest for at least this decade hopefully.

Justices Hear Case on Right of Unions to Use Nonmembers' Dues

First Amendment rights are threatened in the state of Washington, the Supreme Court was told yesterday, but it will be up to the justices to decide who needs protection.

The Washington Education Association, the state's largest teachers union, said its freedoms would be endangered by a state law that would increase restrictions on the union's ability to use workers' money for political causes.

On the other side are workers who do not join the union but under state law must pay dues anyway. They say their money should not be used for the union's election causes without their explicit approval.

Now whose right in this case? Well in my opinion, if I am working to make my hard earned money than I should have the right to decide whether or not to pay into any union and I should have the right to decide what I will do with my money when it relates to using it for political campaigns of any kind. Therefore this case should be quite interesting and I am looking forward to see how it all turns out.

What do you'll think!

House Dems ready to push Medicare negotiations

Twelve years after Congress rejected President Clinton's effort to redesign the nation's health care system, the debate about the government's role in the marketplace is being joined again this week.

House Democrats on Friday plan to pass legislation requiring the government to negotiate for lower Medicare prescription-drug prices. They see it as one way to reduce the impact of the program's coverage gap, which forces seniors and disabled Americans with high drug costs to pay their full cost for a period of months.

The Medicare prescription-drug law signed by President Bush in 2003 prohibited the government from interfering in negotiations over drug prices. Those negotiations are handled by scores of private insurance plans in each state.

Now finally, Congress is finally going to try to help American citizens out by trying to lower prescription drug costs. Too many American citizens are ill and can't afford their medicine so any relief that Congress gives would be a much needed break after years of suffering and aching. Enough is enough, America's government needs to provide its citizens with affordable medicine.

House Bans Smoking, and Few Complain

Democrats banned smoking inside the House on Wednesday. Then they quickly congratulated themselves, squeezing as much symbolism out of the moment as they could. “The days of smoke-filled rooms in the United States Capitol are over,” the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, declared. So now Congress is looking after health issues at the Capitol by banning smoking in the capitol. There was little outcry from those who do smoke and this is a good sign that a true partnership is truly being formed on the Hill between both Democrats and Republicans. However how long will this bi-partisanship last, only time will time as more difficult issues arise and are debated in the upcoming days, weeks and months.

Increasing the Minimum Wage Is a Victory for America’s Families’

Finally America's minimum wage was increased today. Does this mean that the new Democratic Congress is really going to make sure that it passes legislation that will help the America people after year's of suffering? This is surely going to help a lot of people in America and this can be seen as small victory for Americans with many more to come if partnership holds up on both sides of the aisle as promised.

President Bush Addresses the Nation

President Bush laid out the framework for what his administration and him plans to do with Iraq. Where you sold on what the President said. Will President Bush's new strategy and a troop surge really improve the current status of Iraq! What does all this mean for our beloved military? If the November election was a wake up call to President Bush than now more than ever the American people must call Congress and try to force President Bush to change his mind. Otherwise doom is ahead of us.

US-Iraqi force kills 50 in Baghdad offensive

Iraqi forces backed by American airpower killed an estimated 50 Sunni insurgents in central Baghdad today in some of the fiercest fighting the city has seen in months. Is this a sign of things to come in the capital of Iraq if a troop surge is implemented. Does the Iraqi government and President Bush finally have a plan to bring safety in Baghdad. With this being hte most violent battle in Iraq in month, it might be a sign of things to come and what President Bush really needs to sell to the American public and Congress the need to finish the job with a full out blitz effort targeted at bringing stability in central Baghdad.

Kennedy calls for oversight on Iraq troop surge

Senator Edward M. Kennedy today called for Congress to require President Bush to submit his plan for a troop surge in Iraq to the House and Senate before it can be implemented, arguing that Democrats must make good on their campaign promise to bring an end to the war. While Senator Kennedy's remarks are good and I do believe that President Bush should submit his plan to Congress to vote on. However I do see President Bush seeking Congress approval and worst than that is the fact that Congress might approve President Bush plan for a troop surge in Iraq.

So while Senator Kennedy's remarks are greatly noted and this is how a Democracy should be, checks and balances being implemented with the Executive Branch being checked by the Legislative Branch and vice-versa. This has not been the case for the last 6 years though so to see President Bush seeking the approval of Congress before implementing something would clearly show whether a partnership truly has been formed in the Hill. The next couple of days will tell it all.