As part of the group that wrote PNAC, I can hardly credit his appraisal of Bush going to war against Iraq...as it was part of the PNAC plan before Bush took office. Also, he totally failed to mention that 9/11 occurred on Bush's watch-after disregarding warnings from Clark and other professionals! This is a re-writing of history, and totally inexcusable. And to title our next president the "Next War President" is beyond the pale, especially before Obama is in office. He might well, and I hope, be our "End the War President"- but that falls off of PNAC's path for the USA future. Trying to rewrite the history of the Bush presidency by not only distorting but ommitting pertinent facts is sheer partisanism and not quality ... More »

yes, but it is missing one element. The issue isn't so much about what the Moral Majority or Focus on the Family are saying- but rather WHY they are saying it.

Goodman hits the nail on the head. The air waves belong to the American public, to be used for the public good. They are not to be used for propaganda or political gain for an organization. If they had been used for the public good, the electronic voting machine problems would have been so thoroughly covered they would be a thing of the past---not still occurring in these elections; Bush would have been prosecuted for war crimes, if we had gone to war in the first place if the press had really done their investigative job. I lay just as much blame on the press as I do this administration for the mess we are in now, both financially and our position in the world. However, not to be let off the hook are those Americans who 'don't ... More »

While this doesn't mention things about Bush's grandfathers dealing directly with the Nazi's during WW2 and Bush Sr. not being held accountable for his dealing with Iranians to prevent the release of hostages (taken at the end of Carter's term ) until after the elections (which is refered to now as the Iran/Contra Affair and gives leave to forget that hostages were held when they could have been released unharmed much earlier from Iran had a deal not been struck to hold them- in return for arms and cash-which Reagan and Bush -very against the law-very much wanted to make sure of so Carter would not be re-elected) this is a pretty good summary of the Bush clan. One thing I do object to is the statement that now Dems 'control' ... More »

What I see overlooked in the most disparaging comments about those in debt is that the BANKS and creditors broke the law. The federal government specifically prohibits the garnishment of exempt funds such as Social Security and veterans benefits and it did so for very good reason. Since the banks broke the law, all 'fees' for any checks written on the account that was frozen, unbeknown to the account owner, should have been lifted completely. In fact, the banks should have been fined for breaking the law. If changes in technology make it easier and cheaper for creditors to seize bank accounts, then banks, who can tell whether an account contains exempt funds before they issue a freeze, should obey the law, notify the account ... More »

Shines light on the fact that any method will be used to deflect attention from universal health care-the corporations have their claws sunk too deep into the establishment to relinquish their hold on our medical care in this country. Social Security isn't the problem.........medical cost ARE,

Underlines the reason for the Bill of Rights and the Constitution to be followed, obeyed by EVERYONE>no exceptions.......because once that standard is lifted for any reason, we are all at risk- as is our country. As we can see from recent legislation and Executive Order of July 17th, once those documents are violated, the slide of diminishing freedoms occurs. The steps to get them back are harder than the steps to take them away were-which we can now see very clearly. Pedilla was a victim, but unfortunately, probably not the last, guilty or not of any real crime, in this decreasing obedience of either document - and we are all at risk now.

Any time a journalist has to start a story with "bleeding heart" it is a deliberate attempt to set the tone of the story in a negative light, and thereby influence the reaction of the reader to the topic in a negative way. This is disgusting. If the journalist had simply stated his interview- which is an honest way to report it- with Edwards, it would have been information delivered in a truthful way, leaving the reader to make up their own minds. This dishonest attempt to trigger a negative reaction in the reader from the very beginning , before giving any facts from the interview, is one of the facets of propaganda. The neocons have perfected it, unfortunately. Therefore, any such labels should be seen as a warning sign that ... More »

The public needs to know that their choice in candidates is being controlled. Although I was angry that Nader chose to run in 2000 as I was totally behind Gore, Nader's right to run when lawfully following established guidelines, should not be impeded or now 'fined' by either major party-who after all, chose themselves to hire lawyers to fight his candidacy! Now he has to pay their bill for doing so??? That not only seems unjust, but totally against what the Founders had in mind for our Representative Democracy, regardless of how stupid, selfish and just plain egotistical the candidate might be!

It did not spell out what state mandates this bill would eliminate...for example, pap smears and mamograms are mandated by most states, and this insurance could eliminate coverage for them, and they are the majority cancers for women in this country. Birth control products could be eliminated from coverage however, Viagra would still be covered. This was not good information or coverage on issues that are real health issues.