Kucinich Wimps Out

Kucinich brought to Congress an Article of Impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney, however Kucinich and other Democrats cowered like pansies when the Republicans called them on it.

Kucinich could not debate the issue, nor could his fellow Democrats, so when challenged by the Republicans, Kucinich sent the item to judicial review.

The upper control arm of the Democrats, Pelosi, even is backing away from this one…

The funny thing is Kucinich, and the Fourth Estate, are viewing this as a Democrat victory, when in fact, the Republicans are reason it is not already dead. Kucinich and his small flock of feeble minded Democrats are now on record, as is Pelosi and the upper crust.

Now what will Kucinich do if he is elected President, not a likely concept, when faced by opposition to his actions, will he cower away like a snake in the grass or will he stand up and defend his actions, I will have to go with the former based on this assessment.

Maybe if the bill was about UFO sightings, he would have debated the topic…

WASHINGTON —  Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich expressed satisfaction Tuesday with a series of procedural twists on the House floor that resulted in the Ohio congressman’s impeachment articles against Vice President Dick Cheney being sent for committee review.

A series of strategic maneuvers on both sides of the partisan aisle ended with a 218-194 vote along party lines to deliver the impeachment resolution to the House Judiciary Committee, the panel of jurisdiction for such matters.

Click here to see if your lawmaker voted to send the impeachment resolution to the committee.

“This vote sends a message that the administration’s conduct in office is no longer unchallenged,” Kucinich said after the vote.

Kucinich savored the victory, saying that Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers
had reassured him and backers of the resolution “that he would in fact launch an impeachment inquiry.” But Conyers told FOX News that he would announce his decision on Wednesday after speaking with House Democratic leaders.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has previously stated that she did not want the impeachment articles to come to a vote. High-ranking Democratic Rep. Alcee Hastings, who was himself impeached while a judge in Florida, said he was not happy with Kucinich’s attempts to raise the matter on the floor in an attempt to circumvent the normal legislative process.

Kucinich “is on a quest of his own. He sees flying saucers and he acts like one,” Hastings said.

Regardless of Kucinich’s confessed past sighting of a UFO, the House was rapt by the resolution Tuesday afternoon as the congressman basked in the spotlight during debate.

The resolution arose when Kucinich made a procedural maneuver to bring up his resolution for a vote, despite opposition from Democratic leaders. During the action, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, acting in accordance with Pelosi’s wishes, moved to table the resolution, which would have effectively sent it into the ether.

Republicans had originally decided to go along with Hoyer and kill the resolution, but halfway through voting GOP lawmakers en masse changed their “yes” votes to “nays.”

Bringing a vote on the impeachment resolution would put Democrats on record over impeachment, a move that Republicans figured could end up a political advantage in a year that has been marked by little progress from the Democratic-led Congress.

When Republicans succeeded on a 162-251 vote to allow the resolution to be debated, Hoyer then moved to send the resolution, which had not gone through traditional channels, to the Judiciary panel for consideration. That motion passed, but Conyers could decide to bury the legislation.

Click here to see how your lawmaker voted on tabling the resolution to impeach Vice President Cheney.

Kucinich’s resolution calls for Cheney’s impeachment, saying the vice president lied to Congress and the U.S. public in order to enter into a war in Iraq, and is trying to mislead Americans again in order to start a war with Iran.

Kucinich originally offered the resolution in April but it had seen no action. The resolution has 21 cosponsors.

After the vote, Hoyer criticized Republicans for wielding their votes so cavalierly.

“I am surprised that Republicans would treat an issue as important as the potential impeachment of a vice president of the United States as a petty political game. It is beneath the dignity of this institution,” Hoyer said. “This is a continuation of Republicans’ gotcha games that achieve nothing more than short term entertainment for themselves, while showing their disdain for the importance of the people’s business.”

Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami called the two-hour debate “absurd.”

“It would have been one 20 minute vote to dispose of the motion, but instead Republicans switched their votes and forced the House to take two additional votes. They wasted the American peoples time and, honestly, these comments from the White House are just laughable,” Elshami said.

Conversely, Cheney’s office and the White House blasted Democrats for bringing up the issue at all.

“It is one thing for Congressman Kucinich to use this political ploy in his presidential campaign. It is another thing to do so on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. The Democrat-led Congress still has not sent the president a single appropriations bill. It’s time to do so, our troops are waiting,” Cheney spokeswoman Megan Mitchell said.

“This Congress has not sent a single appropriations bill to the presidents desk this year … yet, they find time to spend an entire work period on futile votes to impeach the vice president or to pass contempt citations against the president’s chief of staff and former counsel,” said White House press secretary Dana Perino, referring to House efforts to issue citations to former White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former counsel Harriet Miers for failing to respond to subpoenas.

“It is this behavior that leaves the American people shaking their head in wonder at this Congress,” Perino said.

FOX News’ Chad Pergram and Molly Hooper contributed to this report.

Advertisements

American’s Want Change, Not Necessarily Democrats

This is a great Article. The only concern is that several people I have talked to think that the article means that the majority of the country is going to vote Democrat and that this article is saying that Republicans are going to vote Democrat in the 2008 Presidential Elections.

The article points out several important issues in the upcoming elections and does seem to prod the reader into thinking Republicans are bad…. However it is not that people necessarily support Democratic change in the election. I myself, support change from the current path the Bush Administration is taking. I would like to see the Bush Administration return to the path it was taking initially during his first term. He brought the country together, forced the Democrats to become bi-partisan for those four years, achieved economic improvements for us middle class folks. When he switched and caved into Democratic pressure, he faltered.

Read each of the stats and think about what they really mean. Yes change,  

By Dan Balz and Jon Cohen

Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, November 4, 2007; Page A01

One year out from the 2008 election, Americans are deeply pessimistic and eager for a change in direction from the agenda and priorities of President Bush, according to a new Washington PostABC News poll.

Concern about the economy, the war in Iraq and growing dissatisfaction with the political environment in Washington all contribute to the lowest public assessment of the direction of the country in more than a decade. Just 24 percent think the nation is on the right track, and three-quarters said they want the next president to chart a course that is different than that pursued by Bush.

Overwhelmingly, Democrats want a new direction, but so do three-quarters of independents and even half of Republicans. Sixty percent of all Americans said they feel strongly that such a change is needed after two terms of the Bush presidency.

Dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq remains a primary drag on public opinion, and Americans are increasingly downcast about the state of the economy. More than six in 10 called the war not worth fighting, and nearly two-thirds gave the national economy negative marks. The outlook going forward is also bleak: About seven in 10 see a recession as likely over the next year.

The overall landscape tilts in the direction of the Democrats, but there is evidence in the new poll — matched in conversations with political strategists in both parties and follow-up interviews with survey participants — that the coming battle for the White House is shaping up to be another hard-fought, highly negative and closely decided contest.

At this point, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), the Democratic front-runner, holds the edge in hypothetical match-ups with four of the top contenders for the Republican nomination. But against the two best-known GOP candidates, former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), her margins are far from comfortable. Not one of the leading candidates in either party has a favorable rating above 51 percent in the new poll.

And while Clinton finds herself atop all candidates in terms of strong favorability — in the poll, 28 percent said they feel strongly favorable toward her — she also outpaces any other candidate on strong unfavorables. More than a third, 35 percent, have strongly negative views of her, more than 10 points higher than any other contender.

Overall, the public’s sour mood is evident not only in the desire for a change in direction but also in assessments of those who control the reins of power in Washington. For the fourth consecutive month, Bush’s approval rating remains at a career low. Thirty-three percent said they approve of the job he is doing, and 64 percent disapprove. Majorities have disapproved of Bush’s job performance for more than 2 1/2 years.

In follow-up interviews, people were quick to find fault with what they see in Washington and to express their desire for something different. “I think Bush has been extremely polarizing to the country,” said Amber Welsh, a full-time mother of three young children who lives in Davis, Calif. “While I think it started before Bush, I think Bush has pushed it even further. I think the next president needs to be one who brings us together as a country.”

Democrats can take little comfort in Bush’s numbers, however. A year after voters turned Republicans out of power in the House and the Senate, approval of the Democratic-controlled Congress’s performance is lower than the president’s rating, registering just 28 percent. That is the lowest since November 1995, when Republicans controlled Congress and the capital was paralyzed in a budgetary fight that shut down the government.

Congressional Democrats now fare just slightly better. Only 36 percent of those surveyed approve of the way they are handling their jobs, down sharply from April when, 100 days into the new Congress, 54 percent said they approved.

Whatever their dissatisfaction with the Democrats, however, a majority of Americans, 54 percent, said they want the party to emerge from the 2008 election in control of Congress; 40 percent would prefer the GOP to retake power. One reason is that 32 percent approve of congressional Republicans, and in a series of other measures it becomes clear that the eventual Republican nominee for president may be burdened by a tarnished party label in the general election.

Thirty-nine percent of Americans said they now have a favorable impression of the Republican Party, lower than at any point since December 1998, when Republicans were in the midst of impeachment proceedings against then-President Bill Clinton.

Among the GOP rank and file, Republican favorability has fallen 15 percentage points since March 2006 (from 93 percent to 78 percent). It has dropped 19 points among independents, whose support for Democratic candidates in last year’s midterm elections contributed significantly to GOP losses in the House and the Senate.

Only 23 percent of those surveyed said they want to keep going “in the direction Bush has been taking us,” and the appetite for change is as high as it was in the summer of 1992, in the lead-up to Bill Clinton’s defeat of President George H.W. Bush. It is significantly higher than it was in the summer of 2000 or the fall of 1988.

“We’re in a terrible mess,” said Jay Davis, who works on computers for an insurance company and lives in Portland, Maine. “The war is an incredible mistake, and it becomes more and more obvious. The economy is just being propped up with toothpicks.”

Jo Wright, a retired Episcopal priest from Vinita, Okla., said, “It just seems that after these eight years most people think there’s got to be a change, and I’m with them.”

Greg Coy, a 911 dispatcher who lives in Shippensburg, Pa., is less pessimistic about the overall state of the country than Davis or Wright, but he is unhappy with both the president and Congress. He voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, but he said: “If he came up again [for reelection], I wouldn’t vote for him. The last year I think he’s dropped something, and I’m not sure what it is.”

Coy also offered a broader indictment of a political system he sees as gridlocked by partisanship. “Here’s the problem with this country,” he said. “Just because it’s a Republican idea, Democrats don’t like it, and because it’s a Democratic idea, Republicans don’t like it. The Congress should go with what works for this country. We have gotten away from that.”

Justin Munro, a contractor from Reading, Pa., offered a less widely held view of Bush’s policies and the direction of the country. “I’m pretty confident that time will prove that maybe going into Iraq was the right thing to do,” he said. He also believes that Bush has not gotten enough credit on the economy: “I think we’ll look back on that, too, and see that the tax cuts were the right thing to do.”

At this stage, three issues dominate the electoral landscape, with the war in Iraq at the top of the list. Nearly half of all adults, 45 percent, cited Iraq as the most or second-most important issue in their choice for president. About three in 10 cited the economy and jobs (29 percent) or health care (27 percent). All other issues are in the single digits.

Iraq is tops across party lines, but Democrats are twice as likely as Republicans to highlight health care as one of the two most important issues for 2008 (34 percent to 16 percent). Health-care concerns peak among African Americans: Twenty percent called it the election’s most important issue, and 38 percent said it is one of the top two.

While 12 percent of Republicans and 10 percent of independents cited immigration as one of the top two issues, it was highlighted by 3 percent of Democrats. Terrorism is also a more prominent concern among Republicans; 17 percent put it in their top two, while 3 percent of Democrats did the same.

The Democratic Party holds double-digit leads over the GOP as the party most trusted to handle the three most frequently cited issues for 2008: Iraq, health care and the economy. The Democratic advantages on immigration and taxes are narrower, and the parties are at rough parity on terrorism, once a major Republican strong point.

There are other signs suggesting that the political landscape has become less favorable to Republicans than it was at the beginning of Bush’s presidency. By 50 percent to 44 percent, Americans said they favor smaller government with fewer services over bigger government with more services — long a key Republican argument. But support for smaller government is significantly lower than it was before both the 2000 and 2002 elections.

In the new poll, support for allowing same-sex civil unions is up significantly from 2004. A majority of respondents, 55 percent, now support giving homosexual couples some of the legal rights of married heterosexuals.

There is a more even divide on another hot-button issue: Fifty-one percent would support a program giving illegal immigrants now living in the United States the right to live here legally if they pay a fine and meet other requirements; 44 percent would oppose that.

Strategists in both parties agree on the overall shape of the political landscape a year from the 2008 election, but they differ as to how voters will ultimately register their desire for change.

Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg said an electorate that took out its anger on Republicans a year ago remains mad, with the hostility still focused on the president’s party.

Republican pollster Neil Newhouse said, “It is a political environment pretty heavily tilted toward the Democrats.” One hope, he added, is that an early end to the GOP nominating battle will allow the winner time “to put the current administration in the rearview mirror, placing the focus on the nominee’s candidacy and agenda.”

Still, strategists on both sides foresee another close election. “The biggest dynamic is that people want change from the policies of the Bush administration,” said Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton’s chief strategist. But he added that “it’s not a clear path” to victory for the Democrats, noting that no Democratic nominee has won 50 percent of the general-election vote since Jimmy Carter in 1976.

Stuart Stevens, a media adviser to former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, said no Republican candidate will argue next year that the country is in great shape, but he discounted the effectiveness of running against Bush in the fall of 2008. “A year from now, it’s not going to be a referendum on President Bush, it’s going to be a choice between two candidates,” he said.

Much will happen in the coming months that could reshape the political climate. But at this point, in a matchup of current front-runners, Clinton and Giuliani are tightly paired: 50 percent of respondents would support Clinton, 46 percent Giuliani. Against McCain, Clinton has a clearer edge, 52 percent to 43 percent. She has even larger advantages over former senator Fred D. Thompson of Tennessee (16 points) and Romney (18 points), both of whom remain undefined in the eyes of many voters.

In each of these potential contests, Clinton has a big edge among women. In a head-to-head with Giuliani, 56 percent of women would back Clinton, and 40 percent would vote for Giuliani. By contrast, men would tilt toward Giuliani 51 percent to 44 percent.

Independents, who fueled the Democratic takeover of Congress last November, are evenly divided, 47 percent for Clinton, 46 percent for Giuliani. The split is one indicator that, despite current Democratic advantages and an electorate strongly oriented toward change, the 2008 election is likely to be closely and hotly contested.

The Post-ABC poll was conducted by telephone Oct. 29 to Nov. 1 among a random sample of 1,131 adults, and includes additional interviews with randomly selected African Americans for a total of 203 black respondents. The results from the full poll have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Polling analyst Jennifer Agiesta contributed to this report.

Another Democrat Promise Broken

Wanna-to-be Kucinic, unable to beat Hillary or Obama for the Democrat Nomination for the next Presidential election now is trying to impeach Dick Cheney… Why not Bush, Dennis? This is nothing more than posturing, trying to make Dennis look stronger than he is. You will not that Pelosi, one of the most Liberal of Politicians is not signed onto this one… Hmmm makes you wonder the real motive here.

As always, these liberals think by bringing false charges it will change something. There is no constitutional grounds for impeachment, otherwise it would have already been done. Just because you do not agree with what Bush and Cheney are doing, does not mean they have commited impeachable offenses.

Thans for wasting my time Dennis.

More waste of tax payers money. Hey Dennis, how about bringing about a bill that the House, Senate and White House can agree on. Oh wait that would be too much work for you. Maybe you should do an Obama and go out stumping and miss some real votes on the Floor…

Kucinich leads the impeachment circus: Introducing a Cheney impeachment resolution next week

By Michelle Malkin  •  November 2, 2007 08:50 PM

bushnoose.jpg

Strike up the nutroots band! Impeach-a-palooza is coming to the House floor. Dennis Kucinich announces his plans to introduce a privileged resolution that will bring articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney:

Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) announced today that he will be offering a privileged resolution on the House floor next week that will bring articles of impeachment against the Vice President, Richard B. Cheney.

“The momentum is building for impeachment,” Kucinich said. “Millions of citizens across the nation are demanding Congress rein in the Vice President’s abuse of power.

“Despite this groundswell of opposition to the unconstitutional conduct of office, Vice President Cheney continues to violate the U.S. Constitution by insisting the power of the executive branch is supreme.

“Congress must hold the Vice President accountable. The American people need to let Members of Congress know how they feel about this. The Vice President continues to use his office to advocate for a continued occupation of Iraq and prod our nation into a belligerent stance against Iran. If the Vice President is successful, his actions will ensure decades of disastrous consequences.”

The privileged resolution has priority status for consideration on the House floor. Once introduced, the resolution has to be brought to the floor within two legislative days, although the House could act on it immediately. Kucinich is expected to bring it to the House floor on Tuesday, November 6.

The measure has 21 of the most rabid left-wing Democrat sponsors in the House:

Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Robert Brady (D-PA), Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN), Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA), Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA), Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Rep. Henry Johnson (D-GA), Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-MI), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), Rep. James Moran (D-VA), Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), Rep. Diane Watson (D-CA), Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) and Rep. Albert Wynn (D-MD).

A year ago this month, Nancy Pelosi spoke these words:

“I have said it before and I will say it again: Impeachment is off the table.”

Come again, Nan?

***

The Influence Peddler explains the rules governing “privileged resolutions” and points out that the ball is in Nancy Pelosi’s court:

Despite my experience in the House of Representatives, I can claim no expertise on a topic explored so rarely. However, it certainly seems that while Mr. Kucinich may assert that his impeachment resolution is privileged, the Speaker will have to determine that question — and her ruling may be appealed to the whole of the House.

If she rules in favor, then the debate on Kucinich’s impeachment resolution begins. If she rules against and is sustained, then it’s over before it begins.

So assuming Kucinich carries through on this — which seems inevitable — Speaker Pelosi will likely have to decide whether to deny the Netroots their fondest desire, or whether to allow an impeachment debate. If she rules against him, Mr. Kucinich could appeal her ruling, and potentially all Members of the House to go on record in favor of, or in opposition to, beginning the debate over impeachment.

That ought to help the Congressional approval rating.

Oh, sweet schadenfreude.

Dem On Dem Attacks – With Friends Like This Who Needs Republicans

Hillary’s camp crying over Democrat on Democrat attacks. During the latest Democratic Debate, Hillary avoided answering questions, with coaching from Bill she does a wonderful job at dodgeball, flip flopped on issues during the debate and made herself look like a complete asshat. Her opponents, dug in deep and would not back off. Now that the debate is over, she is answering those questions, the ones she could not answer while under fire. Hmmm… Imaging if there was a real crisis she had to respond to with limited time to make a decision. No Imagine if she were President of the United States and we were under attack from Terrorists, maybe terrorists flying planes into buildings. Now Imagine her response. Is this what you want to lead our country? I hope your answer is no.

Hillary, take a bit of advise, take a position on the various issues you are confronted with, support those positions and act upon them. The people will have more respect for you than if you whine about how the “boys” picked on you…

Hillary Clinton’s campaign made a new fundraising pitch on Thursday, looking to somehow capitalize on the flak she’s taking from her Democratic opponents over her performance at a debate Tuesday night in Philadelphia.

In a letter circulated by Clinton Campaign Manager Patti Solis Doyle, the campaign announced that the presidential race has “entered a new phase.”

“On that stage in Philadelphia, we saw six against one. Candidates who had pledged the politics of hope practiced the politics of pile on instead. Her opponents tried a whole host of attacks on Hillary,” the letter said. It then asked readers for a campaign contribution.

The missive came as Clinton’s opponents continued to take shots at the frontrunner over her seeming double talk at the debate. Most of the criticism has come in response to Clinton’s confusing answer regarding her position on New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s plan to give illegal immigrants driver’s licenses, a stance she has since tried to clarify. That issue is not necessarily a divisive topic for Democrats, but rather the response is indicative of what opponents say is Clinton’s fatal flaw.

The campaign for John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator who was especially critical Tuesday night, released a statement Thursday saying Clinton is engaging in the “politics of parsing.”

“All the distractions in the world won’t undo the fact that on Tuesday night millions of Americans saw John Edwards speak honesty and directly while Senator Clinton once again took multiple positions on multiple issues,” the statement said. “We understand that the Clinton campaign isn’t happy about that, but instead of smoke and mirrors, how about some truth-telling?”

Clinton has tried to clear the air of confusion, saying late Wednesday that she supports Spitzer’s plan.

Spitzer’s plan, which he has retooled in the face of heavy criticism, would grant identification on a three-tier basis, decreasing with the level of proper documentation. Undocumented, illegal immigrants would receive a license only to be used for driving, and be inscribed “not for federal purposes,” meaning it couldn’t be used to board flights or cross borders.

“Senator Clinton broadly supports measures like the ones being advocated by Governor Spitzer, but there are details that still need to be worked out,” Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said Wednesday.

“Senator Clinton supports governors like Governor Spitzer who believe they need such a measure to deal with the crisis caused by this administrations failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform,” he added.

During the debate Tuesday night, Clinton offered support for Spitzer, saying he was trying to “fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform,” and noted millions of illegal immigrants are in New York at any one time. They should be able to have identification if they’re in an auto accident, for instance, she said.

When all seven of the candidates were asked whether they agree that illegal aliens should have driver’s licenses, only Sen. Christopher Dodd said he disagreed. He then pressed Clinton on the issue and argued against the plan, saying: “A license is a privilege, and that ought not to be extended, in my view.”

Clinton responded: “Well, I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do.”

Dodd then quickly interrupted Clinton before she could finish, seizing on the apparent discrepancy. Moderator Tim Russert then tried to elicit an answer on whether she supported the plan or not, but she avoided offering specific support for the plan.

Then Edwards and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, both attorneys like Clinton, took turns dicing her statement.

“Unless I missed something, Senator Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes just a few minutes ago,” Edwards said.

“I was confused on Senator Clinton’s answer. I can’t tell whether she was for it or against it,” Obama said.

Clinton’s apparent indecision also made fodder for Republicans on the campaign trail.

Speaking to reporters in Nashua, N.H., former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani took a page out of President Bush’s campaign playbook, playing on a phrase used against Democratic candidate John Kerry in 2004.

Hillary Clinton was for it, she was against it, and she wasn’t sure if she was for it or against it, in the space of one answer,” Giuliani said. “She is known for taking one position with one audience and another position with another audience. … What they didn’t know is she can actually take two different positions in front of the same audience.”

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney likened her support for driver’s licenses to tolerance of illegals in the workforce and those who benefit from city services.

“What that does is it communicates to people coming to the country illegally that with a wink and a nod it is alright. This sanctuary state of mind seems to permeate many liberals that they are going to have sanctuary cities, we are going to have sanctuary driver’s licenses, sanctuary tuition discounts for children of illegal aliens, and that sanctuary state of mind has contributed to millions of people coming here illegally, and it has to stop,” Romney said.

Former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson said Clinton’s response was “another example of (her) dodging hard issues.” He later suggested that Clinton’s lack of clarity in her debate answers raises questions about her ability to handle diplomacy and foreign policy.

“When our worst enemy sits down at the negotiating table and looks across the table … how much can they get away with, how much of what they’re hearing is really true? Are they going to mean what is said on the other side of the table? The question is, ‘Who do we want on the other side of that table facing them?”‘ he told a crowd of GOP donors in Las Vegas.

And the Republican National Committee issued its own talking points memo, pointing to statements it said show that “Hillary’s stance on illegal immigration reforms remains vague and undefined.”

Meanwhile, the controversy over Spitzer’s plan is not going away any time soon. On Thursday, 32 Republican New York Assembly members filed a lawsuit against Spitzer, seeking to quash the license plan.

The suit states the plan violates the section of New York law that says the Department of Motor Vehicles must require a Social Security number before issuing a driver’s license. Among the concerns about the plan is that it will giving illegal immigrants the right to get ID that they could use to vote, to support terror activities or buy weapons.

“The basis of the suit is the governor’s proposal is unlawful,” said Josh Fitzpatrick, spokesman for New York Assembly Republican Leader James Tedisco, who is leading the effort against Spitzer.

Fitzpatrick said the assembly members resorted to court action after a move to amend the governor’s plan failed in special session. He said Clinton’s response to Spitzer’s plan during the debate Tuesday “raised awareness” about the issue but did not by itself prompt the lawsuit.

“It’s a battle that’s been raging for about six weeks now,” he said.

Nonetheless, Tedisco bashed Clinton in a statement Wednesday, calling her a flip-flopper and comparing her to 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, whose positions were mocked by opponents as malleable.

Amid the renewed national attention, Spitzer stood by his plan Thursday.

“I have a very serious obligation. That’s to improve the security of the state, and that’s what we’re doing,” the governor said.

FOX News’ Judson Berger contributed to this report.

Kunicich Stance on Aliens?

So Mr. Kunicich what is your stance on Aliens? Since you were so moved, should we grant these aliens amnesty? How about giving them drivers licenses and healthcare and maybe even Social Security benefits… Maybe you should get yourself checked out for possible mental illness, never mind President Bush.  I wonder if you have had any revelations about past lives with Shirley, maybe you were the Calaphite in a past life…

Serious people is this a man you want as the next President of the United States? Well at least he doesn’t stand a chance against Hillary, not that she is a much better choice…

Kucinich sees UFO, new book claims

Posted by Mark Naymik October 22, 2007 16:25PM

Categories: Breaking News, Kucinich

Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich has seen a UFO, writes Shirley MacLaine in her new book, “Sage-Ing While Age-Ing.”

Kucinich, she writes on page143-144 of the book, “had a close sighting over my home in Graham, Washington, when I lived there. Dennis found his encounter extremely moving. The smell of roses drew him out to my balcony where, when he looked up, he saw a gigantic triangular craft, silent, and observing him. It hovered, soundless, for ten minutes or so, and sped away with a speed he couldn’t comprehend. He said he felt a connection in his heart and heard directions in his mind.”

Representatives of Kucinich’s presidential campaign and congressional office have not responded to calls and e-mail asking whether the Cleveland Democratic congressman in fact saw a UFO or if there is another explanation for MacLaine’s recollection.

MacLaine is a well-known believer of UFOs and reincarnation. And she’s been close to Kucinich for decades. MacLaine is the godmother of Kucinich’s daughter and attended Kucinich’s 2005 Cleveland wedding to third wife, Elizabeth, who’s often campaigning by his side.

MacLaine also recommended in the 1980s that Kucinich visit New Mexico spiritual adviser Chris Griscom, whom MacLaine featured in her then-best-selling book, “Dancing in the Light,” describing how Griscom helped her communicate with trees. (Kucinich has insisted that Griscom was not his spiritual adviser but a “teacher and a very good friend.”)

MacLaine, who shares Kucinich’s opposition to using weapons in space, doesn’t shed any more light in her book on Kucinich’s close encounter, including when it happened. But to read more about MacLaine’s beliefs, pick up a copy of the book. It goes on sale next month — on Election Day.