Elizabeth Edwards, who as the wife of former Senator John Edwards gave America an intimate look at a candidate’s marriage by sharing his quest for the 2008 presidential nomination as she struggled with incurable cancer and, secretly, with his infidelity, died Tuesday morning at her home in Chapel Hill, N.C. She was 61. Her family confirmed the death, saying Mrs. Edwards was surrounded by relatives when she died. A family friend said Mr. Edwards was present. On Monday, two family friends said that Mrs. Edwards’s cancer had spread to her liver and that doctors had advised against further medical treatment.
Mrs. Edwards posted a Facebook message to friends on Monday, saying, “I have been sustained throughout my life by three saving graces — my family, my friends, and a faith in the power of resilience and hope.” She added: “The days of our lives, for all of us, are numbered. We know that.”
In a life of idyllic successes and crushing reverses, Mrs. Edwards was an accomplished lawyer, the mother of four children and the wife of a wealthy, handsome senator with sights on the White House. But their 16-year-old son was killed in a car crash, cancer struck her at age 55, the political dreams died and, within months, her husband admitted to having had an extramarital affair with a campaign videographer.
The scandal over the affair faded after his disclosure in 2008. But in 2009, Mrs. Edwards resurrected it in a new book and interviews and television appearances, telling how her husband had misrepresented the infidelity to her, rocked their marriage and spurned her advice to abandon his run for the presidency, a decision in which she ultimately acquiesced.
Last January, on the eve of new disclosures in a book by a former political aide, Mr. Edwards admitted he had fathered a child with the videographer. Soon afterward, he and Mrs. Edwards separated legally.
Mrs. Edwards, a savvy political adviser who took on major roles in her husband’s two campaigns for the White House, learned she had a breast tumor the size of a half-dollar on the day after Election Day 2004, when the Democratic ticket — Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts and Mr. Edwards, his running mate from North Carolina — lost to President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
Radiation and chemotherapy appeared to put the cancer into remission. In a best-selling memoir, “Saving Graces: Finding Solace and Strength from Friends and Strangers” (Broadway Books, 2006), Mrs. Edwards chronicled her fight for survival. But in March 2007, with her husband again chasing a presidential nomination, this time against Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, Mr. and Mrs. Edwards disclosed that her cancer had returned.
They said it was malignant and in an advanced stage, having spread beyond the breast and lymph nodes into her ribs, hip bones and lungs. It was treatable but “no longer curable,” Mr. Edwards explained. But he said he would continue his bid for the presidency, and Mrs. Edwards said that she, too, would go on with the campaign. “I don’t expect my life to be significantly different,” she declared.
Rest of Obituary at link above.
May prayers of comfort come to her children right now and hold them up as they deal with this loss.
Waters Has Plenty Of Questions On Suspension Of Ethics Lawyers Ryan J. Reilly | December 1, 2010, 6:03PM
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) doesn't know why two of the ethics committee lawyers who had been working on the ethics case against her were placed on administrative leave. But she does know that something "has gone wrong in the ethics process." And she's got plenty of questions.
Waters said in a statement late Wednesday that the House ethics committee has yet to inform her directly that two of the lawyers working on the ethics case against her had been suspended. She said the "integrity of the Committee and its investigative process have been compromised" and called on the panel to clarify why the disciplinary action had been taken.
"Did the Committee's attorneys withhold exculpatory evidence? Leak documents or speak to the press without authorization? Engage in partisan activity? Mislead Members of Congress? Was the disciplinary action justified? What impact does this have on my case?" Waters said in a statement issued late Wednesday.
Committee lawyers Cindy Morgan Kim and Stacy Sovereign were placed on administrative leave on Nov. 19, the day the panel announced the Waters trial had been delayed.
Ok, if that's not enough to raise the eyebrow, I don't know what would.
The lawyers in charge of your trial get SUSPENDED?
In what world doesn't that throw shade ON THE WHOLE DAMN CASE?
Juan Williams is shinning and grinning while earning his Fox paycheck.
Juan Williams: Extended Jobless Benefits Hurt The Unemployed (VIDEO) On Fox News today, Juan Williams, formerly of NPR, advanced an argument about the detrimental effects that extended jobless benefits can have on people. You see, Williams said, these unemployment checks can kill people's work ethic, hurt their values, even harm their sense of style. ..............................
"To me it's crazy because the longer that person is unemployed the more difficult it is then for them to get a job," Williams said. "Because employers, potential employers, will look and see that gee, they've been out forever, it doesn't make sense. And I think that's partly playing in to this cycle. And at some point then it becomes a matter of you lose your work ethic, your values are impacted, you know, getting up, showing up, dressing well, all that good stuff."
VIDEO: The Faces Of The Millions Of Americans Who Will Suffer After Conservatives Kill Unemployment Extension Today, “thousands of Americans are set to begin losing unemployment benefits” after conservatives in Congress successfully prevented an extension from being passed. 8,400 Americans will lose their benefits by the end of this week, and the Labor Department estimates that “by the end of the third week of December, aid to 1.36 million Americans will be interrupted.”
Those Americans are not just statistics. They are very real single mothers, struggling families, hardworking young adults, and non-retired seniors. In every corner of America, everyday people who can’t find work thanks to a disastrous economy created by the misdeeds of Wall Street and other elites will suffer because of Congress’s failure to extend unemployment benefits.
83,000 Pennsylvanians will soon lose their jobless benefits. 10,600 Nevadans will stop receiving aid by mid-December, such as 46 year-old Doyle Carr, who worked in a warehouse until he was laid off in 2008. “I just want to go to work,” Carr told the local media. “I’ve got skills. That’s all I really want to do.” But because of the poor economy, he can’t find work, and he is scared of what will happen to him. “‘They want to squabble about this in Congress? Why?” Carr asks. “Survival. Health issues. That’s what’s important. That’s why people need this money.”
ThinkProgress has compiled video reports from around the country showcasing the suffering Americans are about to experience due to the expiration of jobless benefits. Like Carr, these Americans are hard working and strive to find employment, but the economy, shattered by the misbehavior of Wall Street and not Main Street, is unable to provide them with those opportunities. These are the faces of the Americans who will suffer as a direct result of conservative obstruction. Watch it:
This is who they are. This is who the GOP is. Stop trying to pretend that they're anything other than this.
And for anyone who voted for them and knows someone who is unemployed - no better for you.
The House of Representatives voted 332 to 79 to censure Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) on Thursday for violations of the body's ethics laws.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) read the censure on the floor of the House immediately following the vote.
Today's vote brought an end to the investigation of the long serving New York Democrat, who was found to have violated 11 of the House ethics rules. The charges centered upon four issues: that Rangel used Congressional resources to raise money for an educational center bearing his name; that he failed to report taxable income on a rental villa in the Dominican Republic; the he filed inaccurate financial disclosure forms; and that he used a rent-controlled apartment in Harlem as a campaign office.
Several members from both parties spoke in support changing the punishment from censure to reprimand (For more on how these punishments have played out in the past, see here.)
And Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.), a member of the ethics committee, proposed a motion to lessen the sanction from censure to reprimand that ultimately failed by a vote of 146-267. It had the support of 143 Democrats and three Republicans: Reps. Pete King (NY), Ron Paul (TX) and Don Young (AK).
Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) argued that the whatever sanction was levied against Rangel should be consistent with precedent. "He knows he messed up," Scott said. Censure would be "singularly harsh and unfair and without precedent."
King also spoke in support of reducing the punishment to a reprimand, but upped the ante on the rhetoric. Censure is to a reprimand as the death penalty is to prison, King said, while noting that he and Rangel "disagree on virtually every issue."
START (for Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) was a bilateral treaty between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms. The treaty was signed on 31 July 1991 and entered into force on 5 December 1994 . The treaty was signed by the United States and the USSR, that barred its signatories from deploying more than 6,000 nuclear warheads atop a total of 1,600 ICBMs, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and bombers. START negotiated the largest and most complex arms control treaty in history, and its final implementation in late 2001 resulted in the removal of about 80 percent of all strategic nuclear weapons then in existence. Proposed by United States President Ronald Reagan, it was renamed START I after negotiations began on the second START treaty, which became START II.
The START I treaty expired 5 December 2009. On 8 April 2010, the new START treaty was signed in Prague by U.S. President Obama and Russian President Medvedev. It will enter into force after its ratification through the parliaments of both countries.
PROPOSAL The first START proposal was presented by United States President Ronald Reagan in Geneva on 29 June 1982. Reagan proposed a dramatic reduction in strategic forces in two phases, which he referred to as SALT III at the time.[2] The first phase would reduce overall warhead counts on any missile type to 5,000, with an additional limit of 2,500 on ICBMs. Additionally, a total of 850 ICBMs would be allowed, with a limit of 110 "heavy throw" missiles like the SS-18, with additional limits on the total "throw weight" of the missiles as well. The second phase introduced similar limits on heavy bombers and their warheads, and other strategic systems as well.
So, the original START Treaty was presented by GOP Hero Ronald Reagan. Ronald ' He defeated the Commies' Reagan.
The President has negotiated START II, and now it needs ratification by the Senate. The problem with is that all treaties need 2/3 majority in the Senate to be ratified.
Of course, the problem is the GOP. They suddenly have a problem with START II.
WHY?
Because President Obama negotiated it.
If this had been George Bush, and he had negotiated anything with our international allies, the first thing that would have been said about any Democrat who opposed it was how the Democrats were once again ENDANGERING OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. And, how dare they oppose the President. Aren't they REAL Americans?
You know it. I know it.
START II IS about the national security of the United States of America, and these mofos could care less. It's quite obvious that they could care less. How bad is it?
LUGAR: Please do your duty for your country. We do not have verification of the Russian nuclear posture right now. We’re not going to have it until we sign the START treaty. We’re not going to be able to get rid of further missiles and warheads aimed at us. I state it candidly to my colleagues, one of those warheads…could demolish my city of Indianapolis — obliterate it! Now Americans may have forgotten that. I’ve not forgotten it and I think that most people who are concentrating on the START treaty want to move ahead to move down the ladder of the number of weapons aimed at us.
Appearing on Meet The Press, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) said that the Senate would not be able to ratify the START treaty during the lame-duck session: "If the leader of the Senate, Senator Reid, were to allow a couple of weeks for full debate and amendment of the resolution of ratification, then theoretically there would be time. But he has made it clear that he has a different agenda in mind. And I, I think clearly they've got to set some priorities here. Are they going to deal with the funding of the government for the remainder of the fiscal year? They've got to do that. Are they going to deal with the issue which is on everybody's mind, that you mentioned earlier, and that is to ensure that we don't have a big tax increase, the largest tax increase in the history of the country. These are higher priority items."
Higher priority than the national security of the United States?
G-T-F-O-H
You have other Republicans calling the Senate out for their insanity.
Former Republican Sen. Warns GOP May ‘Have Gone So Far Overboard That We Are Beyond Redemption’
In an age when far-right tea party activists have taken over the Republican Party and demanded lockstep allegiance, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) has been one of the few GOP lawmakers to step out of line. In particular, Lugar, the ranking GOP member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has blasted his own party for relentlessly blocking ratification of the New START nuclear arms treaty with Russia, calling on his fellow GOP senators to “do your duty for your country” and complete the pact.
Not surprisingly, this insubordination has earned Lugar significant scorn within the Republican base, which now seems to value blind obedience over principled independent decision-making. In a New York Times profile of Lugar published today, former GOP Sen. John Danforth feared that the backlash against Lugar from his own party signals that the GOP has gone “far overboard” with no hope of turning back:
“If Dick Lugar,” said John C. Danforth, a former Republican senator from Missouri, “having served five terms in the U.S. Senate and being the most respected person in the Senate and the leading authority on foreign policy, is seriously challenged by anybody in the Republican Party, we have gone so far overboard that we are beyond redemption.”
Mr. Danforth, who was first elected the same year as Mr. Lugar, added, “I’m glad Lugar’s there and I’m not.”
THIS from the man who brought us Unca Clarence.
Richard Lugar, could in no way, be considered a liberal anything. Hell, he couldn't even be considered a moderate anything. He is a conservative, but the man actually thinks about the national security of this country over getting a defeat of the President.
Imagine that - National Security of America and what's in America's international best interests - EVEN IF IT GIVES PRESIDENT OBAMA A WIN - over being a loyal GOP slop.
A REAL American, would want our country to be safe internationally. Would want this country to be in good standing - around the world.
These people are not Real Americans. They are not Good Americans. And, the left has to stop believing that they have any redeeming qualities. That they are nothing but powerhungry animals who could give a rat's ass if this country goes down the tubes, as long as they are in power and can loot the treasury for their friends. They have had MONTHS to look over this treaty. The only reason why they are objecting is because they don't want the President to get any credit for an International Foreign Policy Success.
PERIOD.
A sum up of the GOP Obstructionists with START II on Olbermann:
When folks show you who they are, accept it, and respond accordingly.
From pretty much the first moment the Teabaggers appeared on the scene, we here at MOA called them for what we saw them to be- racist reactionaries.
Take their country back?
Back from whom?
Back to when?
Repealing the 17th Amendment, which would end direct election of U.S. Senators and return Senate elections to the purview of state legislatures.
When they came up with this bullshyt about the 14th Amendment, we tried to break it down for you - the foundation of every gain made because of Brown v Board is rooted in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. You can believe that ' birthright citizenship' trojan horse if you want, but the CONservatives have been itching for a way to destroy Brown, and if they have to destroy an amendment to the Constitution in order for that to happen, oh well.
Tea Party Nation President Says It ‘Makes A Lot Of Sense’ To Restrict Voting Only To Property Owners
Every week, the Tea Party Nation hosts a weekly radio program, calling itself a “home for conservatives.” Two weeks ago, Tea Party Nation President Judson Phillips hosted the program and discussed changes that he felt should be made to voting rights in the United States. He explained that the founders of the country originally put “certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote.” He continued, “One of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you’re a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. If you’re not a property owner, you know, I’m sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners”:
PHILLIPS: The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote. It wasn’t you were just a citizen and you got to vote. Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today. But one of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you’re a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. If you’re not a property owner, you know, I’m sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners.
This isn't some mere follower, or volunteer. It's TEA PARTY NATION PRESIDENT.
Non-property owners shouldn't vote?
W-T-F?
What is this, 1749?
Told you.
They are as anti-democratic (small d) as possible. They don't believe in an America that is representative of everyone that is here. When they say ' real' Americans, they aren't thinking about anyone who isn't White, and if you're White, you don't live in urban areas.
And, they are delusional.
But, TOWN summed them up and their world view as well as anyone could:
Flash forward to 2010, the descendants of these fools named themselves the "Tea Party" and they want their America back, the America where blacks were not seen and not heard and knew their places, where women sat at home barefoot and pregnant, where all the Hispanics were south of the border and where the white man was King.
These people need these myths to survive; that's why no sense can be talked into them.
Black Republican: Black Caucus preaches victimization and dependency By Gautham Nagesh - 11/20/10 05:23 PM ET
Congressman-elect Allen West (R-Fla.), who said he plans to become the only black Republican in the Congressional Black Caucus, accused the organization of failing the black community by promoting dependence on government welfare programs.
"The Congressional Black Caucus cannot continue to be a monolithic voice that promotes these liberal social welfare policies and programs that are failing in the Black community, that are preaching victimization and dependency, that's not the way that we should go," West said on Fox News Friday. "And those are not the types of principles that my mother and father raised me with in the inner city of Atlanta, Georgia."
According to the U.S. Census, 5% of the Black population receives Government Assistance- welfare.
Five percent of the Black population in this country.
I follow the CBC, and have issues with them, but please lead me to the speeches where the voices of the CBC preached victimization and dependency. I'd like to know.
Considering that West has never had anything other than a GOVERNMENT JOB all his adult life, why doesn't HE get off the Government dole? He's got his paychecks, his healthcare from the Government all his adult life, but deliberately misrepresents the numbers of Black people actually on public assistance in this country, all while shucking and jiving that free market, Obamacare is socialized medicine, the Free Market is everything good about America bull that Republicans shill.
See, these are the problems that I have with Black Republicans. If all that West is going to do is parrot White Republican nonsense about Black people, then he can go somewhere and sit down. West has no more to say about problems in the Black community than any Representatives from the following states: Alaska, Washington, West Virginia, Hawaii, Iowa, New Mexico, Oregon, and any other community where the Black population is negligible. Representatives from Arizona, Colorado, and Nebraska represent more Black people - percentage wise - than West does in his Congressional District.
And why did West leave that Government job in the military?
first the earlier comments from the Russians this week that they thought it was quite obvious that the recent Wikileaks cabledump was done to embarrass the President and now this.
Pravda On Palin, Ctd 30 Nov 2010 07:52 pm
Since we posted that link, it seems to have disappeared entirely. But the site itself is unavailable too. Maybe we crashed it.
[Update: a new link. Seriously, it's rip-roaring stuff - the kid of thing you don't actually see in the US media, even though Palin thinks she does.]
I have already called Sarah Palin a pith-headed bimbo from the back of beyond, in this column. I shall now go one step further. By attacking the democratically elected President of the United States of America at a sensitive time in her country's history, she shows the tact of a boorish drunkard bawling obscenities at a funeral.
If Sarah Palin is not some kind of a massive political joke in the USA, wheeled out to liven up the political scene from time to time with nonsensical and pastiche (one hopes) displays of sheer and utter ignorance, then it is worrying. It is even more so if anyone other than a manic depressive suffering from a chronic lack of lithium takes this...female...seriously.
Hockey Mum Sarah ex-Governess of Alaska is famous for her shrill shrieking style, displaying a pitifully shallow persona which one hopes is stage-managed to give the rest of the world a good chuckle at the Americans' ability and unique quality to make fun of themselves, a real-life female version of Homer Simpson-cum-Belching Barney at Mo's, giving us ever-more hilarious soundbites as she sets herself up as the dumbest woman on Earth.
Just occasionally, one encounters a bar-room idiot whose party piece is belching loudly before falling backwards off his stool, bouncing off the floor on his backside with a background provided by guffaws of laughter, yet who winks knowingly as he is carried out with his feet scraping along the ground and says "Don't worry son, most of it is an act".
The act. It reminds one of Marilyn Monroe putting on the act of the dumb blonde. But an act it was, a character projected by a shrewd, intelligent and charismatic woman with the ability to invent a persona. Sarah Palin, however, is the real-life thing. And it is becoming patently obvious that it isn't an act.
"The two parties have combined against us to nullify our power by a ‘gentleman's agreement' of non-recognition, no matter how we vote ... May God write us down as asses if ever again we are found putting our trust in either the Republican or the Democratic Parties." -- W.E.B. DuBois (1922)
Posts
