The DU has released its new top 10 list for your reading ire or pleasure (take your pick.. )

http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/05/181.html

Choices were tough from what I could tell.

I would add that some Democratic senators were idiots for not standing up with Senator Boxer either. :roll:

They're all "good" --- however, I did like their take on
DeLays comments at the Congressional "debates" on
the Ohio vote... Emphasis added...how true.

[quote]Congressional Republicans
Many of our elected Democrats did last week what they should have done four years ago - stood up and challenged the results of the presidential election. Thanks to Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones and Sen. Barbara Boxer, House and Senate Democrats got a chance to shed public light on the multitude of voting irregularities which occurred during the 2004 election. Let it be noted that the purpose of last week's exercise was not to overturn the results of the election, which would have been impossible, but to highlight the Democratic party's commitment to fair and accurate elections - something the Republican party couldn't care less about. And while the Democrats talked about voting problems, the Republicans spewed partisan rancor, tried to score political points, and ended up looking like a bunch of lunatics who were operating in an alternate reality. "This objection does not have at its root the hope or even the hint of overturning or challenging the victory of the president," said Stephanie Tubbs Jones, "But it is a necessary, timely and appropriate opportunity to review and remedy the most precious process in our democracy." House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's response? "Rather than substantive debate, Democrat leaders are still adhering to a failed strategy of spite, obstruction, and conspiracy theories. They accuse the President, who we are told is apparently a closet computer nerd, of personally overseeing the development of `vote-stealing` software." Uh, what? When the hell did anybody say that? Oh well - sorry America, no fair and accurate elections for you any time soon. Want to make sure everyone's vote are counted? You spiteful obstructive bastards![/quote]

THey forgot Sean Hannity and Rush limbaugh.

I think this list is weekly. But obviously Novak, Hannity, Limbaugh, and Coulter would be on it every week.

[quote]Alberto Gonzalez is widely regarded as a modest, `good-natured` fellow. He struggled up from a childhood in poverty to become White House counsel under George W. Bush. And as attorney general he would probably be a step up from John Ashcroft... if it weren't for one small problem. The problem? An incurable torture fetish. At the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing on his nomination last week, Gonzalez for some reason refused to reject the legal advice he gave Our Great Leader in 2002: that it's just fine and dandy to order torture, and that torturers should be protected from punishment. According to the Washington Post, the "2002 ruling made under his direction [said] that the infliction of pain short of serious physical injury, organ failure or death did not constitute torture." So as long as you don't cripple them or kill them, you're good to go. Naked pyramid anyone? Instead of repudiating his former advice as disgusting and `un-American` - which it is - Gonzalez said, "I don't have a disagreement with the conclusions then reached." Okay... well, what else? Bush's `AG-to`-be also repeated his criticisms of the Geneva Conventions, saying they "limit our ability to solicit information from detainees," which is, according to the Post, "an interpretation at odds with that of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the military's legal corps, the Red Cross, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and decades of U.S. experience in war." So nothing to worry about there then. In fact, even the current attorney general John "Yes, I Can See Into Your Bedroom Window From Here" Ashcroft has said that he doesn't believe in torture because it produces nothing of value. Let me spell this out for those of you having a hard time following this: The Bush administration wants our next attorney general to be a guy who spent several hours last week sitting in front of Senators doing his very, very best to defend the practice of torturing prisoners. Any alarm bells going off yet? [/quote]

This is scary because he falls under the new law. Lawyers running the country if something 'bad' should befall us! Well, gee whiz - can we all see him running our country! :twisted: Food for thought.