From: "Rich Gauszka" 

It's a shame that both sides resort to distortions and outright lies.

Looks like the jackals of the right  are after Fitzgerald

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/30/101014.shtml
Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald is said to be "non-partisan"
and "apolitical" - but as U.S. attorney in Chicago, a job he
continues to hold as he heads up the Leakgate probe, the targets of his
investigations into political corruption have been overwhelmingly
Republican.

...

For those keeping score on Mr. Fitzgerald's political targets, the count
currently stands at 60-plus Republicans vs. 2 Democrats - not counting Mr.
Libby.



"Mark"  wrote in message
news:43663aba$1{at}w3.nls.net...

> Based on their bullet points that will no doubt be incorporated into TV
> ads, the safe bet is that http://www.factcheck.org/ will be busy this fall
> 
>
> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
> news:4366364c{at}w3.nls.net...
>>
>> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
>> news:4366329b$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> He's not the most conservative scholar and intellectual that Bush could
>>> have
>>> nominated, but he is 10,000 times better than Harriet Miers.
>>>
>>> By dropping the bullshit quota he imposed on himself and going with one
>>> of
>>> the best qualified candidates, male or female, Bush's approval ratings
>>> will
>>> rise over the next week or two as a result of this pick.
>>>
>>> He pretty much had to pick a man it seems, because he painted himself
>>> into a
>>> corner with Miers by stating she was the most qualified pick available
>>> (which since it was known he only considered women was the same thing as
>>> saying she was the most qualified women pick)  Had he picked another
>>> women,
>>> the press would have dogged him by saying the pick was less qualified
>>> than
>>> Miers according to Bush.
>>>
>>> So far early reaction is that Gary and the conservatives will be very
>>> happy
>>> and very reconstructed with this pick.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
>>> news:4366202a$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/31/AR200510310
0227.html
>>>>
>>
>>
>> Well the left has been energized. I'd rather see reasoned debate on his
>> views rather than the blurby 'the sky is falling' approach that opponents
>> have started
>> http://thinkprogress.org/
>>
>> ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE: In his dissenting opinion in Planned
>> Parenthood v. Casey, Alito concurred with the majority in supporting the
>> restrictive abortion-related measures passed by the Pennsylvania
>> legislature in the late 1980's. Alito went further, however, saying the
>> majority was wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their
>> spouses before having an abortion. The Supreme Court later rejected
>> Alito's view, voting to reaffirm Roe v. Wade. [Planned Parenthood of
>> Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1991]
>>
>> ALITO WOULD ALLOW RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION: Alito dissented from a
>> decision in favor of a Marriott Hotel manager who said she had been
>> discriminated against on the basis of race. The majority explained that
>> Alito would have protected racist employers by "immuniz[ing]
an employer
>> from the reach of Title VII if the employer's belief that it had selected
>> the 'best' candidate was the result of conscious racial bias." [Bray v.
>> Marriott Hotels, 1997]
>>
>> ALITO WOULD ALLOW DISABILITY-BASED DISCRIMINATION: In Nathanson v.
>> Medical College of Pennsylvania, the majority said the standard for
>> proving disability-based discrimination articulated in Alito's dissent
>> was so restrictive that "few if any.cases would survive summary
>> judgment." [Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, 1991]
>>
>> ALITO WOULD STRIKE DOWN THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT: The Family and
>> Medical Leave Act (FMLA) "guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of
>> unpaid leave to care for a loved one." The 2003 Supreme Court ruling
>> upholding FMLA [Nevada v. Hibbs, 2003] essentially reversed a 2000
>> decision by Alito which found that Congress exceeded its power in passing
>> the law. [Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development,
>> 2000]
>>
>>
>> ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued
>> that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they
>> strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out
>> a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home.
>> [Doe v. Groody, 2004]
>>
>>
>> ALITO HOSTILE TOWARD IMMIGRANTS: In two cases involving the deportation
>> of immigrants, the majority twice noted Alito's disregard of settled law.
>> In Dia v. Ashcroft, the majority opinion states that Alito's dissent
>> "guts the statutory standard" and "ignores our
precedent." In Ki Se Lee
>> v. Ashcroft, the majority stated Alito's opinion contradicted
>> "well-recognized rules of statutory construction." [Dia
v. Ashcroft,
>> 2003; Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, 2004]
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5