Liberal in the Land of Conservative

This is how the club's owner, Ivan Kane, describes his brand of burlesque.

Ivan Kane: The key component would be to have girls who were dancers taking their clothes off, not just girls taking their clothes off.

Yet, for all of this attention and media coverage (most of which is with outlets far away from her district) her latest FEC report reflects a candidate being propped up, not by those in her district or even those in the corporate world but rather, by the helping hand of over 40 leadership PACS and campaign committees of ultra-conservative candidates across the country. These groups typically seek to help candidates in vulnerable districts and not candidates in areas deemed safe. Perhaps this swell of support from her "friends" in Congress is less indicative of friendship and more indicative of a campaign afraid of just how vulnerable it actually has become.

So, how vulnerable is Michele Bachmann? Well, if these contributions are any indicator, she is nearly $100,000 worth of vulnerable.

Rep. Blunt’s ethics issues stem from his abuse of his position for the benefit of his family, including providing legislative assistance to his wife and son and using his clout to solicit contributions for another son’s campaign. Details of Rep. Blunt’s egregious activities can be found at www.beyonddelay.org.

On September 26, 2005, Barton introduced the Gasoline for America's Security Act of 2005 to the House of Representatives in what he said was a response to the present energy crisis. The most significant part of the bill gave the authority for the government to subsidize the construction of new refineries for petrochemical companies, despite the fact that the oil companies had intentionally been closing down refineries for years prior to the hurricanes. It would allow for oil companies to construct refineries on military bases and government controlled areas offshore. The bill also included a clause in which several environmental restrictions on the oil companies would be repealed.^{[citation needed]}

The bill passed by two votes on October 7, 2005, with a narrow 212-210 vote. The bill, which was supposed to be open for vote for only five minutes, was held on the floor for almost 50 minutes, to the chagrin of Democrats who chanted "Shame! Shame!"[6] During that time, the Washington Post reported that Rep. Tom DeLaymoderate Republicans who were originally opposed to the legislation, ultimately convincing them to vote for the bill. Environmentalists and their allies from both parties argued that the country could not stand any relaxation of the Clean Air Act.^{[citation needed]} (R-Tex) twisted the arms of

The critics argued that the oil companies themselves should be paying the construction costs of new refineries in a year when they were getting ready to announce industry-record profits, especially since they had been the ones who shut down now-needed refineries just four years earlier.^{[citation needed]}

From 1995 to 2001, American oil companies shut down 24 oil refineries along the West Coast. Gas prices in the mid-1990s were low — too low for the likes of the oil companies. Refineries were operating efficiently, producing large quantities of gasoline and therefore cheapening the cost of gas at the pump.^{[citation needed]}

According to opensecrets.org, a watchdog group that monitors monetary contributions to politicians, Barton alone has received close to $2 million in campaign contributions from energy companies and their political action committees since he has been in office. The oil and gas industry has been the top industry contributor to his campaign. This does not include contributions from individuals who work for petrochemical companies, though. Last year, employees from Anadarko Petroleum alone, contributed $50,000, opensecrets.org reports.

The New Republic magazine has called Barton a "Big Oil lackey." According to TNRHurricane Katrina to jam through still more energy subsidies, ease environmental regulations on refineries, and press for more offshore oil and gas drilling." writer Michael Crowley, "Barton champions a pro-industry agenda with no apparent concern for appearances. Just two months after [the Gasoline for America's Security Act], he exploited concerns over energy supplies in the aftermath of

Minnesota 06: Few Republican freshmen are as endangered as Michele Bachmann

Conaway is one of several new Texas Republicans added to the House during the 2004 elections as a result of Tom DeLay's Texas gerrymandering.[1]

DeLay was indicted by a grand jury in the fall of 2005 for "alleged crimes during the 2002 Statehouse races that gave Republicans the majority, allowing them to redraw the map. With the new map, Republicans picked up five seats last year."[2]

And what about Cantor's ties to Abramoff? In 2003, Abramoff held a fundraiser for Cantor at his deli Stacks and named a sandwich for the Virginia Congressman. Cantor did not pay Abramoff for the food served at the fundraiser until the newspaper Jewish Forward raised questions about whether campaign finance reporting rules had been violated when Cantor didn't report the debt. After being called on it by the press, Cantor’s office finally paid the tab, a total of $1,732. Cantor has also held no fewer eight fundraisers at Abramoff's restaurantSignatures.

Last week, Cantor, like many other Republicans and a few Democrats, tried to rid himself of tainted Abramof money. In Cantor's case, this involved donating $10,000 to a local Virginia charity. The $10,000 that Cantor donated was less than a third of the $31,500 that Cantor is known to have received from Abramoff and his allies.

"I think Donald Rumsfeld is the best thing that's happened to the Pentagon in 25 years." (Source: AP, Oct. 30, 2006)

Dear Senator Obama:

On Saturday night I gave a speech in which I used a poor choice of words when discussing the national security policy positions of the Presidential candidates. I was quoted as saying "That boy's finger does not need to be on the button."

My poor choice of words is regrettable and was in no way meant to impugn you or your integrity. I offer my sincere apology to you and ask for your forgiveness.

Though we may disagree on many issues, I know that we share the goal of a prosperous, secure future for our nation. My comment has detracted from the dialogue that we should all be having on legitimate policy differences and in no way reflects the personal and professional respect I have for you.

Sincerely,
Geoff Davis

“And, of course, if you leave food around in a motel room or a dorm room at a college, you’re going to get some mice show up at some point in time.”

Right to work laws lower wages for everyone. The average worker in a right to work state makes about $5,333 a year less than workers in other states ($35,500 compared with $30,167).[1] Weekly wages are $72 greater in free-bargaining states than in right to work states ($621 versus $549).[2] Working families in states without right to work laws have higher wages and benefit from healthier tax bases that improve their quality of life.

Federal law already protects workers who don’t want to join a union to get or keep their jobs. Supporters claim right to work laws protect employees from being forced to join unions. Don’t be fooled—federal law already does this, as well as protecting nonmembers from paying for union activities that violate their religious or political beliefs. This individual freedom argument is a sham.

Right to work endangers safety and health standards that protect workers on the job by weakening unions that help to ensure worker safety by fighting for tougher safety rules. According to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, the rate of workplace deaths is 51 percent higher in states with right to work, where unions can’t speak up on behalf of workers.[3]

Right to work laws just aren’t fair to dues-paying members. If a nonunion worker is fired illegally, the union must use its time and money to defend him or her, even if that requires going through a costly legal process. Everyone benefits, so all should share in the process. Nonmembers can even sue the union if they think it has not represented them well enough.

Can you say today that this is not a prelude to a North American union, similar to a European Union? Are there plans to build some kind of superhighway connecting all three countries? And do you believe all of these theories about a possible erosion of national identity stem from a lack of transparency from this partnership?

PRESIDENT BUSH: We represent three great nations. We each respect each other's sovereignty. You know, there are some who would like to frighten our fellow citizens into believing that relations between us are harmful for our respective peoples. I just believe they're wrong. I believe it's in our interest to trade; I believe it's in our interest to dialogue; I believe it's in our interest to work out common problems for the good of our people.

And I'm amused by some of the speculation, some of the old -- you can call them political scare tactics. If you've been in politics as long as I have, you get used to that kind of technique where you lay out a conspiracy and then force people to try to prove it doesn't exist. That's just the way some people operate. I'm here representing my nation. I feel strongly that the United States is a force for good, and I feel strongly that by working with our neighbors we can a stronger force for good.

So I appreciate that question. I'm amused by the difference between what actually takes place in the meetings and what some are trying to say takes place. It's quite comical, actually, when you realize the difference between reality and what some people are talking on TV about.

The outburst by feminist professors simply confirms the stereotype not only that they are too emotional to handle intellectual or scientific debate, but that they seek to forbid any research that might produce facts they don't want the public to know.

"Women in combat are a hazard to other people around them," she said. "They aren't tall enough to see out of the trucks, they're not strong enough to carry their buddy off the battlefield if he's wounded, and they can't bark out orders loudly enough for everyone to hear."

"By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don't think you can call it rape," she said.