Friday, November 30, 2007

MENTAL HEALTH AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

A Republican vision of mental health

Today on NPR's "Left, Right & Center," the right-wing propaganda agent stated that he had read a survey claiming Republicans have better mental health than Democrats or independents. When I got home I googled around and found the new Gallup Poll he must have been referencing. In it, Republicans self diagnose themselves as being in excellent health. That would, of course include Republicans who have recently come to the public's attention claiming for example that they were only in public toilets to clean up some messy toilet paper (Idaho Senator Larry Craig) or escape from bad weather or scary African-Americans (Florida Rep. Bob Allen) or because they like the sounds in public men's rooms (former GOP candidate for the Louisiana state senate, Joey DiFatta. Each claimed he was perfectly balanced-- and straight. And that doesn't even address Republicans like child predator Mark Foley (who claimed he was mentally healthy after he was apprehended drunk breaking into the boys dorm in the congressional page program) or, more recently, Washington State Republican state Rep Richard Curtis (whose mental stability is so fragile that he sponsored viciously homophobic legislation to prevent gay men and women from employment while he was wearing women's silk panties and planning his next all-nighter of anonymous, drug-fuled sex). Yes, why would any of these Republicans possibly consider himself in anything but the most tip top mental health?

And what about Ron Paul? Millions of Republicans admire or even revere him. A few nights ago he stood on a stage with the rest of the pathetic pygmies™ ranting and raving about a superhighway from Mexico to Canada that will lead to the end of our national sovereignty. The rest of them were so busy trying to outdo each other on how bigoted and xenophobic they are that not one of them bothered to remark on Paul's apparent lunacy. I mean the man is not just one of the pygmies™; he's been a Republican member of Congress or over 10 years.
A border-spanning "NAFTA highway" now on the drawing board, Paul said, would link the U.S., Mexico and Canada, worsening illegal immigration and threatening American independence. "Our national sovereignty is under threat," Paul warned.

Federal and state highway and trade officials and transportation consultants reacted Thursday with befuddlement and amusement. The fearsome secret international highway project Paul described does not exist, they said.

"There is no such superhighway like the one he's talking about," said Ian Grossman, a spokesman with the Federal Highway Administration. "It doesn't exist, in plans or anywhere else."

"It's complete fiction," said Tiffany Melvin, executive director of NASCO, a consortium of transportation agencies and business interests caught in the cross hairs of anti-highway activists. "This is the work of fringe groups that have wrapped a couple of separate projects together into one big paranoid fantasy."

A loose confederation of conservative Internet bloggers and some right-wing groups, among them the John Birch Society, has seized on a burst of activity in federal highway projects in recent years as evidence that the Bush administration is pushing toward a European Union-style government for North America.

..."The ultimate goal is not simply a superhighway," Paul wrote to his constituents in October 2006, "but an integrated North American Union -- complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy, and virtually borderless travel within the Union."

During the Wednesday debate, Paul also linked the purported NAFTA highway to his concerns about the Trilateral Commission -- an enduring bugaboo of conspiracy theorists -- and the World Trade Organization's "control [of ] our drug industry, our nutritional products." Paul added: "I don't like big government in Washington, so I don't like this trend toward international government."

Jesse Benton, Paul's campaign spokesman, said Thursday that Paul believed that the threat of a NAFTA highway was real. "Dr. Paul is not alone in thinking this is a substantial compromise of federal sovereignty," Benton said. "There's a strong belief by a lot of people that [the highway] would run clear up through Canada."

Benton noted that Rep. Virgil H. Goode Jr. (R-Va.) had introduced a resolution expressing opposition to a NAFTA superhighway. It is signed by 42 congressmen, including Paul and two of his Republican presidential rivals, Reps. Duncan Hunter of California and Tom Tancredo of Colorado.

Virgil Goode, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul... now what have these 4 gentlemen have in common besides being bigoted loons? Well I bet they all fit in among the majority of Republicans who claim to be in "excellent" mental health.

Labels: , ,

Maybe next General, er, President Musharraf will name Idiot Al "The Torture Guy" Gonzales as Pakistan's next attorney general?

Interns undergo a training session held in Islamabad under the Parliamentary Intern Program. Introduced in the national Parliament and all four Provincial Assemblies, this program has provided members with much-needed analysis, research and assistance.
--from the USAID/Pakistan website ("Developing Strong Legislatures")


There are, of course, people who think that if Chimpy our Prez were serious about spreading democracy and freedom, he would start by halting his assault on them at home. These people are known as "godless liberals," and God will make them burn in hell for eternity.

Many of those same people look at the ungodly mess in Pakistan, throw up their hands, and declare the whole thing utterly beyond repair--not exactly reassuring considering that it's not only a nuclear power but a nuclear power butted up against another one, India, where war could break out at any time not just from historic hatred but from the political convenience of one or the other government. (The likelier candidate is usually our Pakistani ally, whose government clings to power by a thread despite its determined protection of our old chum Osama bin Laden.)

As usual, the Washington Post's Al Kamen is awake at the wheel, reporting this exciting development:

Do Your Part for Pakistan

Are you an architect or engineer? Worried about losing work if we slip into recession? Think international. Think Pakistan.

That nuclear-armed country -- beset by jihadists, facing rebellion in the northwest provinces, confronting nuclear India over Kashmir, having had a democratically elected leader for only less than half of its 60 years as an independent nation -- is chronically unstable. These days, even the lawyers are rioting in the streets.

Washington is hunting hard for ways to shore up the country and improve the Pakistanis' view of the United States and democracy. A recent Pew poll found only 48 percent of Pakistanis think democracy can work.

Here's where you can help. The Agency for International Development is proposing a project vital to the country's future: the new Pakistan Institute for Parliamentary Services building. This building, which you will design -- offers must be submitted by Jan. 4 -- will house the Pakistan Legislative Strengthening Program. We're told this will "address the needs of members of Parliament and their staff to perform essential legislative processes such as budgeting, operation of committees, and rules of parliamentary process."

Of course! Kind of their very own Congressional Research Service. That's the ticket! Wait till the tribes in Waziristan find out about this!
#

Labels: , , , ,

ANOTHER NJ REPUBLICAN SAYS THANKS BUT NO THANKS TO THE HAPLESS NRCC-- THEY CAN'T EVEN GIVE THEIR NOMINATIONS AWAY THIS YEAR

A couple weeks ago the NRCC operative were pulling their hair out of their heads because all their top tier candidates in NJ's seventh congressional district were backing out of running against Linda Stender after 37 year old Mike Ferguson announced his retirement as a Bush rubber stamp. They were soon scraping the bottom of the barrel looking for candidates who hadn't been arrested or were likely to be arrested before the election. But at least they had all their ducks in a row for the other New Jersey seat being abandoned by a Bush rubber stamp, NJ-03. Or so they thought.

As soon as James Saxton figured out that Democrat John Adler was likely to kick his ass from Cherry Hill to Beach Haven he decided to start looking for a job on K Street. The state and national Republicans were distraught but figured they get a carbon copy of Saxton, State Rep. Diane Allen, to run instead. Yesterday that particular duck made the kinds of quacks they didn't want to hear, not only bowing out but bowing out with a nasty remark aimed at a corrupt old machine faction in the Jersey GOP.
“Now is not the time in my life that I feel prepared to again fight a Democrat opponent, as well as a rogue faction of the Burlington County Republican Party simultaneously.”

So the GOP starts from scratch to find someone to run in what was once safe Republican territory. They have a gaggle of minor GOP operative eager to give it a shot but, as today's Congressional Quarterly points out, "Allen’s departure leaves Republicans currently without a major candidate for the seat-- creating, at least for now, a heightened risk for Republicans in a potential battleground district. While Saxton, who [misleadingly] cultivated an image as a GOP moderate largely because of his pro-environment views, easily won his House elections, the 3rd District went Republican for President Bush by just a 3 percentage-point margin in 2004."

This will be another congressional district where Hillary Clinton's place at the top of the ticket will help sweep down-ticket Democrats into office.

Labels: ,

DOES JOE BIDEN-- A REAL LIFE CORPORATE SHILL-- HAVE A RADICAL MESSAGE FOR PELOSI AND THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP?


Biden's bid for the vice presidency hasn't really taken off. Voters seem indifferent to him and his corporate-infused record doesn't light fires among the Democratic base. But he sure lit a fire yesterday when he "stated unequivocally that he will move to impeach President Bush if he bombs Iran without first gaining congressional approval."

Forget for a moment that Biden would probably lead the fight among Democrats to back Bush on a preemptive strike against Iran, popular among neocon-oriented Beltway Dems, even if completely anathema to grassroots Democrats. Biden's moment of glory at a campaign rally in Portsmouth, NH, complete with raucous applause was when he almost stopped talking about himself for a moment.
"The president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran, and if he does, as Foreign Relations Committee chairman, I will move to impeach."

Biden said he is in the process of meeting with constitutional law experts to prepare a legal memorandum saying as much and intends to send it to the president.

But Pelosi-Hoyer-Emanuel need not start having fainting spells over the prospect. Biden, as always, is full of shit. When audience members pointed out that Bush has already committed a plethora of impeachable offenses and asked why Biden doesn't act now, the longtime Bush-enabler from Delaware started throwing sand in everyone's eyes. Impeachment now, he said, might not be "constitutionally valid" and it might be [politically] "counterproductive" and there is a need for "clear evidence." Yeah... isn't that what an impeachment investigation would be set up to determine? The applause had stopped and Biden, ever the craven political hack, found himself a one-liner to get back in the good graces of the audience:
"If you're going to impeach George Bush, you better impeach Cheney first."

And, like trained seals, they forgot that Biden is part of the problem, not part of the solution... and they fed him the applause he lives for.

MSNBC has a partial transcript up:
QUESTIONER: “I have a great fear that say you’re elected as the nominee of the party. Next August sometime during the summer, Dick Cheney and George are going to bomb Iran."

BIDEN: "Legitimate concern."

QUESTIONER: "What can you do about it?”

BIDEN: “I am not one, who if you’ve observed me for some time, I am not one who’s engaged in excessive populist rhetoric. [There's the understatement of the year.] I’m not one that pits the rich against the poor. [True, true; he's a consistent fighter for the prerogatives of the rich and powerful against ordinary Americans... just as if he were a Republican.] I’m not one who’s gone out there and made false threats against presidents about, and god love him he’s a great guy, I’m not Dennis Kucinich saying impeach everybody now. But let me tell you, I have written an extensive legal memorandum with the help of a group of legal scholars who are sort of a stable of people, the best-known constitutional scholars in America, because for 17 years I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

"I asked them to put together [for] me a draft, which I’m now literally riding between towns editing, that I want to make clear and submit to the Untied States Senate pointing out the president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran. And I want to make it clear, I want it on the record, and I want to make it clear, if he does, as chairman of the foreign relations committee and former chair of the judiciary committee, I will move to impeach him."

[APPLAUSE]

SECOND QUESTIONER: " ... I say this not to fan flames, and not to sound like a raving lunatic. You did mention something about impeachment, if George Bush does something regarding Iran. I say this as a strategic or tactical question. Do you think it would be useful now to forward an impeachment motion as a signal to the world that we're headed in the right direction?"

BIDEN: "It’s a valid statement to make. It is not as clear constitutionally that articles of impeachment would lie absent his action, which is crystal clear if he acted without congressional authority in Iran. It is arguable constitutionally whether some of the action he has taken thus far amount to high crimes and misdemeanors that could be in fact proven.

"So it makes it difficult. But beyond that, it is counterproductive. Let me make it clear what the impeachment case I made is. I think the best deterrent is for the president to know, even at the end of his term, we would move and move to follow through with that so his legacy would be marred for all time if he acted in what was clearly, clearly an impeachable offense. In the absence of that, what happens is, and you’re gonna think I’m joking about this. I’m not. If you’re gonna impeach George Bush you better impeach Cheney first. Not a joke. Not a joke."

Labels: , , ,

REPUBLICANS NEVER HAVE TO LOOK FAR FOR SCAPEGOATS-- MIRRORS CAN BE HELPFUL


One of the highlights of Wednesday's Republican debate-- maybe second only to the Giuliani/Romney cat fight over immigration-- was the appearance of Brig. General Keith Kerr (ret.). Predictably ultra right-wing and ultra corrupt San Diego area Congressman Duncan Hunter gave the most bigoted answer which probably insulted tens of thousands of American servicemen and women. Flip Flop Mitt, who in 1994, as closeted moderator Anderson Cooper pointed out, said that he looked forward to the day when gays and lesbians could serve in "openly and honestly in our nation's military." Romney tried weaseling out of that just like he tried weaseling out of everything he's ever done in his whole principleless career. He tap danced around a bit and finally, after being booed, said he'd let the people in the military decide, a typical Romney cop out. McCain joined him in saying he just wants to do what the military wants.

Last January General John Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1993 to 1997 (which was when "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" first went into effect) penned an electrifying editorial in the NY Times. He unambiguously called for the scrapping of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
When I was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I supported the current policy because I believed that implementing a change in the rules at that time would have been too burdensome for our troops and commanders. I still believe that to have been true. The concern among many in the military was that given the long-standing view that homosexuality was incompatible with service, letting people who were openly gay serve would lower morale, harm recruitment and undermine unit cohesion.

In the early 1990s, large numbers of military personnel were opposed to letting openly gay men and lesbians serve. President Bill Clinton, who promised to lift the ban during his campaign, was overwhelmed by the strength of the opposition, which threatened to overturn any executive action he might take. The compromise that came to be known as “don’t ask, don’t tell” was thus a useful speed bump that allowed temperatures to cool for a period of time while the culture continued to evolve.

The question before us now is whether enough time has gone by to give this policy serious reconsideration. Much evidence suggests that it has.

Last year I held a number of meetings with gay soldiers and marines, including some with combat experience in Iraq, and an openly gay senior sailor who was serving effectively as a member of a nuclear submarine crew. These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers.

This perception is supported by a new Zogby poll of more than 500 service members returning from Afghanistan and Iraq, three quarters of whom said they were comfortable interacting with gay people. And 24 foreign nations, including Israel, Britain and other allies in the fight against terrorism, let gays serve openly, with none reporting morale or recruitment problems.

I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces. Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job.


This isn't what homophobic bigots like Hunter and Tancredo or those cravenly catering to them like McCain and Romney want to hear. But today, on the 14th anniversary of the flawed policy, they will hear a lot more of it. According to today's Times 28 retired generals and admirals sent Congress a letter urging them to repeal the disgraceful law.
“We respectfully urge Congress to repeal the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy,” the letter says. “Those of us signing this letter have dedicated our lives to defending the rights of our citizens to believe whatever they wish.”

The retired officers offer data showing that 65,000 gay men and lesbians now serve in the American armed forces and that there are more than one million gay veterans.

“They have served our nation honorably,” the letter states.

...Few issues have split the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates this year as clearly as whether to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

At a debate in June, all of the Democratic candidates said they favored rescinding the policy. The Republican candidates, meanwhile, have favored continuing it, saying that it is a sensible approach or that it would be a distraction to integrate openly gay service members into the armed forces at a time of war.

Efforts to prompt the House and Senate to repeal the legislation have gained little traction. Senior leaders at the Pentagon are on the record as saying the Department of Defense will follow the lead of Congress.

“Personal opinion really doesn’t have a place here,” Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said in March. “What’s important is that we have a law.”

Sounds like a dodge from the very people weak non-leaders like Romney and McCain are counting on to help them dodge the bullet. Or bullets-- one from an increasing number of Americans fed up with narrow-minded and senseless Republican bigotry, and one from the narrow-minded Republican bigots who define their pathetic selves by who they hate.

Labels: , ,

Thursday, November 29, 2007

ENOUGH WITH THE MEALY MOUTHED COWARDS AND CORPORATE SHILLS-- REAL DEMOCRATS NEED A REAL LEADER TO REPRESENT THEM IN WASHINGTON

There are 30 candidates we've endorsed up at Blue America. I want to see every one of them get elected. Do I think some are better than others? Out of 30? How could it be otherwise? And right now, the ones I'm most concerned about are the true blue progressives running against reactionary and/or corrupt Democrats in primaries. That's why you've seen a lot of posts at DWT about Donna Edwards (MD), Mark Pera (IL), and John Laesch (IL). After the primaries, there will be a lot more time and energy being put into the important races where grassroots progressive Democrats are fighting wingnuts-- cases like Andrew Rice v Inhofe, Rick Noriega v Cornyn, Dennis Shulman v Garrett, Himes v Shays, etc.

But today I want to write about a special election coming up to fill the seat being abandoned by Denny Hastert in IL-14. If you read DWT with any frequency, you know that we have endorsed John Laesch again this year and that we're very enthusiastic about him as a candidate. We feel he can win in a tough district and, more important, he will make a great congressman, someone who will stand and fight and not just go along with the herd.

Democrats who stand and fight and who are grassroots-oriented and progressive and strongly against the war and, worst of all, not willing to go along with the herd... those are the born opponents of Rahm Emanuel. And he does what he can to nip them in the bud. In IL-14 he has a shill Blue Dog running against John in the primary, Bill Foster, someone who waxes eloquently about a pre-emptive strike against Iran and about working with the Blue Dogs, the putative Dems who have conspired with the Republican minority all year to keep most progressive legislation from passing. Just what we need; NOT!

Yet there is an undercurrent of anti-Laesch feeling in some parts of the blogosphere. Distortions and Establishment memes have circulated that, in some circles, have become "conventional wisdom." Laesch can't win; Laesch is nasty; Laesch has no support in the district; Laesch can't raise money; Laesch isn't ready for prime time. I've known John for a couple of years, online and in person. There is no better candidate anywhere running for Congress. There is no one more like Paul Wellstone anywhere that I've found. John is a natural and principled leader. He scares a lot of people. He doesn't scare Democrats in IL-14.

A guy like John, straight from the unwashed masses, will never be readily accepted by the Inside the Beltway crowd or those who still buy into their distorted vision of power. To someone like Rahm Emanuel-- who has never fought a Republican and who only knows no-holds-barred against progressives as a means to power-- John is the enemy. To the Democratic Party of IL-14, John is part of salvation. If you want to question his legitimacy, ask why all the county chairs taking a position have endorsed him and back him strongly. Here's a list of the counties that make up IL-14 and the names of the Democratic Party chairpersons who have endorsed John.

Kendall- Jim Birch
Whiteside- Lowell Jacobs
Henry- John Sovanski
Lee- Jerry Sheridan

Also part of the CD are Elgin Township (John Hamilton), Wayne Township (Laura Fletcher), and Winfield Township (Susan Lubonavich). Like the county chairs, they all support John. Democrats on the ground want a winner and they see that winner in John. In Bill Foster they find someone who is unpersonable and "clunky." Bob Steffen, an elected Precinct Committeeperson and the Chair of the Dundee Township Democratic Party sums up the whole congressional district's leadership opinion:
I support John because he is bright and understands the issues.  He has the best viewpoint to represent our district.

But that isn't the only local leader worth listening to. Jerry Sheridan: "John Laesch was the first Democrat with the courage to take on Denny Hastert. He has stayed with us and is always a welcome face in Lee County where he's built lasting friendships. I trust his judgment and the ideas he has for America." And this Monday Jim Swanson of Progressive News Daily hosts John on his broadcast.

Glenn Hurowitz sent me an advance copy of his brilliant new book, Fear and Courage in the Democratic Party. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to quote from it yet or not but I want to share a few lines with you that relate perfectly to the race in IL-14.
"Trim your sails," said Barack Obama.

"I can't make a mistake," said Hillary Clinton.

Uh-oh

The spineless Dem is rising again.

The Potomac jellyfish just won't die. Democrats have nominated equally butter-boned candidates before. You'd think they'd have learned: these Gumby donkeys lose and lose. It should be obvious: fear of your own convictions, of your own hopes and dreams, not to mention those of your followers, just isn't that fetching. And crumbling into a quivering mass of blow-dried coiffure, $1,000 suits, and vague bromides in the face of determined right-wing attacks doesn't just lose elections. It allows extremist Republicans to start wars, attack basic rights, and imperil the planet while making their own backers richer and Democrats weaker.

Yet so many Democrats still believe that a Politics of Fear is the only path to victory. Some of the country's smartest and most talented politicians remain slaves to this creed of cowardice... Is caution [and surrender] really the only way Democrats can have a shot at winning?

The answer, thankfully, is no... courage works

And courage is what John's campaign is about. Even his worst detractors aren't saying he's spineless or a blow-dried gumby in a $1,000 suit. John's a former military intelligence analyst stationed in the Middle East. He makes a living as a union carpenter. He knows how to fight for regular folks against Establishment special interests whether those special interests are represented by the Rahm Emanuels of the world or the Dick Cheneys. If you want change, real change, you won't get it by just more sheepish Democrats. We need better Democrats. Like John Laesch. If you've never donated to a political campaign before, do it today. It's easy and you'll be proud of yourself for doing something to save your country from more of the kind of crap the Insider are shoveling our way. Do it here.




UPDATE: JOHN LAESCH ON THE ISSUES

The Booman Tribune has asked every Democrat running for office to answer some simple, straight forward questions about the issues Americans care about most. I suggest you click the link above if you would like to see a series of answers as close to perfect as you're liable to see from anyone in any race.

Labels: , , , , ,

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN EXAGGERATOR AND A BLATANT LIAR? GIULIANI FOR EXAMPLE...

Tonight's art courtesy of Jesus' General

Many people who were listening to Giuliani during the debate last note noticed that he was lying his ass off. Friday's NY Times looked at his campaign utterances and comes to the conclusion he's a compulsive "stretcher" of the truth. Giuliani insists that his opponents-- and the public's-- insistence he start telling the truth is just "nitpicking." But Romney's claim that Giuliani has "a real problem with facts" is starting to take hold in the collective consciousness. "He has now done this time and again, making up facts that just happen to be wrong, and facts are stubborn things."

Are people noticing? Giuliani is counting on them not noticing, especially not the rubes in the early primary states. He seems to have gotten away with his lies about the relative cancer survival rates in the U.S. and England (in an attempt to prove that for profit medical care is better than the English socialize medicine, which is fairly irrelevant to begin with, since-- unfortunately-- none of the Democrats are proposing socialized medicine). His big lie was that someone diagnosed with and treated for prostate cancer in the U.S.-- and keep in mind, poor people don't get diagnosed or treated as frequently as poor people in this country-- has an 82% chance of surviving while in England they only have a 44% chance to survive. This is a flat out lie and an attempt to deceive the dumb kool-aid drinkers in his pathetic political party. The actual survival rates are nearly identical.

But Giuliani doesn't just lie about health case and about English statistics. He lies about virtually everything, which, of course is no problem in a Republican primary but could be an impediment in a general election if Hillary is lucky enough to wind up with him as her opponent. Republicans don't mind being lied to; normal Americans are less likely to take it as a given that we need another compulsive liar as a president. He has certainly been lying about his budgetary prowess.
Another radio advertisement that Mr. Giuliani ran over the summer stated that as mayor he “turned a $2.3 billion deficit into a multibillion-dollar surplus.”

That was also misleading. According to independent fiscal monitors, Mr. Giuliani did have to close a $2.3 billion deficit in his first budget, and did accumulate a multibillion-dollar surplus during his tenure. But by Mr. Giuliani’s last full fiscal year in office, the city was spending more than it was taking in in revenues, and Mr. Giuliani ended up spending almost all of the surplus to balance his final budget.

The long-term structural problems of the budget remained, and after Mr. Giuliani left office, his successor, Michael R. Bloomberg, faced an even bigger budget deficit than Mr. Giuliani had. Fiscal monitors said at the time that the gap was only partly caused by the economic effects of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.


But the big one last night was how he (single-handedly you would be led to think) ended a crime wave in NYC. He cites incredible statistics about how violent crime was down by this percentage and murder was down by that percentage. Very impressive. But like all Giuliani's statistics, he pulls them right out of his ass. And like Hitler, another authoritarian with no sense of Truth, he thinks if you just repeat the lie enough times people, or at least gullible people, will start knowing it is true.
Discussing his crime-fighting success as mayor, Mr. Giuliani told a television interviewer that New York was “the only city in America that has reduced crime every single year since 1994.” In New Hampshire this week, he told a public forum that when he became mayor in 1994, New York “had been averaging like 1,800, 1,900 murders for almost 30 years.” When a recent Republican debate turned to the question of fiscal responsibility, he boasted that “under me, spending went down by 7 percent.”

All of these statements are incomplete, exaggerated or just plain wrong. [The Times just can't bring itself to come out and call him a bald-faced liar.]

Another major American city claims to have reduced crime every year since 1994: Chicago. New York averaged 1,514 murders a year during the three decades before Mr. Giuliani took office; it did not record more than 1,800 homicides until 1980. And Mr. Giuliani’s own memoir states that spending grew an average of 3.7 percent for most of his tenure...

An examination of many of his statements by the New York Times, other news organizations and independent groups have turned up a variety of misstatements, virtually all of which cast Mr. Giuliani or his arguments in a better light.

Giuliani has zero credibility. He's a complete stranger to the concept of telling the truth. Only a hard-core Republican-- or a fascist-- would consider this a qualification for office.


UPDATE: OK, GIULIANI ISN'T THE ONLY REPUBLICAN WHO LIES

FactCheck.org analyzed the Republican debate. Guess what they found. Not only did other pygmies™ lie, there was even an instance of Giuliani telling the truth about something... kind of.
The debate included a couple of lighter moments, when Giuliani jokingly claimed credit for reducing annual snowfall "dramatically" and for four World Series victories by the Yankees during his term as mayor of New York.

In a gag video, his campaign joked that King Kong roamed city streets before Giuliani became mayor, adding:
Giuliani Video: Rudy prevailed: crime down by half, taxes cut and annual snowfall dramatically reduced.
Later, Giuliani said:
Giuliani: [When] I was mayor of New York City, the Yankees won four world championships... I wanted to put this in our reel, but they cut it out, so I'm going to get it in-- and since I've left being mayor of New York City, the Yankees have won none.

It's true that snowfall was less than average under Giuliani, though it's a matter of opinion whether the difference is a dramatic one or not. According to the National Weather Service, between 1869 and 1993, the average snowfall in New York City's Central Park was 28.2 inches per year. During Giuliani’s term (from January 1994 through December 2001), average snowfall was just 26.7 inches.

And the Yankees did indeed win the World Series in 1996, 1998, 1999 and 2000 – but have failed to do so since.

Giuliani is clearly joking here, but he illustrates a serious point that we think voters should keep in mind: Politicians don't automatically deserve credit or blame for what happens while they are in office. Sometimes it's just luck. It's a logical fallacy to conclude a leader's actions are the cause of what happens afterward. Logicians have named this the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy (literally, “after the fact, therefore because of the fact.”)

The fallacy is easy enough to see when Giuliani takes credit for a reduction in snowfall during his term. It’s more subtle when he takes credit for halving crime during his term-- especially when he fails to mention that crime rates were already falling before he took office and that they dropped nationally as well.



UPDATE: GIULIANI CAUGHT LYING AGAIN

When confronted with indisputable proof that you were making something up and you say "I'm going to reverse myself on that"... is that the same as saying, "OK, so you caught me; I'm a lying sack of shit. Today's NY Daily News pulls back the curtain a little more on the Giuliani team.

Labels: ,

REPUBLICANS-- WHAT KIND OF A PRESIDENT WOULD RUDY GIULIANI BE? DO YOU ALL HATE AMERICA SO MUCH THAT YOU WANT TO INFLICT THIS ON US?


ABC-News tells a different story of the latest Giuliani scandal than the one he tried passing off on Anderson Cooper at the Republican hatefest CNN/YouTube debate last night.
Well before it was publicly known he was seeing her, then-married New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani provided a police driver and city car for his mistress Judith Nathan, former senior city officials tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.

"She used the PD as her personal taxi service," said one former city official who worked for Giuliani.

Giuliani calls the revelation a "hit job" by either one of his Republican opponents-- he won't speculate which Mormon one did it-- or by a Democrat. One Democrat, albeit a neocon, who isn't running for anything, former NYC Mayor Ed Koch, told the Huffington Post that "Giuliani acted improperly and appeared to be covering something up when he charged the cost of his and his girlfriend's security detail to obscure New York City agencies."

Labels: ,

A MOMENT FROM LAST NIGHT'S DEBATE I NEARLY FORGOT: TWO AMERICAS AND HOW A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT WOULD ADDRESS OUR PROBLEMS


When Flip Flop Mitt stopped attacking Giuliani for a few minutes he honed in on the Democrat that reactionaries like himself fear most, John Edwards. While none of the pathetic pygmies™ brought up Bush's name, Romney and the rest of them (other than the conspiracy theory guy) all made it clear that they aspire to be George Bush's third term. Romney went so far as to even promise to keep Bush's torture tactics exactly in place as they exist now, much to the chagrin of John McCain, who had his best moment of the night making it clear to the audience that Romney is the least qualified man to run for president since... George Bush. But if all the pygmies™ (but Ron Paul) agree that endless war in Iraq is the way to go-go, what would they do about the monumental domestic problems facing Americans after 7 years of Bush? If Romney is any indication-- and, unfortunately, he is-- they would address the problems the same way Bush has, by ignoring them and allowing them to get worse and worse. Watch:




UPDATE: E.J. DIONNE DOESN'T THINK ROMNEY IS ESPECIALLY WORSE THAN ANY OF THE PYGMIES™. HE THINKS MOST OF THEM SUCK

Harsh. He shows why people think they're a pack of bigots, hypocrites, cowards, opportunists, xenophobes, homophobes, and flip floppers.

Labels: ,

THE U.S. SENATE: FRUSTRATION NOW, OPPORTUNITY SOON


by Zack Webber

Lately the United States Senate has become a great source of frustration for those of us who hope to see it turn the country away from the disastrous policies of the Bush regime. Although the Democrats have regained a slim majority since the 2006 elections our Senators have been unable to accomplish as much as we would like. The U.S. Senate is supposed to be the "world's greatest debating club" or something like that, but it looks to me like the least democratic legislative body this side of the House of Lords.

By claiming to represent states equally, it treats U.S. citizens wildly unequally. If you live in Wyoming, you have two Senators for half a million people. Here in California we have two Senators for around 37.5 million people, which means we have 75 times less voting power per person than the Wyomingites. If you live in D.C., Puerto Rico, or the other territories you have no voice at all in the Senate (and only nonvoting delegates in the House of Representatives). There are many small states, and while I appreciate the progressive Democratic and Independent Senators from Vermont (Leahy and Sanders), I can't help but feel cheated by the state system. When the Constitution was established the largest was only six times the population of the smallest. Now it is way out of line. There is no real hope of changing this part of the Constitution so maybe the best thing would be for California to subdivide into about ten states. As soon as we have a Democratic President, D.C. (which has a larger population than Wyoming or Alaska and almost as many people as Vermont) should be admitted as the 51st state and Puerto Rico (if it wants to be a state) as the 52nd.

The peculiar rules of the Senate make it even harder to accomplish anything. It takes 60 votes to be able to stop debate and vote on an issue. If debate cannot be stopped it usually will not get started because Senators don't want to waste their valuable time. The Senate was created to limit the ability of the government to act and as it has evolved it has become even more of a hindrance to change. There may be a small possibility of changes in the rules and customs of the Senate but not while it is as closely divided as it is currently. There are now 49 Democratic Senators, 49 Repubs and two independents who caucus with the Democrats (although Sen. Lieberman, I-CT votes with the GOP on foreign policy.) It is a situation where the Dems have an organizational majority but not a real working majority.

2008 is the opportunity. We Democrats are almost certain to pick up Senate seats next year because of the political landscape. The Greedy Old Party is following Bush over a cliff by continuing to support his unpopular policies on the Iraq war and misguided domestic priorities. No longer in the majority, they lag behind the Democrats in fundraising. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has about twice as much cash-on-hand as the Repub committee. [DSCC reported $23.4 million cash on hand at the end of October, compared with $9.5 million for the NRSC.] There will be only 12 Democratic seats up for election in 2008 compared to 23 GOP seats. All of the Democrats are running for reelection and only two are even remotely vulnerable (Johnson, D-SD and Landrieu, D-LA), and are still favored to win. There will be at least five GOP open seats (VA, NM, CO, NE, and ID) and maybe more if other GOP Senators decide that life in the minority is no fun [or if Ted Stevens of Alaska is indicted]. The most likely gain is in VA where Mark Warner (D), a popular former Governor is almost certain to beat Jim Gilmore (R), his predecessor as Governor who left the state a giant mess. Cousins Mark Udall (D-CO, son of Morris Udall) and Tom Udall (D-NM, son of Stewart Udall) may both win promotions from House to Senate. In NM all three House members are running for Senate so we may pick up one or both of the GOP seats there. Some GOP incumbents may lose as well. Sen. John Sununu Jr.is running way behind in the polls against former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen in what is becoming Blue Hampshire. Norm Coleman (R-MN) is in a tossup race for his first reelection, whether or not Al Franken is his Democratic opponent. Even the Repub Senate leader, McConnell of KY could have a tough race in a state where more people currently view him unfavorably than favorably (47% to 44% 11/07). There will be other strong Democratic challengers in states across the country from Maine to Oregon and even Oklahoma and Alaska. The conventional wisdom is that the Dems will gain 3 or 4 seats but we could do much better, getting close to the magic 60 seats. If that happens we will start to see some positive changes in the Senate.

[Ed- The best of the Democratic field so far, Andrews Rice, Tom Allen, and Rick Noriega have been endorsed by Blue America and you can learn more about them-- and how to help them oversome Bush rubber stamps Inhofe, Collins and Cornyn-- at the link a few words back.]

Labels:

I GUESS THEY PAY AS MUCH ATTENTION TO THE 11TH COMMANDMENT AS THEY DO TO THE FIRST 10

Adam thinks Romney throws like a girly-boy

Last night I noticed that right-wingers were very unhappy about their debate. Who wouldn't be with a field like that? I mean Newt Gingrich didn't pull the term "a pathetic bunch of pygmies"™  out of a hat. There was a lot of right-wing teeth gnashing last night. And it wasn't just the horrible candidates. The horrible audience showed the ugly face of modern day Republicanism. They booed a decorated army general, Keith Kerr, with over 40 years of service because he thinks gay men and women should be able to serve their country openly. They boo-ed McCain because he came off as a mainstream conservative instead of a raving, ranting Nazi. The best characterization of the Republican base came from a right-wing propagandist in a right-wing journal, Richelieu in the Weekly Standard
What a depressing debate... a good night for the lowest denominator, a bad night for the GOP. America got to see a vaguely threatening parade of gun fetishists, flat worlders, Mars Explorers, Confederate flag lovers and zombie-eyed-Bible-wavers as well as various one issue activists hammering their pet causes. My cheers went to a listless Fred Thompson who easily qualified himself to be president in my book by looking all night like he would cheerfully trade his left arm for an early exit off the stage to a waiting Scotch and good Cuban cigar. The media will probably award a win to Mike Huckabee, the easy listening music candidate at home in any crowd, fluent in simpleton speak and the one man on the stage tonight who led the audience to roaring cheers by boasting that he had a special qualification to be president that none of the second-raters on the stage could match: A degree in Bible Studies from Ouachita Baptist University of Arkadelphia, Arkansas.

And, in the same reliably outlet for the radical right, Fred Barnes was just as depressed. He was moaning that Giuliani and Romney made themselves look petty by fighting over immigration to kick off the whole shebang and he wonders aloud if CNN didn't plan the whole thing to make the Republicans seem like a bunch of nuts. "[I]t was a good night for [marginal candidate Ron] Paul if only because he was treated as a major political figure rather than as the Republican version of Dennis Kucinich. The other candidates, with the exception of Mike Huckabee, were losers. They came off as a bunch of squabbling cousins."

They came off like a bunch of losers because they are a bunch of losers. Barnes is angry because the questions were kooky. "By my count, of the 30-plus questions, there were 6 on immigration, 3 on guns, 2 on abortion, 2 on gays, and one on whether the candidates believe every word in the Bible." That may not be the impression highbrow GOP insiders want the general public to have about the Republican base, but that is the Republican base. The raving lunatic from Dallas, high on home made meth, demanding that the candidates' adherence to a Bronze Age literalist interpretation of the Bible would determine whether of not they were fit to be president (of the United States), is exactly what the Republican Party has degenerated into.

Barnes thinks Huckabee won, primary because he's "not very substantive." And if Barnes and "Richelieu" are supposed to be the respectable face of old line conservatism, Michelle Malkin, like Ann Coulter, is something you don't talk about at the dinner table or in front of children. Malkin is ranting and raving today because CNN dared to have questions from people who support Democrats or even one from a member of a union. And the rest of the kooks and going on an anti-CNN rampage. And CNN has already apologized for having General Kerr on-- though sees nothing wrong with having Mr. Drown Government in a Bathtub ask a question-- even though General Kerr is a registered Republican who was representing no one but himself in the debate.

Labels:

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

MY FAVORITE MOMENTS IN TONIGHT'S REPUBLICAN HATEFEST


The audience was awesome! They were so filled with hatred and right wing fanaticism that they really showed the American public why the GOP is now just a small, narrow-minded regional party of the Old Confederacy. The winner tonight was the same guy who wins all the Republican polls: Mr. None of the Above. It was interesting how badly behaved all the candidates were. Not one of them paid any attention to the time limits; they are all rule-breaking, untrustworthy cheats. I can't imagine anyone with a bit of sense watching them and thinking any of them are fit for any public office.

It was off to an hilarious start with Giuliani and Romney ripping each other apart over immigration. After Romney attacked Giuliani for running NY as a sanctuary city, Giuliani's face got all tight and narrow and I thought he would lurch at Romney and tear his throat out. Instead he unveiled a well prepared rebuttal, accusing Romney of having a "sanctuary mansion." When the exchange was done there was blood all over the stage. Tancredo was giggling and said it was great seeing the other candidates trying to "out-Tancredo Tancredo."

Frederick of Hollywood kind of defended Romney's sanctuary mansion by preparing the country for when it comes out that he's hired plenty of undocumented workers over the years. McCain was loudly boo-ed when he tried tap-dancing over a definition of "amnesty" in front of an audience that could only accept one answer: deport them all. McCain answered back the boo-ers by declaring that the American people don't believe Washington on amnesty because "we failed on Katrina... Iraq... corruption... and out of control spending." Tancredo had the last word on immigration by saying he isn't just anti-illegal immigration; he's anti-legal immigration. The audience cheered. Welcome to Xenophobia. I wonder what Florida's large Cuban-Republican population was thinking just then.

I also found it awesome when someone asked Ron Paul if he's a conspiracy nut and he basically said "yes." Soon after McCain played the Hitler card against Paul. And that was followed by a demand from Grover Norquist that each candidate pledge to adhere to his philosophy of government (i.e.- more Katrinas); ironically it was either a weird shadow or he was sporting a Hitler mustache.

And since it was a Republican debate there were plenty of questions about their most beloved issues, guns, gays, gynecology and gods. One deranged loon from Dallas, Joseph Dearing, who seemed to be on meth, demanded each candidate reveal if he believed every literal word of The Buy Bull. Giuliani said he didn't believe in Jonah in the belly of a whale. Romney said it's the word of God and he claimed, disingenuously, that he believes every single word.

A couple of other good random moments
* McCain branding Romney (and without mentioning him-- no one did-- Bush) a torturer.
* When someone asked Huckabee what Jesus would do about the death penalty, Huckabee started bragging he was responsible for more executions than anyone else on the stage.
* Tancredo was so anti-immigrant that he even characterized defective Chinese toys as "item-immigration."
* Thompson's vicious attack ad
* The Republican audience booing a gay general who served his country for decades
* Giuliani straight-out lying about the security payments that were made for his trips to visit his mistress

Labels:

THE REAL MUDFEST DOESN'T INVOLVE ANY DEMOCRATS-- BUT YOU'D NEVER KNOW THAT BY WATCHING CNN


CNN keeps referring to the overly polite and mild disagreements between the Democratic presidential contenders as "rolling in the mud" (ex-Fox talking head/right-wing propaganda agent Kiran Chetry). The pathetic pygmies™, on the other hand, are just engaging in high level debate. That high level debate took an interested and many-faceted couple of twists and turns today. Just as Giuliani's polling numbers were tanking in South Carolina, an e-mail went out to Iowa evangelicals about Giuliani's pedophile priest-in-residence/best buddy Alan Placa. Now regular DWT readers know exactly who and what Alan Placa is. Iowa evangelicals just found out today.
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:36:01 -0500
From: david.gop.overholtzer@gmail.com
To: david.gop.overholtzer@gmail.com
Subject: Giuliani and his Pedophile Friends

Dear Iowa Voters,

If Rudy becomes president, is he planning on putting people like Catholic priest Msgr. Alan Placa in his Cabinet? I hope not! Remember Fr. Placa when you go to the caucuses, and make sure your friends know, too!

Giuliani Adviser is an Accused Pedophile Priest?

Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 6:26 AM
To: Overholtzer, David
Subject: gmail blast


No; per Jill, send the Rudy one about the priest to the Evangelical list, gmail it, thanks

Couple of problems with this. First of all, Giuliani is barely a factor in Iowa-- certainly not in the top 3, and not really worth bashing Second, the purported sender, paid-off Mitt Romney stooge David Overholtzer didn't send the e-mail. But the e-mail was purposely made to look like it was a premeditated smear against Giuliani by the Romney campaign. It is generally acknowledged that it came directly from Huckabee's campaign in order to smear both Romney and Giuliani, which is odd because it has been assumed-- just ask Rahm Emanuel-- that all Huckabee really wants is to be Rudy's vice presidential nominee.

And if that isn't muddy enough for Chetry and her ilk, there's the story we reported on early about Huckabee's campaign making a not so subtle religious (read: anti-Mormon) appeal to Iowa evangelicals just as Romney was gratuitously assuring them that he hates Muslims as much as they do. And speaking about the religionists showing up at the races, today we had the son of one dead disgraced evangelical endorsing Huckabee while another pack of right-wing religionist nuts, the Republican Majority for Choice PAC, announced they are buying $100,000 worth of 30-second TV spots slamming Flip Flop Mitt in Iowa, as well as full page ads Sunday in the Des Moines Register and the Concord Monitor and an unspecified number of TV spots in New Hampshire. Ironically, the vicious campaign which talks about Romney as a pro-choice abortion advocate is being run by a bunch of Giuliani backers!

But the Republican story du jour may not have been leaked by one of the pygmies™ at all. Turns out Security Expert/multimillionaire Rudy Giuilani, back when he was mayor, was billing little known city agencies for tens of thousands of dollars in security expenses so he could sneak out to the Hamptons are carry on one of his extramarital affairs without anyone knowing.
The documents, obtained by Politico under New York’s Freedom of Information Law, show that the mayoral costs had nothing to do with the functions of the little-known city offices that defrayed his tabs, including agencies responsible for regulating loft apartments, aiding the disabled and providing lawyers for indigent defendants.

At the time, the mayor’s office refused to explain the accounting to city auditors, citing “security.”

...Auditors "were unable to verify that these expenses were for legitimate or necessary purposes," City Comptroller William Thompson wrote of the expenses from fiscal year 2000, which covers parts of 1999 and 2000.

Giuliani refuses to comment. Give him a day or two to come up with something. I'm sure Kiran Chetry will tell us all about it.

Labels: , , , , ,

DOES TAKING IMPEACHMENT OFF THE TABLE MAKE NANCY PELOSI A CRIMINAL CONSPIRATOR?

How long must we wait? And how much more must we endure?

The Institute on Assets and Social Policy at Brandeis University and Demos released an important report today on the status, the sorry status, of the American middle class under Republican rule. The short story:
* Only 31 percent of families who would be considered middle-class by income are financially secure.

*One in four middle-class families are at high risk of slipping out of the middle class.

* Twenty-one percent of middle-class families have less than $100 per week ($5,000 per year) remaining after meeting essential living expenses. These families are living from paycheck to paycheck with very little margin of security.

* More than half of middle-class families have no net financial assets whatsoever.

And just think, Bush has another year to go before we're rid of him and his foul regime. He has another year to go because Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and Rahm Emanuel have decided that they know better than the Founding Fathers. The Founding Fathers didn't come up with a constitutional remedy to George Bush as an exercise. Impeachment was designed with Bush in mind.

Today David over at Art of Mental Warfare has a stunning and mind-boggling statement from an American covert operative who Nancy Pelosi ought to get to know. So should all Americans. Lets call him Mr. PsyOps, which is his specialty.
[Y]ou can get away with anything, nothing is illegal because no one knows about it, or the few who do are either in on it or have a vested interest in keeping quiet. Whether you’re runnin’ guns, weapons, drugs, gold, diamonds, women, children, it just doesn’t matter. As long as the old guard gets their resources, it’s all good. And in the end, it’s all about power. The people who really run this planet know that natural resources (oil, water, coltan [tantalum], cobalt, etc.) are the key. The “War on Terror” is just a front for a geo-strategic resource grab on a massive scale.

...Do you think they really give a shit about Iraqi freedom? We worked hard to make you believe that, but c’mon, they don’t give a shit about the Iraqi people. They’ve killed about a MILLION of them! And that’s NOT an exaggeration! They sure as hell give a shit about Iraqi oil though. They also care about Saudi oil, and have a nice deal with a dictatorship that brutally oppresses their people. If freedom and democracy are the issue, how about freeing the Saudi people? Why do you think 15 of the 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia? We support a regime that oppresses those people. We support them because they cooperate on the oil front. So, why strike back at them? Let’s hit Iraq. They don’t give us any oil-- let’s get’em!

...If you were to ask me who is a bigger threat to the people of the US, Cheney or bin Laden, or who has done more damage to the US, I would say Cheney without hesitation. Cheney, along with Bush Sr. and Kissinger, has been running the covert world for about 40 years now. A little side note for you: I firmly believe Robert Gates, the current Secretary of Defense and Bush Sr.’s right-hand man in the covert world, used computer cryptography and software security assets to get Bush Jr. elected both times. I do not have direct knowledge of the operation, but research “Robert Gates,” “Bill Owens,” “electronic voting security,” “HAVA,” “VoteHere” and “Scientific Applications International Corp.” The operation went so well that Gates was going to be made the first ever Director of National Intelligence. He turned down the job, but then took the Secretary of Defense position when Rumsfeld was removed from his public position. I don’t think there will ever be solid evidence linking directly to members of the administration; it’s all a tangled web of plausible deniability. But I do think it will eventually be proven that the elections were manipulated to deliver Bush the victory. Many people in the covert world take this for granted, as common sense.

There's a lot more like this and I very much recommend that you read the whole piece. I left out virtually all the dramatic and lurid parts. But his advice for what we can do actually goes well beyond impeachment. I doubt though that this is what Pelosi, Hoyer and Emanuel have in mind:
1. Try the Bush Administration for war crimes. If the case could ever be brought to court, the evidence to convict is definitely there. This is why the administration has been strongly against the International Criminal Court. If we are to begin repairing this country, and the world, we must begin by showing these power crazed and covert forces that they are accountable. If we can convict someone like Cheney, we will send a powerful message to the covert world. If we let them walk, we will keep having these problems. New people will follow them and take their place.

2. Investigate where all the military spending has been vanishing off to. There are literally trillions of taxpayer dollars unaccounted for. This money is fueling the covert world and terrorism in general. As part of this, I would include an investigation into war profiteering as well.

3. Make it mandatory that all electronic voting machines must have a 100% verifiable paper trail.

4. Get people into the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) who will smash the current media ownership rules. The concentration of media ownership is the foundation of the covert power structure. Without that, the whole thing is a house of cards. That’s why the FCC is currently trying to ram through rules that will further consolidate media ownership before the Bush administration leaves office. As part of this, it is pivotal that we protect the open architecture of the Internet. The media belongs to the people, as does the government, in theory anyway, but we need an information system that actually serves the public interest.

5. Declare a national and global emergency on the environmental front. We have already reached the breaking point. We need organized, governmental, policy driven, bold action now.

6. We need to address entities that now have power over the Constitution, such as the undemocratic and unelected corporate global governing structure - institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and “agreements” like NAFTA and DR-CAFTA, to name a few. Most Americans don’t even know what these power structures are, let alone that they have power that supersedes the Constitution. We must also address the National Security Act, that’s where the ultimate power of our country lies. The National Security Act has effectively made the Constitution meaningless and is the primary driver of the covert world. The PATRIOT Act and various other newly granted powers must also be drastically revised or eliminated completely in order to protect our civil liberties.

7. Lastly, we need to have publicly financed elections. As long as we have a system that requires candidates to raise tens of millions of dollars to even be considered for office, we will have politicians who bend over backwards for the richest one percent and the most powerful elements of society at the citizens’ expense. An important aspect of this has to be a requirement for large media companies to provide candidates with free airtime. Candidates have to spend the majority of their money on advertising in the mainstream media. That’s why the major news media spend so much time focusing on who is raising the most money, because they are the ones who end up with all that money. Once we have publicly financed elections and free airtime for candidates, we will get people in office who will work in the interests of the public because they are not beholden to the large and powerful entities. When you have politicians depending on the public instead of the private sector for survival, all the issues mentioned above could be addressed because they won’t have to fear the withdrawal of support from large corporations and the wealthy and powerful who do not want these things to happen. This will also enable us to eliminate tax breaks for the richest one percent, put an end to corporate welfare practices, and stop funding for obscene military and prison industrial companies that are profiting off of disasters and no longer serve security interests. Then we can redirect that money into environmental, education, health care and social security programs, to mention a few.

So, like a friend of mine at a labor union told me today, after reading the piece from Brandeis, "When Bush & Co talk about a strong economy, it's a diversion from the real state of affairs."

Labels: , , ,

WHY IS THE DCCC OLD GUARD (THE EMANUEL CREW) BOYCOTTING THE PROGRESSIVE CANDIDATE IN OH-05?


As we mentioned Monday, there's a battle brewing inside the DCCC over the Democratic congressional candidate in the December 11 special election to fill the seat of Paul Gillmor (R-RIP). The whole Ohio Democratic congressional delegation, but especially Tim Ryan and Sherrod Brown, have been pushing for serious DCCC involvement. Everyone knows Van Hollen is sitting on tens of millions of dollars so why won't Emanuel let him spend some?

It's more than just wanting it to defend Bush Dogs who are unpopular with Democrats and face defeat due to low grassroots participation from people who look at congressmen like Jim Marshall and John Barrow and decide to stay home, correctly thinking, "What difference does it really make?" Sure Emanuel needs as many generic Democrats-- regardless of how they actually vote-- in order to maintain his power and get a good parking spot at the office. Today's Toledo Blade has a story by Josh Boak that gives strong hints about Emanuel would rather see a reactionary Republican win than a progressive Democrat: trade policy.

Emanuel made his bones by beating up on congressional Democrats on behalf of Bill Clinton's worst legislative initiative, NAFTA. Clinton had the Republicans behind him but he needed more Democrats to pass it. He sent over "tough guy" operative Emanuel. (Keep in mind this is when Emanuel was still getting away with his boastful, and false, claims that he lost a finger single-handedly capturing a Syrian tank in the Golan Heights and no one knew it had been amputated because a minor boo-boo got infected when he didn't wash it after an accident involving a pastrami sandwich at a deli in Chicago. Nor did they know, at the time that he was a ballet dancer and attended an all girls college.) Anyway, Mr Rough and Tumble, bribed and threatened enough Democrats to get NAFTA passed by 2 votes. It's the single worst thing to have come out of the Clinton Regime. And Emanuel stands by it to this day-- really stands by it. And that's why Bob Latta, the reactionary Republican in the OH-05 race (a district incorrectly deemed as "too red"), is his kind of candidate. Yesterday Latta "sketched out an economic agenda based on the traditional GOP pillars of limited government, reduced taxes, and expanded global markets."
The announcement highlighted the partisan differences on economic growth in the Dec. 11 run-off election for Ohio's 5th District congressional seat.

Democrat Robin Weirauch of Napoleon favors trade agreements that protect domestic factory workers from foreign rivals. She also believes that the federal government should enact policies to lower the price of gas, saying that existing laws enable the oil industry to reap substantial profits.

Emanuel hears a candidate "favors trade agreements that protect domestic factory workers from foreign rivals" and suddenly he forgets he's supposed to be a Democrat. It's much easier for him to blame the calamities caused by NAFTA on "illegal aliens" and to team up with Tom Tancredo and Heath Shuler is demonizing minorities than in facing up to a fatally flawed policy that has his name written all over it.

Perhaps one day Chris Van Hollen will tell Emanuel that he isn't the boss anymore. But don't count on it. Instead we need to count on ourselves.


UPDATE: EVEN IF EMANUEL WON'T MOVE, WES CLARK HAS

Wes is a real leader and he just sent this letter out to his list:

Pouring rain. 10-hour long lines. A final margin of just 2%. This was Ohio in 2004.

But one year before any votes are cast in the general election, we have a chance to send a message to voters in Ohio and across the country: 2008 will not be 2004.

Robin Weirauch is running for the open seat in Ohio's 5th congressional district. Voters will be hitting the ballot box in less than two weeks on December 11.

A victory in OH-5 will send a message across Ohio and America that voters are ready to turn the page on George W. Bush and the Republicans. Contribute to Robin's campaign today!

http://www.actblue.com/pages/WinOhio5

As the daughter of a retired Master Staff Sergeant in the United States Air Force, Robin will do more than simply repeat slogans like "Support the Troops." She will fight to bring a responsible end to the war in Iraq and make sure our veterans receive the health care they deserve.

A former Emergency Medical Technician and the wife of a retired police officer, Robin has honest middle class values. She understands the critical issues for working-class people such as education, fair trade policies, and bringing good jobs back to Northwest Ohio. She will ensure that all Americans have access to the opportunities that will help them and their children succeed in the 21st Century.

Northwest Ohio and Congress need Robin's strong, honest, independent voice.

Give Robin the final push she needs to win this seat for Democrats and give us the momentum we need heading into the 2008 elections!

http://www.actblue.com/pages/WinOhio5

Like many of the races I've asked you to help with in the past, this is a tough district. It's a Republican district, but as I've said before, we've got to compete everywhere. Republican districts can become Democratic districts. Republican states can become Democratic states. But only if we contest the seats.

I remember campaigning last year in Montana with Jon Tester, standing with Jim Webb in Virginia, and barnstorming some of the reddest Congressional districts in the final days of the 2006 elections. With you by my side, we changed the map.

We have the chance to do it again. Bush won this district by 20 points in 2004, but in 2006, Governor Ted Strickland and Senator Sherrod Brown carried it for Democrats. Now in this special election, just 13 days away, Robin Weirauch can win Ohio's 5th district...with your help.

Please rush a contribution to Robin in these final days before the special election on December 11.

http://www.actblue.com/pages/WinOhio5

You are helping to change our country, and I can't thank you enough for all you do.

Sincerely,

Wes Clark

And thank you, General Clark, for doing what Chris Van Hollen should do-- with or without Rahm Emanuel's blessing.

Labels: , , , , , ,

And then there was one: Who's gonna harmonize now with Sen. Larry "Wide Stance" Craig?

Our Larry (2nd from left), "the last Singing Senator left standing, or
sitting, or whatever"--with former warblers (l-r) Trent, John, and Jim

To grasp the true significance of breaking news, some people look to those "news analysis" sidebars in the NYT or Washington Post, or scour the op-ed pages, or wait for the Sunday-morning D.C. TV gabfests. Whereas we try to remember to get "In the Loop" with the Post's Al Kamen, who once again rises to the occasion today, getting to the bedrock importance of Trent Lott's impending departure from the Senate:

Without Lott, the Singing Senators Are of One Voice

Sen. Trent Lott's resignation announcement Monday stunned the political cognoscenti, but the rationale seems pretty obvious. Lott (R-Miss.), 66, needed to cash in before he got much older. Being GOP whip isn't much of a job when you're in the minority and prospects are not good for a change in that status anytime soon.

The true significance of Lott's departure is that it leaves Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) as the last Singing Senator left standing, or sitting, or whatever.

The barbershop quartet, formed in 1995, stopped performing when baritone John Ashcroft lost his seat to a dead Democrat in 2000. Shortly thereafter, then-Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont bolted the party. And now bass Lott is soon to be out.

This leaves tenor and lead singer Craig -- who for now says he's quitting next year -- going solo, unless he wants to recruit some replacements.

It's the biggest musical breakup since the legendary Ben E. King left the Drifters.

Labels: , , ,

LOOKS LIKE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY VOTERS HAVE FINALLY FIGURED OUT WHAT GIULIANI IS REALLY ALL ABOUT. SOUTH CAROLINA REPUGS SAY BYE-BYE RUDY

Not backward enough for South Carolina Republicans

Not many Americans have been following the run-up to the primaries and caucuses in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada the way DWT readers have. Even in those states, not many voters have been paying close attention. But they're starting to. A report filed today from a far right propaganda shill with GOP mouthpiece NationalReviewOnline explains what many people had long expected: Giuliani, in his words, is "cratering" in reactionary bastion South Carolina. His analysis of the just-released Palmetto Poll:
The poll shows Romney in the lead among Republicans with 17 percent – up from his fourth-place, 11 percent finish in the same poll in August. Fred Thompson is in second place at 15 percent, down from his first-place, 19 percent showing in August. Mike Huckabee is in third with 13 percent, well up from his fifth-place six percent in August. John McCain is in fourth place with 11 percent, down from his third-place 15 percent in August. And Rudy Giuliani – who was virtually tied with Thompson for first place with 18 percent in August – is in fifth place with nine percent in the new poll. Giuliani's nine-percentage-point drop is the biggest in the field. Finally, Ron Paul is in sixth place with six percent – up from one percent in August.

Of course, and as always, "none of the above" and "undecided" are the biggest vote getters among Republicans, a percentage that has actually grown as South Carolina Republicans have gotten to know their presidential field better. Or maybe South Carolina Republicans have just turned against Giuliani because they identify him with his most trusted statewide lieutenant, playboy/cocaine dealer Thomas Ravenel (and former Giuliani campaign chairman).

Labels: , ,

ROMNEY WANTS TO REASSURE THE GOP'S RELIGIOUS BIGOTS HE'S ONE OF THEM-- MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

So many people would be disqualified from a Romney cabinet because of their heritage

No one knows for sure but it appears that there are approximately the same number of Mormons and Muslims in the U.S. Yesterday Mormon Bishop Willard Romney (AKA: Mitt) stirred up a hornets' nest by stating it wouldn't be "justified" to appoint an American of the Moslem faith to the cabinet based on their number in the population. There are less Jews in the population. Doe she object to their participation in the cabinet as well? I doubt it but Senior Flip Flopper will say anything anytime to anyone in his quest for money and power. Since the infamous interview he's been tap dancing like a madman. But to no avail. He's been caught saying the same thing before.

It's kind of funny and ironic that a slippery hypocrite like Romney, who needs to persuade the already very narrow-minded and bigoted Republican base that Mormons don't have cloven hooves, will get caught winking and nodding to that base's prejudices against Moslems. And today's NY Times carries a piece by Michael Luo on how the spectre of Mormonism is cutting into Romney's early lead in Iowa and benefiting one of the least qualified of all the pathetic pygmies™, former Baptist preacher/mean drunk Mike Huckabee.

Evangelicals in Iowa who flirted with the idea of supporting Romney seem to be stepping back, impressed by a Huckabee TV ad that feeds right into their bigotry.
On Monday, Mr. Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas, raised the stakes when he began broadcasting an advertisement in Iowa that emphasizes his faith and declares him to be a “Christian leader”-- all in capital letters-- which some might view as a shot at Mr. Romney.

The Huckabee camp, of course, practically denies even knowing someone in the race is a Mormon and states flatly-- at least in public and on the record-- that the ad doesn't have anything to do with reminding Iowans that Romney's in a cult instead of a real religion. In private, however, the Huckabee operatives are rubbing their hands together and drooling. "Mr. Huckabee’s advisers admit privately they are cognizant of how Mr. Romney’s religion can work against him and how Mr. Huckabee’s evangelical roots are to their advantage at least among some voters... The issue is a delicate one for Mr. Huckabee. He has waffled in recent interviews about whether he considers Mormons to be Christians."
Luo writes that at Huckabee campaign rallies it's easy to find the anti-Mormon crowd, although many of the Huckabee supporters prefer to couch their religious bigotry in terms of Romney being a serial flip flopper pointing to his "shifting positions over the years on abortion and gay rights to explain why they do not support him." But not all. Luo quotes on Iowa Republican supporter of Huckabee he met:
“Mormons spend two years of their lives as missionaries, preaching an anti-Christian doctrine,” she said. “I don’t want someone out there, if I can help it, who’s going to be acting on an anti-Christian faith as the basis of their decision-making.”

...Danny Carroll, a former speaker pro tem in the Iowa House and Mr. Huckabee’s Iowa campaign co-chairman, said he was drawn to Mr. Huckabee in large part because of the way religion permeates the former Arkansas governor’s life. Mr. Carroll said he had reservations about Mr. Romney because of his more moderate past positions in addition to his religion, saying he was concerned about where Mr. Romney went for strength and wisdom.

“I think it just causes some uneasiness as to how somebody is going to respond when heavy responsibility is placed on them,” Mr. Carroll said. “I think the Christian would like to know that the person has a strong anchor and prays to the God of the Bible.”

At a recent Huckabee event in Iowa, Glenda Gherkey, an evangelical from Evansdale, posed a question to the candidate.

“I’m concerned a lot of Christians are thinking about the values issues and forgetting about the creator behind the values issues,” Ms. Gherkey said. “I guess I feel like this country and this world needs a president who would be able to pray to the God of the Bible and he would be able to hear his prayers.”

She wondered, Would Mr. Romney’s prayers “even get through”?

Odd, even frightening, that people with this kind of a mindset are allowed to participate-- let alone participate in a way that it far out of proportion to their numbers in the population of the country-- is the selection of the president (of the United States).

Labels: , ,

HOW BLUE WILL INDIANA BE IN 2009?


Last year Indiana, the reddest state-- by far-- in the Midwest, saw the defeat of 3 Republican incumbents by Democrats. This was the greatest percentage of any state's delegation to change from red to blue. (There wasn't a single blue to red change anywhere in the U.S., not even in the Old Confederacy.) This year Indiana Republicans are looking for a little payback. They can look as hard as they can, though. 2008 is just not shaping up to be a good year for them. The best news they're likely to get is that all 3 of the newly elected Democrats tend to vote with Republicans more than all but a few hardcore Dixiecrats. Baron Hill, Joe Donnelly, and Brad Ellsworth all have almost identical voting records and when Progressive Punch's Chips Are Down roll call tracking is examined the 3 show up at the very bottom of the barrel.

Republicans hoped they might pick up a seat when Julia Carson announced her retirement due to ill health. Of the 5 Democratic-held congressional seats, IN-07 (Indianapolis and much of surrounding Marion County) has the strongest Democratic registration advantage, Cook Partisan Voting Index of D +9 and can boast of having given Bush only 42% of it's vote in 2004, slightly less than he got in 2000. Carson won the seat last year with 54% of the vote. The Democrats are thinking about running Carson's grandson, City Councilman Andre Carson, although former Indian Democratic Party Chairman Robin Winston is also thinking of running, as are 3 state reps, Carolene Mays, David Orentlicher and Gregory W. Porter, and the recently defeated Indianapolis Mayor, Bart Peterson. The probably GOP nominee will be state Rep Jon Elrod. In giving up his state house seat, Elrod presents the Democrats with a nice gift, since they are sure to take that one back. It is highly unlikely he will be able to beat any viable Democrat in the 7th. And, in fact, Indiana Republicans have something much more serious to worry about. Mitch Daniels is one of the least popular governors in America.

Monday the Indianapolis Star reported that half the voters in Indiana think Daniels, Bush's former failed Budget Director, is doing a poor job, as bad in fact as he did when he worked for Bush. And that's bad. "Half of Hoosiers likely to vote in next year's election disapprove of Gov. Mitch Daniels' performance, and the two Democrats vying for Daniels' job have at least as much voter support as he does, according to a new Indianapolis Star-WTHR (Channel 13) poll."
Rising property taxes, their personal finances, the lease of the Indiana Toll Road and the state's switch to daylight saving time all contributed to Daniels' disapproval rate, the poll of 600 Hoosiers found.

If the election were held today, former Congresswoman Jill Long Thompson and Indianapolis architect Jim Schellinger could edge Daniels out, the poll found.

In a head to head match-up with Jill Long Thompson, she beats him 44% to 43% and Jim Schellinger is also ahead, 44% to 40%. Even Republicans are sick of him and hope he loses. Obviously a Republican Party ticket with Daniels up top will be bad for Republicans across the state. It could impact the dim hopes Republicans harbor to pick up any congressional seats and it could give hope to a progressive Democrat, Barry Welsh running an aggressive campaign against far right extremist and Bush rubber stamp Mike Pence (IN-06).


UPDATE: MORE AND BETTER DEMOCRATS

I want to share part of an e-mail I just got from a friend in Indiana, the part about IN-07.
As for IN-07, I am personally pulling for either Robin Winston or David Orentlicher to get into the race. They are both great progressives and Winston has fantastic contacts and fundraising acumen. He led the state party and was a very popular chair when he was there, then left under sunny circumstances to start a political consulting firm. He recently joined the board of the Indiana Progressives organization which is the Indiana DFA affiliate.

David Orentlicher is a state rep from the Northside, old money section of Indy. He is a populist economically and a pragmatic and well respected legislator who has been leading the Democrats on the response to the property tax crisis in Indiana. He is probably my favorite legislator in the General Assembly. He is very even tempered, a doctor by trade and really has great ideas for the health care crisis nationally. I think he has the most potential of any of the folks mentioned as possible Carson replacements. He has in the past and could in the future turn Republican voters into supporters. His district is one of the reddest districts in Indianapolis yet he managed to win by a decent margin in his reelection fight last year.

Labels: ,

NEW MEXICO SENATE UPDATE


-by Alex Flores

Howie last invited me to write here about our Draft Udall effort in New Mexico on October 29. Since then, we've claimed success – on November 16, Tom Udall filed papers to run for the United States Senate. This cycle, we have the best chance to take this seat back from Republicans since Senator Pete Domenici first took the seat 35 years ago in the same election as when Richard M. Nixon defeated George McGovern.

Our mission continues, however. While Udall is favored in polls by wide margins over his primary opponent Mayor Martin Chavez, the Netroots need to stay heavily involved in this race. We have an opportunity here to show the Democratic party the kind of progressives we want in office.

I'm going to tell you now, after reading below, you're going to want to open your wallets for Tom Udall and make sure that DINO Marty takes a permanent vacation from politics.

This Primary race is a perfect example of why we work in politics: this race illustrates why we read, write, and work on behalf of progressives to change the Democratic agenda and elect more and better Democrats (and in this case, more and better Udalls!)

We're used to the national security narrative from Republicans – they call Dems weak on the military, weak in foreign policy, and weak on fighting terror.

On November 9, the NRCC posted a video attacking Tom Udall's cousin, Colorado Democratic Senate Candidate Mark Udall using the same frame. Here's a line straight from the video:
…putting American lives at risk. Why doesn't Mark Udall want US intelligence to have the tools they need to keep America safe. Call Mark Udall, ask him why America's safety isn't his first priority.

But we're not used to the same narrative from Democrats running in a primary.

In New Mexico, DINO Marty has come out in full attack mode against progressive Congressman Tom Udall (even during our Draft when Udall wasn't in the race) using national security and other right-wing frames to gain media attention.

If it seems like DINO Marty and the NRCC are reading from the same playbook, you're right. From the national security narrative to outright racism, DINO Marty thinks that his politics of hate will resonate with New Mexicans who already favor Udall by 62%-32%.

In a campaign email on Monday, November 26, DINO Marty beefed-up his GOP credentials and accused Udall of "Endangering our national security" by voting to cut funding for National Laboratories in New Mexico in a huge budget bill.

Here is Tom Udall's case, from a speech made on November 15:
Because nuclear weapons work is the core mission of the Lab, it stands to suffer in the upcoming fiscal years – unless it chooses a path of increasing diversification, growing new areas of research and work for the Lab…. I advocate for a path forward that supports areas of work including: alternative energy and energy independence, science research such as climate change modeling, intelligence research and analysis, nonproliferation efforts, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) projects, and nuclear counter terrorism.

Barbwire, a New Mexico blogger, has more details at her site including an on-point assessment that:
It's one thing to criticize your primary opponent's positions, but I think this kind of over-the-top rhetoric coming directly from Chavez can only serve to turn more Dem voters against him. Chavez already has a reputation for publicly and privately trashing fellow Dems on the Albuquerque City Council, supporting Repubs and their causes and vowing to vote for Repub Sen. Pete Domenici if he ran for reelection.

Do Chavez and his campaign team really believe that using inflammatory language like this to attack one of the most highly respected and popular Dems in the state will help him in his quest for Dem primary voters? Astonishing. Not only is it wrong, it's bad politics.

LP, another New Mexico blogger who runs NMFBIHOP, is thinking the same thing that you and I are: DINO Marty's language
…sounds like something straight out of the Karl Rove playbook.  Heather Wilson and Steve Pearce are probably filing that away for further use.

Barbwire and LP are right on. But it's not just a quest, DINO Marty is on a Quixotic mission. He has poll after poll after poll, New Mexicans prefer Udall by WIDE margins.

Mid-article break: If you're already convinced that DINO Marty needs an early retirement, please donate to the "Netroots for Udall" ActBlue page. Take ownership of this race and let's send a true progressive to the United States Senate!

And even though DINO Marty wants this race to stay in New Mexico, he has no problem giving racist soundbites to the New York Times:
[Chavez] said that Senators Schumer and Reid thought of Mr. Udall, the son of Stewart Udall, secretary of the interior under President John F. Kennedy, as their "fair-haired boy."

[Quick aside: Isn't it also odd that DINO Marty is so quick to badmouth the Majority Leader and the DSCC Chairman? If he won the nomination, would he flip-flop his way back into their grace for national support and party infrastructure?]

Is DINO Marty relying in part on being "Hispanic" to carry him to victory? Well, in the same NYT article, the author points out that DINO Marty
…is expected to emphasize his Hispanic heritage.

Thankfully, many Latinos are not fooled by racial politics. New Mexico pollster Brian Sanderoff said that race
could be an advantage in a state where, since 1994, a Hispanic candidate facing a white candidate in a statewide Democratic primary had won 9 times out of 10.

But I'm not sure that's true. In one of the most revealing polls of the race yet, Latin@s split down the middle. Sorry Chavez, being Brown doesn't mean that all of us Brown folk will blindly vote for you.

The choice here is clear. We're talking about supporting popular Tom Udall (a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus) over DINO Marty to carry New Mexico for Democrats and progressives in the state and across the country. Let's show both of them that the Netroots have voice and the infrastructure to make a difference in this race. Please donate to the "Netroots for Udall" page on ActBlue.

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

You heard about "that poll," the one that shows Hillary trailing the GOP pygmies? But did you hear about the SERIOUS poll that shows the opposite?

"The Zogby poll was considered big news because many in the political press are heavily invested in the Hillary-is-unelectable narrative for all kinds of reasons that have little to do with a desire to, you know, practice journalism."
--Greg Sargent, in a post today on his media-centric blog, The Horse's Mouth

These days it doesn't matter what the subject is, from global warming to political polling, there seems to be a "conventional wisdom" that is (a) promoted by the demons of Wingnuttia and (b) utterly randomly linked to reality. And of course the press--with its famous "liberal bias"--now functions 24/7 as a service provider for Wingnut International.

I'm sure you've heard about the Zogby poll that purports to show Hillary Clinton losing to all of the major Republican candidates, in wish fulfillment of the Clinton-hating psychosis of Wingnuttia. Greg Sargent disposes of this nonsense neatly, with emphasis on the slavish adherence of the lickspittle media to the Tales of Wingnuttia:

Media Lavishes Attention On Bogus Internet Poll Showing Hillary Losing To Repubs -- And Ignores Reputable Poll Finding Opposite

Ladies and gentlemen, a tale of two polls.

Yesterday two polling firms -- Zogby and Gallup -- released surveys of the presidential race that offered strikingly different conclusions. The Zogby poll found that Hillary is trailing five leading GOP candidates in general election matchups. The Gallup Poll, by contrast, found that Hillary, and to a lesser degree Obama, has a slight to sizable lead over the top GOP contenders.

A couple of other things that distinguish these two polls: The Zogby one is an online poll, a notoriously unreliable method, while the Gallup one is a telephone poll. And, as Charles Franklin of Pollster.com observed yesterday, the Zogby poll is completely out of sync with multiple other national polls finding Hillary with a lead over the GOP candidates. The Zogby poll actually found that Mike Huckabee is leading Hillary in a national matchup. The Gallup findings were in line with most other surveys.

I don't need to tell you which poll got all the media attention. Do I?

The Zogby survey was covered repeatedly on CNN, earned coverage from MSNBC, Fox News, and Reuters and was covered by multiple other smaller outlets.

By contrast, I can't find a single example of any reporter or commentator on the major networks or news outlets referring to the Gallup poll at all, with the lone exception of UPI. While the Zogby poll was mentioned by multiple reporters and pundits, the only mentions the Gallup poll got on TV were from Hillary advisers who had to bring it up themselves on the air in order to inject it into the conversation.

You could argue that the Zogby poll got all the coverage it did precisely because it is out of sync with multiple other polls, and thus is news. But the truth is that the reporters and editors at the major nets know full well that the Zogby poll is bunk -- yet they breathlessly covered it anyway.

Worse, the Zogby poll was covered with few mentions either of its dubious methodology or of the degree to which its findings don't jibe with other surveys. Bottom line: The Zogby poll was considered big news because many in the political press are heavily invested in the Hillary-is-unelectable narrative for all kinds of reasons that have little to do with a desire to, you know, practice journalism.

There's really nothing to add, except to wonder: Why? How much longer, o Lord?

[Provisional answers: (1) Because so many people, for one reason or another, truly don't get that "reality" is not the same thing as "what I wish was true," and in fact the two often bear no resemblance to one another. (2) Until either (1) changes or some way is found to undo the chokehold of the anti-realityites.]
#

Labels: , , , ,

BUSH DOESN'T NEED THE SENATE FOR TREATIES?


The Bush Regime-- I should say "the nefarious and politically illegitimate Bush Regime," but you already know that-- has long since usurped one of the most critical powers the Founding Fathers assigned to Congress. That would be the power to declare war, which they very specifically denied the president, knowing in their hearts that one day someone like George W. Bush would somehow stumble into the White House. Now apparently the Regime is also trying to leave the Senate out of the treaty process, although they call their new treaty with Iraq "a deal" rather than a treaty.

I wonder if, after the Iraqi Parliament accepts (or, more likely, rejects) it, the U.S. Senate gets to debate it. Some two-bit general with several chins who Bush dragged into his dying regime to "handle" Iraq and Afghanistan-- and what a fabulous job he's doing on each-- has decreed that Bush doesn't need no lousy Senate ratification. They get away with this kind of outrageousness becaus eof Nancy Pelosi's announcement that you know what is off the table.

The treaty Bush and Maliki agreed to-- and signed-- yesterday (at a "secure videoconference") is a framework for a long-term U.S. presence, the establishment of permanent bases, as well as for Bush-related companies to be able to exploit Iraqi oil and for Bush-related mercenaries to terrorize Iraqi civilians with no accountability.

Although the Regime and it's media shills are insisting all day every day that violence is down, all independent assessments show that violence is still rampant and horrific-- and even the U.S. military reports that in some areas violent incidents "have risen to their highest levels in months."


UPDATE: THE NEXT PRESIDNET TELLS BUSH "NO PERMANENT BASES"

Hillary wrote a letter to Bush and his cronies and her campaign posted it at DailyKos. It's very polite but let's them know she has some major concerns about yesterday's bogus treaty.
I am particularly concerned that this document did not contain any explicit reference or language that indicates that the United States will not seek and will not maintain permanent military bases in Iraq. Moreover, the document's failure to note any intent to begin the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq is a missed opportunity to pressure Iraq's leaders to make the compromises necessary to achieve political reconciliation in Iraq... To be clear, attempts to establish permanent bases in Iraq would damage U.S. interests in Iraq and the broader region, and I will continue to strongly oppose such efforts.
 

Labels: , ,

LINDSEY GRAHAM, BACK FROM IRAQ, IS ALL MIXED UP AND CONFUSED

A confused Lindsey Graham wants to save democracy by destroying it

Maybe he's distraught because he didn't find any bargains on his latest carpet-buying trip to Iraq or because a crazy right-wing extremist dentist is running a nasty campaign against him back home, but South Carolina rubber stamp Senator Lindsey Graham is back from his latest trip to Baghdad-- and speaking from both sides of his mouth. On the one hand, he and Saxby Chamberpot (R-GA) were threatening Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that unless his government starts making some progress by... pick a date (they picked... January), the U.S. should consider pulling political or financial support for his government. On the other hand, he praised Bush's brilliant policy agenda in Iraq, an agenda he has been a major backer of, to the skies and waxed enthusiastic about how well everything is going in that wonderful country.

In a display of how Republicans understand the concept of "democracy" we're supposedly fighting for in Iraq, Senators Chamberpot and Graham each threatened the Iraqi prime minister's job.
"I do expect them to deliver," Graham, R-S.C., said in a phone interview upon returning from a Thanksgiving trip to Iraq. "What would happen for me if there's no progress on reconciliation after the first of the year, I would be looking at ways to invest our money into groups that can deliver."

Chambliss, R-Ga., who traveled with Graham as part of a larger congressional delegation, said lawmakers might even call for al-Maliki's ouster if Baghdad didn't reach agreement on at least some of the major issues seen as key to tamping down sectarian violence.

"If we don't see positive results by the end of the year I think you'll probably see a strong message coming out of Congress calling for a change in administration," he said in a conference call with reporters.


Also along for the ride were probably future defendents in war crimes tribunals Joe Lieberman and John McCain. Graham was on Fox yesterday babbling about how fabulous everything is in Iraq, "beyond my expectations. I think history will judge the surge as probably the most successful counterinsurgency military operation in history." Only time will tell if South Carolina's confused senator is an accurate oracle of historical judgments, but right now far more militarily knowledgable Americans than Graham will ever be are criticizing his and Bush's war. And next November Americans will render their own judgment at the polls, a judgment unlikely to be in sync with Graham's airy fairy, albeit misleading, cheerleading.

Labels: , ,

N.J. GOP SCRAPES BOTTOM OF THE BARREL TO FIND A CANDIDATE AFTER CHOICES 1, 2 and 3 DEMUR

Linda Stender gains as Republicans scramble

Today was all about big rats-- Trent Lott and Denny Hastert-- deserting the floundering SS GOP. But last week, the big story was how New Jersey fake moderate Mike Ferguson was giving up his House seat-- which is likely to be won by progressive Democrat Linda Stender. At the time, the New Jersey Republican Party had so many "likely" strong candidates they couldn't count them. Tom Kean's worthless son was the first choice and he quickly dove under his bed and refused to come out. That left Republican Assembly whip and key Kean ally, Jon Bramnick, a sure thing to get the nomination. He was next to call in sick. Ex-Congressman Bob Franks was next on the list-- and next to say no. This week the GOP is looking for a solid third tier sacrificial pig. They may have found one in Scotch Plains Mayor Martin Marks.

He may win in Scotch Plains but the reasons he gave the media for wanting to run may not inspire many people outside of the country clubs where hard core Republicans meet. "My feeling right now is ... that we need to focus in on retaining this 7th seat in Republican hands, and that's the way it's been for many, many years. The district has changed a little bit with redistricting, but it is still a Republican district." Other Republicans are pleading with outgoing Senate Minority Leader Leonard Lance to save their party from someone as apparently unfit as Mayor Marks.

And today's Newark Star-Ledger is reporting that Kate Whitman, the daughter of NJ's ex-Governor, wants to run for the seat too. Also sniffing around are Somerset Assemblyman Peter Biondi, Somerset County Freeholder Jack Ciattarelli and William Mennen, a Hunterdon County freeholder-elect.

Labels: ,

23 REPUBLICAN RESIGNATIONS... AND MORE TO COME

With Hastert back coaching wrestling, there'll be no more of this kind of nonsense

Yesterday Trent Lott's unexpected resignation from the Senate and Denny Hastert's long overdue one from the House, brought the number of Republicans leaving electoral politics to 17 in the House and 6 in the Senate. The Chairman of the NRCC, right-wing extremist Tom Cole (R-OK) tried to put on a brave face. "I don't hear a drumbeat that 'We're not effective and I don't like it here anymore.'" Maybe he needs to listen more carefully.
But with so many lawmakers -- including a large number from competitive states and districts -- heading for the exits, it's hard not to point to the GOP's newfound minority status in Washington, the turnover in party leadership and the perilous political environment heading into 2008 to explain the exodus.

Chris Cillizza in this morning's Washington Post thinks it's no exaggeration to say Republicans find themselves in serious danger of falling deeper into the minority in both houses. He points out how retirements seem to be throwing Republican held seats in New Mexico, Virginia and Colorado to Democrats Tom Udall, Mark Warner and Mark Udall, respectively.

"It's in the House, however," according to Cillizza., "where surprise retirements in swing districts have badly crippled Republican attempts to bounce back from 2006. And it's in the House where there are likely to be even more retirements. Currently on Republican retirement watch are John Doolittle (CA), Bill Young (FL), Tom Davis (VA), and Roscoe Bartlett (MD). And although increasingly unstable Chris Shays (CT) says he's not retiring (as of this week), he's become so bizarre that you never know what to expect from him. And there is still a chance for some surprises out of New York, Florida and... well an indictment is likely to trigger a retirement (or two) in Alaska.

Labels: ,

Monday, November 26, 2007

PLANET DENNY HASTERT-- AFTER NUMEROUS FITS AND STARTS-- FINALLY RESIGNS


The on again, off again resignation of ex-House Speaker Denny Hastert is... on again. As of 10:59pm he'll be ex-Congressman Hastert.
Hastert said he did so on the advice of attorneys with the aim that a special primary election to replace him could be held on Feb. 5-- the same day as the state's regular primary election, which will decide nominees for Hastert's long-term replacement as well.

That will be useful for Democrats who expect a large and enthusiastic turnout, not just for homestate hero, Senator Barack Obama, for an overall Democratic presidential field that most rank and file Democrats are extremely high on. There are 4 Republicans-- Chris Lauzen, Jim Oberweis, Kevin Burns and Michael Dilger-- and 4 Democrats-- John Laesch, Jotham Stein, Blue Dog Bill Foster, and Joe Serra-- are vying to take his place.

John Laesch is the progressive, grassroots candidate in this race and he is poised to turn another red district bright blue. Rahm Emanuel and the forces of reaction within the Democratic Insider Establishment are pushing for NAFTA-supporter xenophobe Blue Dog Bill Foster, who promises to embody everything that has been wrong with the Democratically controlled Congress this year. John, on the other hand, is a candidate who will effectively revamp the progressive movement in Congress. If there is one race you will contribute to between now and Christmas, please make it John Laesch's. It's a battle for the soul of our country.


UPDATE: JOHN LAESCH LIVE AT FIREDOGLAKE TODAY

John Laesch, the progressive firebrand favored to win the Democratic nomination against Rahm Emanuel's Blue Dog, will be taking questions about his campaign over at Firedoglake today (Tuesday) at 2:30pm Central Time.

Labels: , ,

HOW TO DESTROY A PROFITABLE INDUSTRY IN JUST A FEW EASY STEPS

Ahhh... the good old days!

New York's "Vulture" section comes to the correct conclusion about the music biz-- but for the wrong reason. In commenting on the Wired profile of "Universal Music Group CEO/supervillain Doug Morris," the folks at "Vulture" have a yuck-fest over Morris' inability to come to grips with modern technology. I only had one real talk with Morris in my life. The Warners Music Group was in complete turmoil, beginning a really ugly death spiral that he insisted I buy into by going to work for a lackey of his. I refused and Morris was coincidentally fired soon after-- the lackey not long after that. Instead I wound up as president of Reprise Records.

When AOL bought TimeWarner I was one of the only happy campers at the company. Naively, I thought AOL was a visionary technology company which would help us grapple with the problems and opportunities inherent in file sharing. And Steve Case and his cronies were visionaries, but the vision wasn't grappling with anything except how to drain TimeWarner of as much of its value as they could get away with. He got away with a lot.

Meanwhile, some of us at Warner Bros decided to take matters into our own hands and look for our own solution. "Vulture" quotes Morris, who went from heading the Warner Music Group to heading Universal Music, lamely explaining why the music business failed to take advantage of the new technology that was leveling so many music business playing fields. At the time most record company bigwigs had contempt, fear and disdain for computers. Many of my colleagues told me they had never touched one-- the way Judge Judy and Larry King were bragging the other day how they still haven't done so-- and one major record group chairman said a computer is just a newfangled typewriter and that's what secretaries are for.

Years earlier one of my promotion men had helped me out at my little indie label by teaching me the DOS system and showing me how computers could make my life easier. By the mid-90s he was running Reprise's and then Warner Bros Records internet initiatives. He built the first label driven web development team and server farm promoting our artists, which later also led traffic stats for all of Warner's online properties. The Chairman of Warner Bros and I sat down with him and went over what we thought needed to happen to make the Internet a real part of our marketing and promotion strategy. He came up with a system which we brought to our corporate overseers. Here's where the Doug Morris quote comes in:
"There's no one in the record industry that's a technologist," Morris explains. "That's a misconception writers make all the time, that the record industry missed this. They didn't. They just didn't know what to do. It's like if you were suddenly asked to operate on your dog to remove his kidney. What would you do?"

Personally, I would hire a vet. But to Morris, even that wasn't an option. "We didn't know who to hire," he says, becoming more agitated. "I wouldn't be able to recognize a good technology person-- anyone with a good bullshit story would have gotten past me."

Morris may not have known what was going on, but at Warners we clearly understood the value and opportunity of the internet as a marketing vehicle to connect directly with music fans, circumventing the "gatekeepers," particularly MTV and increasingly expensive and corrupt corporate radio. As we were realizing and taking advantage of the huge efficiency and power of this medium, we also clearly observed the beginnings of illegal music file trading and distribution by fans-- and the ramping up of the demand for music delivered over the internet.

We viewed this "threat" as an opportunity. Not an opportunity to sue teenagers and/or their parents, but a new opportunity to let people purchase their music the same way they do at record stores. We didn't assume everyone wanted to be pirates, crooks or wanted to rip off their favorite bands-- we just assumed that fans of new music would be hip to new technologies-- it's kind of inevitable and luddites always lose in the end anyway; people crave convenience.

We proposed to our corporate masters that we sell "unprotected" MP3 singles at a reasonable price-- $1/$1.50. We wanted to experiment and see if this model would stick.

Why unprotected? Because we were already in a vastly successful business of selling unprotected digital files: CDs. If people wanted to get them on the internet-- they should be coming from us... that would be the future of the business: an evolution of the day's success.

The short term test was to give people a choice-- an alternative to piracy.

Our proposal, after lots of corporate headscratching, hummimg and hawing, was denied. The technology people Morris was complaining about said it was "elegant" but that they were "unprepared to set any precedents."

The corporate "expert's" recommendations:

- All digital content needed to be locked down with DRM so people couldn't pirate it. (This made no real sense because the mass-produced digital content on CDs were all out there-- and paying all our the salaries.)

- We needed to wait and try to develop a secure proprietary solution. One that didn't exist yet; one that didn't allow music fans to burn CDs they could listen to on audio equipment; one that talked only to DRM portable devices that didn't exist (or at least have the slightest consumer interest).

- If we did this we would resell the catalog and squash piracy moving forward.

So what happened?

They aggressively sued music fans.

They didn't give connected music consumers any alternative to piracy.

All internal and external development of a secure cross-platform solution failed miserably on many levels-- complexity, appeal to the customer, portable devices, connection to legacy music systems...

Music fans have had a chance to go all the way through high school and college thinking music is free. And now it is, thanks to Doug Morris and corporate managers who couldn't-- and still can't-- adapt to change.

An interesting footnote: in 2000 Steve Jobs snagged our VP of new media, referenced above, Jimmy Dickson... to help with Apple's music strategy... 6 months later: iTunes 1.0.



UPDATE: MORRIS RESPONDS

Well... not really. But this is a riot.

Labels:

CIVIL WAR AT THE DCCC?

With the GOP out of favor, reactionaries still have a potent weapon against ordinary Americans

Whether Trent Lott is just another rat deserting a sinking ship, or someone scurrying to cash in on lax rules for lobbyists before they tighten up in January, he clearly was not looking forward to years and years of fruitless opposition as the #2 guy in a dwindling, increasingly regional, self-destructive and shrill minority party. Today's Congressional Quarterly has a cover story everyone on Capitol Hill is reading, It's Looking Like Blue Skies All Over Again-- and that's blue skies like in not red skies-- and they're talking about the U.S., not Australia.
Just over a year ago, Democrats seized control of Congress because of the voters’ exhaustion with the war in Iraq and disgust at the Republican majority's increasingly brazen manipulation of the levers of power. Now, less than a year from the next election, little has happened to elevate the voters’ mood-- or their impression of the party that ruled the federal government from 2003 through 2006.

The GOP remains burdened with a highly unpopular war; President Bush’s troop “surge” in Iraq, initiated over strong Democratic objections, appears to have diminished the violence but has given no sign that it will lead to a big reduction in U.S. troops anytime soon. The corruption scandals, ethical challenges and settled Beltway mentality that helped drive Republicans into the wilderness have yet to dissolve from public memory.

So, even if Democrats have done little to burnish a reputation for running things any better-- as reflected in the extraordinarily low public approval ratings for the Congress they now control-- the fact remains: They may not have to.

That’s because every traditional indicator of election forecasting-- from public opinion polls and issue resonance to candidate recruitment and the “over/under” balance of seats in play-- suggests that congressional Democrats have just as much going for them in 2008 as they had in 2006, if not more. They now have the power of incumbency to give them added advantages in raising money, attracting top-tier candidates, controlling the legislative agenda and capturing the political zeitgeist.

How ironic that just as the popular revulsion against the Republican philosophy of governance and against Republicans themselves (corruption and bigotry) take hold in the public mind, significant numbers of Insider Democrats are trying to claim those very aspects of the GOP legacy for their own party! Rahm Emanuel and his faction seem intent on leading the Democrats down the Republican sink hole-- and, not coincidentally, right at a time when a real push for progressive values and principles (values and principles anathema to all Emanuel stands for and believes in)  could have a lasting impact of American social and political development. This is a real tragedy, especially when the progressive side of Congress is weak, disorganized and completely ineffectual. Nancy Pelosi has turned out to be the worst and most bungling disappointment progressives could have ever expected and the Progressive Caucus in general is next to worthless. It's why I am so insistent on electing real progressive leaders who can go in there and kick some butt-- candidates like Darcy Burner, John Laesch, Donna Edwards, Barry Welsh... real fighters who are not just on the right side, but who are willing to fight hard to win. I would take, for example, these 4 over 20 new Democrats who want nothing more than to fit in with the Insider Establishment.

Yet while, as Congressional Quarterly asserts today, "it’s now dawning on members of both parties that a Democratic sweep-- with gains in Congress accompanied by a reclaiming of the White House--  is the inescapable 'morning line' assumption going into the 2008 campaign season, a war for the soul of the Democratic Party seems to be breaking out-- quietly and completely under the radar-- in, of all places, the DCCC.

The old guard (conservative-leaning or, at best, apolitical Rahm Emanuel loyalists) are trying to maintain tactical control of the organization, making it difficult for marginally more progressive and grassroots-oriented members of Chris Van Hollen's new guard. Ironically, the battle is coming to a head over a congressional race almost no one outside of Ohio is even aware of.

Last Thursday we looked at the special election for the congressional seat being filled December 11 because of the death of Republican Paul Gillmor in OH-05. Robin, a serious progressive Democrat with overwhelming grassroots support is poised to pull off a spectacular victory in a district that is conventionally considered "red." But it isn't as red as Insider the Beltway prognosticators and Powercrats would have us believe. Certainly Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown and Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, each of whom won the district last year, know it is far from a lost cause.

Many at the DCCC feel the same way and want to see the DCCC in there fighting alongside Robin and her grassroots supporters. Aside from endorsements by Senator Brown and Governor Strickland, 7 members of the Ohio congressional delegation have endorsed Robin: Marcy Kaptur, Tim Ryan, Dennis Kucinich, Zack Space, Betty Sutton, Stephanie Tubbs-Jones and Charlie Wilson. The story in last week's Nation calls her campaign "smart and aggressive." But the Emanuel contingent will have none of it. Emanuel would just as soon see a pro-NAFTA, anti-immigrant, pro-corporate, anti-progressive Republican zealot in the seat than an independent-minded grassroots Democrat like Robin. He and his allies have prevented the DCCC from getting involved with the race.

Emanuel is a boil on the body politick and the bane of grassroots participation in the electoral process. As I pointed out earlier, he is a representative of the rich and powerful and every but as much an enemy of working and middle class Americans as any Republican. Its a boil that needs to be lanced.

Labels: , , , ,

GOOD RIDDANCE TO TRENT LOTT (R-KKK)


Last night there was a great deal of speculation about why Trent Lott was resigning a senate career that could go on until 2012-- or forever. He is set to announce he's leaving this afternoon, but is unlikely to give the real reason. The consensus is that he needs to resign before the end of the year in order to avoid the new lobbying restrictions he fought which require senators to wait 2 years before they can start gorging themselves on K Street.
No reason for Lott's resignation was given, but according to a congressional official, there is nothing amiss with Lott's health. The senator has "other opportunities" he plans to pursue, the official said, without elaborating. Lott was re-elected to a fourth Senate term in 2006... Lott becomes the sixth Senate Republican this year to announce retirement.

Others claim that Larry Flynt is on to Lott and that he's resigning now rather than face Larry Craig-like humiliation. I have it from a reliable DC source that "Lott would cruise the area gay bars whilst wearing a different toupée from his usual one. He apparently thought that was enough of a disguise."

One thing is certain, though. Lott is one of the most reactionary members of the Senate. His ranking at Progressive Punch is near the bottom of the barrel, one of the 10 most right-wing members of the senate. Although he represents the poorest state in the Union, he consistently votes against the interests of his constituents across a broad array of issues, especially on matters concerning workers' rights to unionize, health care, housing, family planning, education, checking corporate power. And he has been a rabid supporter of the Bush-Cheney agenda in the Middle East. It will be wonderful to see him go, although, sadly, it would be foolhearty to expect even the slightest improvement from the most backward state in America. The two most touted leading contenders to replace him, Chip Pickering and Roger Wicker, are both far right extremists, each a narrow-minded bigot, happily serving the interests of the wealthy and doing everything in his power to stomp on the aspirations of working Americans and the middle class. Go Miss!


UPDATE: HOW WILL THE NEXT REACTIONARY FROM MISSISSIPPI BE SELECTED?

Mississippi's corporatist reactionary governor, Haley Barbour (R) will select someone within 10 days of Lott's departure. Then in November, 2008, there will be an election to fill the remaining 4 years of Lott's term. Pickering has made it clear that he either gets the senate job or he leaves politics; he had already announced his retirement from the House after Thad Cochran said he would be running for the Senate again. Statewide politics in Mississippi is just a Republican thing. The state is so racist and backward that no one adhering to even the most basic Democratic values can possibly win any statewide offices there. Last year the Democrat who ran against Lott, in a hugely Democratic year in the non-Confederate part of America, got only 35% of the vote. In the 2 previous senate elections, the Democrats who went up against Lott wound up with 31 and 32% and the last time Cochran ran, the Democrats didn't even bother putting up a candidate against him. (The time before that the Democrat got 27% of the vote.) Kerry took 40% of the vote against Bush.

Oh, and Lott, a bold-faced liar to the end, isn't acknowledging what is common knowledge on Capitol Hill-- that he wants to cash in as a lobbyist-- but says he may become a school teacher.


UPDATE: HUSTLER MAGAZINE WON'T COMMENT BUT THE STORIES ABOUT TRENT LOTT ARE LEAKING OUT ALREADY

A post about a male escort who was having sex with homophobic extremist Trent Lott was removed. It now says: Error 404 – File Not Found. But before it said that, it said this:
Once upon a time, there was a twentysomething boy-next-door type with reddish blond hair and a brilliantly white smile. Not one to shy away from attention, he wrote a blog called "Fifteen Minutes," and also became a freelance writer for various publications, including The Stranger in Seattle. He'd often focus on his non-traditional lifestyle as a gay male escort — a topic that often fascinated his readers, which, in turn, helped him to garner a substantial amount of powerful
business acquaintances through the years.

Based in San Antonio, he would travel all over the world to meet his clients, which included high profile celebrities, businessmen and even politicians in the United States Congress.

Sometimes within his writings he'd give advice on how other males could become successful escorts. Other times he'd post videos of himself flexing on YouTube. Once, he even scolded gay escort Mike
Jones for outing Rev. Ted Haggard as one of his gay escort business participants.

"You were paid for sex, Mike," he wrote in 2006. "The most important rule you can follow when taking people's money in exchange for sex is that—no matter what—their lives stay their own and whatever passes between the two of you remains private. Period."

Many of his clients greatly appreciate his professionalism. In fact, according to one 66-year-old patron who reviewed him on a gay escort site, he is "a very reliable escort who keeps you informed."

The boy happens to be real, and his "stage name" is Benjamin Nicholas. One of the politicos Big Head DC has learned he's alleged to have been involved with is the married Sen. Trent Lott, 66, who unexpectedly announced his retirement on Monday. Lott is well-known to have been against a plethora of gay rights issues throughout his terms in Congress. He was also good friends with Sen. Larry Craig throughout his time in Congress.

Nicholas told Big Head DC today via e-mail that he didn't want to go on the record to talk about his dealings with Lott, because, said Nicholas, "Trent is going through his fair share of scrutiny right now
and I don't want to add to it." However, e-mail and other records confirm that the two have met on at least two occasions.

"All I can say at this point is no comment," Nicholas told us. "It's the professional thing for me to do."

In a subsequent e-mail message, Nicholas confirmed that another publication is working on a story about a "possible relationship" between Lott and himself, but Nicholas also "politely declined" an
interview for that story.

"As I said before, Lott has quite a bit on his plate right now and I don't really want to add fuel to the embers," Nicholas told Big Head DC.



UPDATE: SO WERE LOTT AND THE MALE ESCORT HAVING AN AFFAIR OR NOT?

The Big Head DC site is back in action and the original post is back online. But it's now preceded by a denial Benjamin Nicholas-- a denial that seems to indicate that he may have been involved sexually with Trent Lott in the past! Here's the statement: "Here’s my public comment, on-the-record: Sen. Lott and I have no current affiliation with one another. I’m sure he would appreciate no further scrutiny.” Does that clear matters up?

Meanwhile, Hustler Magazine publisher Larry Flynt won't say whether he's got the goods on Lott or not. "Huster Magazine has received numerous inquiries regarding the involvement of Larry Flynt and Hustler in the resignation of Trent Lott. Senator Lott has been the target of an ongoing Hustler investigation for some time now, due to confidential information that we have received."

Labels: , ,

REPUBLICANS RECRUITING VERY RICH PEOPLE TO RUN FOR CONGRESS-- THAT ISN'T NEW OR NEWS AND IT'S ONLY HALF THE STORY


This morning's NY Times has a disturbing a story in the "Politics" section entitled Short of Money, G.O.P. Enlists Rich Candidates. It's disturbing because it's somewhat misleading. First of all, the Republican Party always enlists rich candidates and, lately, so does this shameful Inside-the-Beltway crew controlling the Democratic congressional caucus. For the Times to ballyhoo it like this implies it is something new and/or unique. What is new and unique is that the Republicans are "confronting an enormous fund-raising gap with Democrats." Normally-- especially in the last couple of decades-- the Republicans have managed to scoop up all the technically legalized corporate bribes. But this year they've been out Republicaned by an unscrupulous insider who's very much at home playing by Tom Delay Rules: Rahm Emanuel, the new darling of the K Street lobbyists.

That the Republicans are "aggressively recruiting wealthy candidates who can spend large sums of their own money to finance their Congressional races" is so far from "news" that it would be laughable-- if it wasn't so tragic. Approximately half the members of the Senate are millionaires (as opposed to just under 1% of Americans). The estimate is that the House has a somewhat smaller percentage of millionaires-- by not be much. And both parties are complicit.

In 2002 Common Dreams published a piece showing that around half the incoming congressional freshmen were millionaires. It's gone straight downhill since then-- downhill meaning that members of Congress have less and less in common with regular Americans. "Close to half the incoming members of Congress," the story begins, "are millionaires and many will face votes that could affect their financial holdings." A significant number of freshmen that year had significant investments in banking and credit companies-- the year a horrendous new bankruptcy bill written by the credit industry was passed-- as well as in Big Pharma, oil and energy companies, etc.
Government watchdog groups often cite the economic inequity between many members of Congress and the people they represent. They say wealth makes lawmakers more apt to think about their financial interests than what's best for their constituents.

"Only richer people tend to win office," said Gary Ruskin, director of the Congressional Accountability Project, which is affiliated with consumer advocate Ralph Nader. "It's those very same people who tend to hold lots of stock. They have conflicts of interest in respect to their voting when they come to office."

And one of those 2002 freshmen millionaires has had the most pernicious effect of all, DWT's favorite villain, Rahm Emanuel who "reported $6.9 million in salary last year, primarily from investment banking, according to his financial disclosure form."
The income chasm between members of Congress and that of ordinary Americans is a primary reason why so many working class people have dropped out of the political process. They know that the ‘appearance’ of choice in political races is little more than an illusion of choice. So vast are the sums of money needed to run a major political campaign today that only the wealthiest people can afford to run. This leaves ninety-nine percent of the population out in the cold. The situation underscores why we need to get the special interest money out of politics. The playing field can be leveled and integrity restored to the process through publicly financed campaigns. By publicly funding political campaigns all of the candidates would have equal funding. The wealthy would have no special advantage. Working class Americans could reenter the political process and have a real chance of winning elections and thus gaining representation.

The result of having too many wealthy people in office is having calamitous impacts on America’s working class families-- the backbone of our society. It has resulted in the breakdown of the family unit. Wealthy people are likely to look out for their own financial interests rather than the welfare of society, especially the poor. This form of government excludes the vast majority of the citizenry from the process and leaves them utterly without representation. It leaves them alone and vulnerable to predation by the rich.

Owing to the huge sums of money needed to run viable political campaigns, the wealthy are heavily recruited to run for office. The wealthy can afford to self finance their campaigns-- the poor cannot. Thus they enjoy enormous advantages over those without money.


Recruiting the wealthy has been a common practice for Republicans for a very long tome; they are, after all, like all parties of the right, primarily concerned with one thing and one thing only: conserving the economic and social status quo. The parties of the right-- including in this country the GOP-- exist to represent the interests of the wealthy. It is a relatively new phenomena for Democratic, traditionally the party of working and middle class Americans, to also become a party primarily controlled by the wealthy and willing to safeguard and promote their interests. This has accelerated gigantically with the advent and rise to power of Emanuel and others like him or under his sway.

The silly Times story today babbles on about this Republican millionaire and that Republican millionaire "investing" hundreds of thousands of dollars of their own money into their campaigns. "But Democrats, who have been closely monitoring the Republican millionaires, assert that the recruiting underscores the Republicans’ financial weakness since they lost control of Congress in 2006." Neither those Democrats, nor the writer of the piece, thinks to mention trends among Democrats in recruiting millionaires.

As part of my function at Blue America I talk with lots and lots of Democratic candidates-- and often not the millionaires, the ones who are discouraged by the Insiders for not being a millionaire and yet daring to run for office. If you get a dozen paragraphs into the story you find this:
Self-financed, deep-pocketed Congressional candidates are nothing new for either party, and the Democrats have their own share for 2008. But the Democrats do not have a concerted campaign to find such candidates, they say, while the Republicans describe the recruitment of these candidates as central to their plan for the 2008 elections.

Is the writer fresh out of high school? Or did he graduate with a nice gentleman's C from a mediocre journalism school. "The Democrats do not have a concerted campaign to find such candidates, they say." Thank you... And? Is what they say true? Do the writer check the facts and figures? Last year Emanuel recruited millionaire "ex" Republicans to run (as putative Democrats), such as Tim Mahoney and Christine Jennings, against middle class actual Democrats. This year he has found himself a conservative Blue Dog millionaire Bill Foster to run against a union carpenter, John Laesch, in IL-14. The Times story even mentions the district-- but only in terms of the GOP multimillionaire candidate, Jim Oberweis, not even acknowledging Emanuel's own recruitment in the same district.

Labels: ,

Sunday, November 25, 2007

VIABILITY IN OKLAHOMA


A couple weeks ago Jane and I each wrote about a dinner we went to that featured Montana Senator Jon Tester. Back in 2006 Tester was the populist underdog in the Democratic primary race to the DSCC's anointed candidate, State Auditor John Morrison, a DLC hack. Blue America endorsed him and raised money for him from 900 of our members; he beat Morrison and went on to beat the very corrupt and entrenched reactionary incumbent, Conrad Burns.

The ostensible raison de etre for the get together was so Tester could raise some money for his new leadership PAC. He wants to support Democratic candidates running for the Senate. Admirable goal. I asked him a question though. Would he be using his PAC to help real Democrats-- populists and progressives like himself-- or if he'd be using it to support any ole generic Democrat like John Morrison, the DLC hack the Establishment ran against him? I pointed out Oklahoma state Senator Andrew Rice as an example of someone who I find very much like Tester in so many ways. He didn't address the part of the question that draws a distinction between good Democrats and bad Democrats but said he was following Rice's campaign and that if it looked like he had a real shot to win, he'd be there to help!

And that brings us to today's Oklahoman, a reliably right-wing mouthpiece that did its one unbiased report we will ever see on Andrew Rice. The writer raised the same electability question Tester had. He wonders aloud whether environmental and other progressive groups, who have nothing but disdain and contempt for the extremist positions espoused by Inhofe, will see him as vulnerable-- and Rice as viable.
"State Senator Rice in Oklahoma is a good candidate,” Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., the chairman of the senatorial campaign committee, told reporters recently. "He's going to surprise people.”

What would be a surprise in Oklahoma is a Democrat getting more than 41 percent of the vote in a U.S. Senate race.

That hasn't happened since 1990, when former Sen. David Boren won his final race. Inhofe was elected in 1994 to fill Boren's last two years; his Democratic opponent, former U.S. Rep. Dave McCurdy got 40 percent of the vote. Neither of Inhofe's last two opponents have topped that. Nor did either of the Democratic opponents of former Sen. Don Nickles, in 1992 and 1998.

In 2004, former U.S. Rep. Brad Carson, a Democrat, got 41 percent of the vote-- in the race to replace Nickles-- against Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Muskogee.

If he is ultimately the Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate seat, Rice, like Carson, will be on the ticket in a presidential year, in a red state that hasn't voted for a Democrat for president since 1964.

But Rice sees an opening for a new face, at a time when, he said, voters are tired of partisan gridlock in Washington and nasty campaigns.

"They want competent and responsible government,” he said. "I think sometimes (political) races are portrayed as people are looking for the ideal candidate.

"People are pretty down-to-earth and realistic about what they expect. People want you to pay attention to what they're saying. They want immigration reform. They want affordable health care.”

I know from how Tester responded at dinner last month that he wasn't convinced about Rice's viability. Since then he's looked into it and in early December he's traveling to Oklahoma City to help Rice with a fundraiser. And not only is Tester coming himself, he's bringing Blanche Lincoln, from neighboring Arkansas, as well.

Labels: , , , ,

IS HUCKABEE ANY BETTER THAN THE REST OF THE PATHETIC PYGMIES™?


I woke up a little late this morning and flicked on CNN while I was getting myself together. Mike Huckabee had just joined Wolf Blintzer for a chat. Until last week, when a poll of likely Republican caucus goers in Iowa-- a subset of bigots, rubes and superstitious kooks who don't deserve to influence the outcome of a vote for anything past Miss Sioux City-- showed Huckabee catching up with Mitt Romney in the pointless race for the GOP nomination (at least in Iowa), no one was taking Huckabee seriously. Well wrestlers and professional clowns were.

Last week respected Arkansas Times journalist Max Brantley did an excellent Huckabee expose at Salon, The Dark Side of Mike Huckabee. The subtitle gives it away: "The national media seems to have a crush on our ex-governor, but here in Arkansas, we know better." Huckabee's main goal on CNN this morning was to come across as a friendly, common sense outsider with an easy sense of humor who wants to go to Washington to clean it up. Sounds familiar.

But in Arkansas people know him as an untrustworthy, vicious and distinctly unfriendly purveyor of hard partisan politics. And an incompetent. Even allies call him "petty," "vindictive," and "thin-skinned," and the many who do not admire him, like Brantley, go much further. In his very first campaign (1992), a failed run for the U.S. Senate, "Huckabee revealed an enduring weakness as glaring as that other Arkansas governor's fondness for women. Huckabee seems to love loot and has a dismissive attitude toward ethics, campaign finance rules and propriety in general. Since that first, failed campaign, the ethical questions have multiplied."
After he became governor in 1996, he raked in tens of thousands of dollars in gifts, including gifts from people he later appointed to prestigious state commissions.

In the governor's office, his grasp never exceeded his reach. Furniture he'd received to doll up his office was carted out with him when he left, after he'd crushed computer hard drives so nobody could ever get a peek behind the curtain of the Huckabee administration.

Until my paper, the Arkansas Times, blew the whistle, he converted a governor's mansion operating account into a personal expense account, claiming public money for a doghouse, dry-cleaning bills, panty hose and meals at Taco Bell. He tried to claim $70,000 in furnishings provided by a wealthy cotton grower for the private part of the residence as his own, until he learned ethics rules prevented it. When a disgruntled former employee disclosed memos revealing all this, the Huckabee camp shut her up by repeatedly suggesting she might be vulnerable to prosecution for theft because she'd shared documents generated by the state's highest official.

And liberals aren't the only ones who distrust and dislike Huckabee. He bristled, if only momentarily, when Blintzer asked him about his humane stance on the children of undocumented workers. Humane stances are not what the Republican Iowa caucus goers have been told they are looking for. Huckabee desperately wants to come across as a conservatove with conservatove positions. The Club For Growth views him warily as a big-spending, government-expanding phony. While governor of Arkansas, he raised taxes for schools, highways and children's health, expanding the role of  government-- all no-no's for the hard line conservatives. And he's been a model of right-wing hypocrisy when it comes to the social agenda espoused by the non-millionaire end of the far right coalition, 100% homophobic but willing to be bought off by the purveyors of other "vices."
Huckabee's administration worked hard and unapologetically to prevent gay people from being foster parents. He avidly supported the state amendment that bans gay marriage as well as civil unions and bans any equal treatment under the law -- such as in health insurance coverage -- for same-sex partners. He professed opposition to alcohol and gambling, but he allowed passage of legislation that made it easier for restaurants to obtain private-club mixed-drink permits in dry counties. Over the angry objection of the church lobby, he sped final action on a bill to allow video poker at the state's racetracks, an act followed not long afterward by a $10,000 campaign contribution from the owner of the state's biggest race track, at Oaklawn Park in Hot Springs.

Funny how Blintzer didn't ask Huckabee about any of his ethics problems even though Fox's Chris Wallace did. Watch it and see if you'd like this guy in the White House. Maybe that's why a recent University of Arkansas poll showed Hillary with a 35 to 8% lead over Huckabee in Arkansas. Most Republican legislators in Arkansas still refuse to support his presidential run.




UPDATE: PRINCE OF DARKNESS EXPLAINS WHY "REAL" CONSERVATIVES HATE HUCKABEE

Short story: he raises taxes. They don't mind that he's a mean-spirited asshole or a religionist lunatic... but taxes? Yikes!

"Huckabee is campaigning as a conservative, but serious Republicans know that he is a high-tax, protectionist advocate of big government and a strong hand in the Oval Office directing the lives of Americans. Until now, they did not bother to expose the former governor of Arkansas as a false conservative because he seemed an underfunded, unknown nuisance candidate. Now that he has pulled even with Mitt Romney for the Iowa caucuses and might make more progress, the beleaguered Republican Party has a frightening problem."

Labels: , ,

FOX NEWS BIASED? JUST ASK FREDERICK OF HOLLYWOOD


There's a whole website, a really well-done one, dedicated to keeping count of Fox's activities as a propaganda outlet for the Republican Party and for the right-wing agenda, as well as cable TV's #1 purveyor of soft-core porn. And then Media Matters does a pretty phenomenal job keeping watch on Fox, it's biases and distortions as well.

But now we find even a right-winger, Fred Thompson (still running for president-- of the United States) complaining about how Fox talking heads consistently twist reality. And he did it on Fox.
In an interview on "Fox News Sunday," host Chris Wallace pressed Thompson on how some conservatives have lambasted Thompson's campaign and showed clips of Fox conservative commentators Charles Krauthammer and Fred Barnes criticizing the former senator.

Thompson said, "This has been a constant mantra of Fox, to tell you the truth." He noted that other conservatives have praised his bid for the GOP nomination and took issue with a Fox promo that focused on polling in New Hampshire, where Thompson is registering in the single digits.

He said he is running second in national polls and has been leading or tied for the lead in South Carolina for "a long, long time."

Thompson, in a firm, but measured tone, scolded Wallace: "...for you to highlight nothing but the negatives in terms of the polls and then put on your own guys who have been predicting for four months, really, that I couldn't do it, kind of skew things a little bit. There's a lot of other opinion out there."

Too bad faux journalist Chris Wallace didn't ask Thompson how he felt about the coverage Fox metes out daily to John Edwards, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Labels: , , ,

FAILURE IN AFGHANISTAN... ANOTHER REASON TO IMPEACH BUSH?


There weren't many Americans-- anywhere on the political spectrum-- who opposed Bush's post-9/11 attack on Afghanistan. I was one of the few but I was primarily opposed because I knew Bush was a weak and incompetent bungler who would lose-- and probably lose disastrously. Unlike Bush, I've spent a good deal of time in Afghanistan, in the 60s and 70s, and unlike Bush I've read a lot of Afghan history. And unlike Bush, I knew Bush would be no match for the Afghanis. Any other president and I would have been for it. This one? I imagined the worst from the first day.

All week I've been reading bits and pieces about Italians and Australians being killed, Afghan policemen being beheaded and the Taliban approaching Kabul. Yesterday I read that the Taliban now controls half the country. Thursday's Guardian painted a pretty bleak picture, with 54% of the country back in Taliban hands, despite the billions of dollars Bush and the coalition of the drilling have spent there.
Despite tens of thousands of Nato-led troops and billions of dollars in aid poured into the country, the insurgents, driven out by the American invasion in 2001, now control "vast swaths of unchallenged territory, including rural areas, some district centres, and important road arteries," the Senlis Council says in a report released yesterday.

On the basis of what it calls exclusive research, it warns that the insurgency is also exercising a "significant amount of psychological control, gaining more and more political legitimacy in the minds of the Afghan people who have a long history of shifting alliances and regime change."

It says the territory controlled by the Taliban has increased and the frontline is getting closer to Kabul-- a warning echoed by the UN which says more and more of the country is becoming a "no go" area for western aid and development workers.

The council goes as far as to state: "It is a sad indictment of the current state of Afghanistan that the question now appears to be not if the Taliban will return to Kabul, but when... and in what form. The oft-stated aim of reaching the city in 2008 appears more viable than ever and it is incumbent upon the international community to implement a new strategic paradigm before time runs out."

This morning's Washington Post reports that even the Bush Regime has been forced to admit their strategic goals are largely unmet. "The evaluation this month by the National Security Council followed an in-depth review in late 2006 that laid out a series of projected improvements for this year, including progress in security, governance and the economy. But the latest assessment concluded that only "the kinetic piece"-- individual battles against Taliban fighters-- has shown substantial progress, while improvements in the other areas continue to lag, a senior administration official said." The military talks about all the tactical battles of little or no consequence they win while intelligence officials say a strategic defeat, of great consequence, is looming. Momentum is on the side of the Taliban everywhere in the country. And instability in Pakistan isn't making anything look brighter-- at least not for the Bush Regime policies.
In Washington, Afghanistan policy has often seemed to be on the back burner since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Republican presidential candidates rarely discuss it, while Democrats generally bring it up to criticize the administration, saying officials are paying too much attention to Iraq at the expense of a "forgotten" war.

President Bush seldom mentions Afghanistan. In White House remarks last month asking Congress for an additional $200 billion for both wars, he noted that "our troops, NATO allies and Afghan forces are making gains against the Taliban," then offered an extensive recounting of progress in Iraq.


The picture on the right comes from an editorial in today's Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Impeachment: If Not Now, When? I hope Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer read it. The two of them are preventing a constitutional impeachment investigation from proceeding. I honestly believe they should both be removed. Our country is in grave danger and Pelosi and Hoyer are preventing the only constitutional solution we have to protect ourselves.
After six years of state of emergency, the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, continual war and occupations, our Constitution is deeply in crisis. Americans are in danger of losing our system of government and civil rights if they do not roll back the Bush administration's assault on the rule of law.

Allowing Cheney and George W. Bush to finish their terms without being impeached means future presidents are free to copy their lawless behavior. Of course many important issues deserve the attention of Congress. But the Constitution is the foundation of our democracy, not just an issue. Without the Constitution, we have nothing.

Polls show that 74 percent of Democrats and the majority of American adults support impeaching Cheney. "Never in our history have the high crimes and misdemeanors been so flagrant, and the people of our country know it," writes local author Richard Behan.

According to Rep. Dennis Kucinich, "Impeachment may well be the only remedy which remains to stop a war of aggression against Iran.
"The most conservative principle of the Founding Fathers was distrust of unchecked power. Centuries of experience substantiated that absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Constitution embraced a separation of powers to keep the legislative, executive and judicial branches in equilibrium," Bruce Fein, a constitutional lawyer and associate deputy attorney general in the Reagan administration, said in the October 2006 edition of Washington Monthly.

Pelosi and the congressional Democrats she leads have been a dismal failure, barely better than the criminal and contemptible Republicans they replaced.

Labels: ,

Saturday, November 24, 2007

ARE YOU EXPERIENCED? I AM


In today's Washington Post Michael Kinsley ask how important experience is for presidential candidates. On paper Bill Richardson has the best resume but he and two very experienced U.S. Senators, a good one (Chris Dodd) and an exceptionally bad one (Joe Biden) don't seem to be gaining much traction anywhere.

After 7 years of excruciating misrule by one of the-- if not the-- least experienced, worst equipped, least competent men ever elected to find himself in the White House, voters want something more, something better. Kinsley, an Obama supporter, talks about the valuable life experience racked up by Obama and McCain. As usual, his column is superficial and trite. But he does point out an interesting perspective he got from Warren Buffett. "[W]hen people tell him that they've learned from experience, that the trick is to learn from other people's experience. George W. Bush will leave behind a rich compost heap of experience for his successor to sort through and learn from."

The worst-- and most valuable in many ways-- experiences I ever had in the music business was when I worked with the most corporate of record companies, CBS (now SONY). Coming from an idealistic indie label in San Francisco, where all workers and artists were like family, I found CBS' corporate culture foreign and toxic. It didn't take me long to realize that it was inherently catastrophic for the kind of alternative artists I was signing and that it would be impossible for their music to ever receive a fair shot through CBS. I couldn't wait to get out of there. Finally, after watching the inevitable destruction of one artist after another, I decided to go live in Peru. At that moment Seymour Stein offered me a job as general manager of Sire Records.

The CBS experience taught me everything I needed to know about what to never do to any artist. I learned about hubris and I learned about selfishness, greed, craven politics and a lack of respect and humility. I think the years working with CBS made me a far better executive for Sire and Warner Bros. I also agree with Kinsley-- if this is what he meant-- that after 2 terms of George Bush, Americans willing to learn will have gained invaluable experience about electing leaders and about holding them accountable.

A few days ago Don Hazen of Alternet interviewed author Naomi Wolf, someone who is not new to the lessons about Bush. Wolf's new book The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot makes a case for why it is imperative for Americans to start learning from history. (Watch the video of her talking about the how fascism can so easily replace, step by step, fragile democracy when citizens take everything for granted.)
in some ways it is human nature to be in denial ... but Americans have our own special version, which is profoundly dangerous. Europeans know democracies are fragile, and they could close. They had closed. Bismarckian Germany was not a democracy.

But here we're walking around... we usually have that sense that somehow our air will sustain us, even when no one else's air does. And we don't have to do anything about it. We have this like bubble, that somehow democracy will just take care of us, and we don't have to fight to protect democracy.

They can mow down democracies all over the world, but somehow we'll be just fine. But what's so ironic about that is that the Founding Fathers drafted the Bill of Rights in fear. They knew that you had to have checks and balances, because it's human nature to abuse power, no matter who you are. They knew the damage that the army could do breaking into your home... they knew that democracy is fragile, and the default is tyranny. They knew that. And that's why they created the system of checks and balances.

Wolf's entire chat with Hazen is well worth reading and I recommend it heartily-- far more, in fact, than Merle Haggard's song about Hillary Clinton's experience and why he seems to be supporting her:

Labels: ,

NO BLUE AMERICA ENDORSEMENT THIS WEEK-- THEY ALL SEEM PRETTY GOOD IN CO-02


Congressman Mark Udall is giving up his House seat to run for the U.S. Senate, a race he is favored to win. His district, the 2nd, centered in Boulder, is the second bluest in an increasingly blue-tinted state. In 2004 and again in 2006 the Republicans fielded candidates who managed to wind up with 30% of the vote. Bush wound up with 41% in 2004. I'm sure the Republicans will find some chump to run next year but it won't be a race anyone takes seriously.

The serious race is the Democratic primary. There are 3 candidates: Joan Fitz-Gerald, Jared Polis, and Will Shafroth. It's a very hot, contentious race and the local blogs, like our pals at Square State and Colorado Confidential are all over it.

Early on I was barraged-- as was Jane-- by Jared Polis partisans. Even though he's a multimillionaire, he has been painted as the grassroots guy, very much independent of the Inside the Beltway power structure. The same conventional wisdom portrayed Joan Fitz-Gerald, the former State Senate president, as the Establishment candidate and Will Shafroth as the also-ran. All their positions seemed suitably progressive and we decided to just give the district a pass, leave it to the residents who know a lot more about each of the candidates than we do, and hopefully endorse the best man or woman against whatever extremist dog the wingnuts puke up. Let em skip to the end of the story. As you may have guessed from the headline, that's where we still are-- though not without some turbulence along the way.

You may recall that last month Establishment insiders held a little training session for favored candidates in Chicago, conducted by Christine Pelosi, who will be visiting with us at FDL later today. Most of the candidates who were invited have no primary opponents and they are busy battling Republicans. A few-- one of whom was Joan Fitz-Gerald-- have very serious primaries and this caused some alarm. Was this the dreaded anti-grassroots DCCC interference, the kind of interference that saddled us with a Congress that can't get much done because of so many reactionaries, some of whom were unscrupulously pushed by Rahm Emanuel last year? I spent some time carefully examining all three candidates' websites and talking with Joan and Jared on the phone.

It was AFSCME, a union very much in cahoots with the Inside-the-Beltway crowd, that had invited Joan and they based their tremendous enthusiasm for her on a solidly pro-labor record. You know how suspicious I am of the DCCC so I kept digging. The fact that her website has no issues stinks of a classic Emanuel tactic. (Jared's and Will's websites are issues-rich and you get a real feel for where they stand.) The odd thing about Joan is that after talking with her campaign manager and with her, she really doesn't have anything to hide. Her stands on the issues are fine.

Emanuel claims that immigration is the third rail of electoral politics this year and the same degree of hysteria he exhibited last year regarding the war-- he demanded candidates tone down their criticism of Bush-- is what he's demonstrating this year about immigration. "Move to the right," is what he's demanding, as utterly tone-deaf this year as he was last year. 15% of the residents of CO-02 are Hispanic (far less than Emanuel's own Chicago district) and the area is rational about the issue of immigration. So are each of the candidates.

Shafroth's website:
The topic of immigration has been wrongly exploited by some for political gain; most of us come from families that immigrated to this country during the past few hundred years. Immigration reform, however, remains a vitally important issue. I support a guest worker program with a path to citizenship that will help bring millions of undocumented workers out of the shadows. We must be careful that this is done in a fair and respectful manner. In addition, we must crack down on other areas of the broken immigration system. I support strengthening border security so that immigrants can enter our country through safe and legal routes. We also must create and enforce stronger penalties for employer violations.

When I spoke with Jared, who is on a fact-finding mission to Iraq this week, he was, if anything, even more supportive of comprehensive reform. His website statement:
My great-grandparents found hope and opportunity on the shores of this fine nation in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. America offers the same promise to millions of people around the world. The hardworking, taxpaying, law-abiding immigrants who renew our country and add to our diversity and strength should not be exploited to create a massive underclass—such an approach opposes our values and hurts all working families. On the contrary, we should establish a path for them to earn full participation in the America they help to build.

he current immigration system must be replaced by comprehensive immigration reform that secures our borders and enforces the rule of law, respects the dignity and dreams of immigrants, reflects our values, and recognizes the needs of our communities and businesses. We must effectively address both the security and economic interests of our nation.

Therefore, I support the bipartisan compromise reached through the leadership efforts of Senator Salazar that does the following:
• Provides a transitional pathway to citizenship for qualifying immigrants
• Boosts the number of border agents
• Tightens border security and work-site enforcement
• Establishes an identity verification system
• Sets aside 40 percent of future visas to be allocated on a merit-based system, awarding points for education and skills needed in the U.S.

This plan is fair, tough, enforceable and realistic, and brings millions of people out of the dark shadows and into the American mainstream.

Like I said, Joan has no issues on her cookie cutter site. It made me mistrustful but when I spoke with her about the issue, I was greatly relieved to hear her very reasonable explanation of her work in the Senate around Amendment 55 and the special session ex-Governor Bill Owens, a right-wing demagogue, called to clamp down on immigrants. Joan did what she felt she could to mitigate his demands with her shaky one-vote majority. It's up to the citizens of CO-02 to determine if her rationale is what they're looking for in a congressmember. I was more interested in how she would respond going forward.

When I asked her if she recalled hearing Rahm Emanuel tell Democratic candidates at the infamous training session in Chicago a few weeks ago that they had to move to the right on immigration, she giggled and said "no, I guess I wasn't paying much attention to him." I was surprised. You weren't paying attention to Rahm Emanuel?? "No," she continued; "he's going to say things nationally that he thinks are important but every congressional district is different. He wasn't giving us a 'You must go do this.' It was a suggestion, nationally from the D-Trip. I just took it as a suggestion." When I asked her how she felt about the harsh enforcement-only/xenophobic Heath Shuler immigration bill, co-sponsored by so many Democrats in Emanuel's orbit, her reply was "I wouldn't. If Tom Tancredo's name is on it, I'm not co-sponsoring it. I know Tom Tancredo and I know where he is on immigration. I think you have to vote not from the pulpit on high but from your heart... I was urged to run for governor but I didn't want to move to the right. I wanted to run from this district; the state is more conservative than this congressional district. I wanted to run from a district that is progressive so that you could actually say things and move people's minds and hearts. You cast a vote and you tell people why you did and why you're proud to do it-- to act and sound like a Democrat." They all do. I wish we had such good choices everywhere in the country.

Labels: , , , ,

TWO BUSH ALLIES DEFEATED-- NEW LEADERS IN AUSTRALIA AND POLAND VOW END TO PARTICIPATION IN HIS IRAQ BOONDOGGLE


Poland has been ruled by two extreme right, viciously homophobic twins President Lech Kaczynski and Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski. Last month their right-wing party took a drubbing in parliamentary elections and the new Prime Minister, confirmed yesterday, is Donald Tusk, a moderate. Yesterday Tusk reaffirmed his pledge to pull Poland's remaining 900 troops out of Iraq and to back away from the Kaczynski's bellicose pro-American posture towards Russia.
"In a year's time, I will tell you here in this chamber that our military mission in Iraq is over," Tusk said, as the house erupted in applause.

"We have taken the decision, as far as the government powers go, to make 2008 the year when the pullout of Poland's military mission is started and completed," Tusk said. "We will carry out that operation with the conviction that we have done more than what our allies, especially the U.S., had expected from us."

On top of that Bush's closest ally, Australian neanderthal John Howard "suffered a humiliating defeat" today. Kevin Rudd, a moderate left candidate will be the new prime minister and he has promised to overturn the ultra-reactionary Bush-like policies of his predecessor, particularly in regard to Global Warming and Iraq. Bush's only ally left in the entire world on Global Warming is now Oklahoma crazy right-wing senator, James Inhofe. Rudd won a clear parliamentary majority and it looks like Howard may actually lose his own suburban Sydney seat to boot! It is likely that Midnight Oil singer Peter Garrett will join the new cabinet as Environmental Minister.

Rudd campaigned on promises that "his first acts as prime minister will include pushing for the ratification of the Kyoto climate agreement and to negotiate the withdrawal of Australian combat troops from Iraq," both seen as repudiations of George Bush's embarrassing leadership.

Remember this?




UPDATE: GLENN GREENWALD LISTS THE REASONS TO CELEBRATE THE OVERDUE POLITICAL DEMISE OF JOHN HOWARD

I had forgotten about Howard's slurs against Democrats, although I had remembered that he had lost his marbles long ago. I love this from the video Glenn found (re: Howard's tough re-election bid)
Vice President Cheney is heading to Australia later this month to try and help. The White House can hardly afford to have another friend of the president go the way of British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Well, one did-- and worse. I know there are scores of Democratic candidates around the country who are hoping Vice President Cheney heads to their constituencies to campaign for their opponents just the way he did for John Howard.

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, November 23, 2007

ALASKA HOLIDAY SEASON UPDATE

Soon to be indicted Ted Stevens wears that Hulk tie when he's pissed off

-by Philip Munger

Women have a saying up here-- Alaska, where the odds are good, but the goods are odd.

For men, at least-- the odds keep getting better. For women, unfortunately, the goods couldn't get much more odd. Which might be part of the reason Alaska, the land of faux macho men, is also the 12th most populous state per capita for lesbians. Loneliness for the wives of imprisoned prominent GOP political and industrial figures may soon influence that demographic in the 2010 census.

However you look at it, Alaska is the most in-flux political climate in the USA right now. The changes have more to do with local than national politics, but reflect the national trend of voter aspirations welcoming articulate and aggressive progressive candidates for local and national office. People are sick and tired of the rank hypocrisy of the far right. They should be, and the recent Alaska political scandals are a case in point. We’re also paying close scrutiny here to the inexperience of the Democratic Party machine, as it struggles to take advantage of a political discovery bigger for them than was Prudhoe Bay for big oil. The Dems have been so out of power for so long, many newcomers voting-- or running, for that matter, were kids when the Dems last controlled local politics. Most voters in the next election lived in another state or were unborn when Senator Ted Stevens took office in 1972. That was 13 years after statehood and eight years after the Great Alaska Earthquake.

The GOP has controlled Alaska for a long time. The Houston crew that came with the big Prudhoe drillers brought their culture to the Arctic. Such as it is. Unfortunately for Alaska, it became the paradigm. The combination of increasingly open corruption by the oil industry through the enormous clout of providing 85% or more of the state's revenues, and the strict party discipline enforced by a machine overloaded with cynical oilmen and a fundamentalist televangelist or two, stifled all else.

But a change began to surface long before the FBI began raiding the offices of state GOP legislators at the end of August 2006. As early as 2002, former Wasilla Mayor, Sarah Palin, began building a maverick GOP political machine independent of state GOP Chairman Randy Reudrich’s organization. Palin narrowly lost a 2002 GOP lieutenant governor primary.

When the 2002 gubernatorial victor, Frank Murkowski came into office in December 2002, he appointed Palin to run the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Another commission member then was state GOP party chair, Reudrich. Palin complained to the governor about Reudrich’s penchant for doing party business while collecting a state paycheck. She also was instrumental in bringing to light other ethical lapses by members of Murkowski’s administration.

In January 2004, Palin resigned from the commission, and began rebuilding her organization.

Meanwhile, Ray Metcalfe, a former GOP state representative, began investigating the son of the patron saint of Alaska, U.S. Senator, Ted Stevens, in 2004. He was already incensed at the corruption of the legislative process he had encountered as a congressman, but was even more irritated at the unquestioned lobbying mastery here by big oil and its surrogates. He had already started his own party, the Republican Moderate Party, which sought to bring a higher percentage of oil wealth being extracted in Alaska into state coffers, rather than into corporate profits. By mid-2004, Metcalfe was receiving tips on GOP corruption from many whistleblowers. He went to the state to complain, getting a feeble response. The media treated him as a dilettante or worse. Most now believe he then went to the FBI.

One of Frank Murkowski’s first acts as governor had been to appoint his daughter, Lisa, to his former U.S. Senate seat. From there, it was downhill for the next four years of his administration. He was a hapless public speaker, unable to change from the haughty tone of a D.C. Senator to that of governor of a state whose population perceives itself as friendly and approachable. His long fight to purchase an executive jet that could only land on Alaska’s few large, paved airports had already made him the butt of many jokes, when the FBI’s raids of the offices of several prominent GOP legislators and power brokers, brought his party’s corruption to national attention.

As Murkowski tried through a number of special sessions of the state legislature to pass a combination of incentives and fee adjustments that would force big oil to develop natural gas resources, but also lock up the long-term resource extraction fee structure, on the North Slope of Alaska to the advantage of big oil, the FBI was secretly video- and audio-taping hundreds of hours of conversations between Alaska politicians and oil industry lobbyists. The FBI brought in special investigators from all over the country, preferring to keep the Anchorage FBI office as far out of the loop as possible.

The FBI stings have so far brought five known convictions, either from pleas or from criminal trials. One more trial, of former State Rep Bruce Weyrauch is scheduled for 2008. Testimony in the trials of former legislators Tim Anderson, Pete Kott, and Vic Kohring has revealed that ex-Veco executives Rick Smith and Bill Allen, plead to bribing former State Senator Ben Stevens (son of U.S. Senator Ted Stevens, current State Senator John Cowdery, and Senator Stevens himself. Rumors that other legislators, political appointees of former governor Murkowski, and oil industry lobbyists will be indicted, are rampant.

Senator Stevens and U.S. Representative Don Young have both issued statements to the effect that they are under Federal investigation. And, they’re both up for re-election in 2008. Both are less popular here than they have ever been. But Young has attracted challengers, where-– so far, at least-– Sen. Stevens has not.

2006 was a watershed year for change in Alaska politics. At the same time the FBI was taping legislators and lobbyists exchanging bribes for votes in the special sessions, Governor Frank Murkowski was conducting a GOP primary campaign that has gone down in Alaska political annals as the most inept on record. That took some doing. He came in third, just above the write-ins for Hugo Chavez and Homer Simpson.

Sarah Palin’s populist organization brought together her old base in the Matanuska-Susitna Valley, expanded on that in Southcentral and Interior Alaska, and tapped into resentments about Juneau-based politics, and a need to clean house. Her November challenger, former Democratic Party Governor, Tony Knowles, had only his undistinguished eight years in Juneau, from 1994 to 2002, to run on.

Palin beat Knowles handily in a three-way race. Having narrowly lost a 2004 bid to unseat U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski, Knowles’ political career is largely seen here as over. For instance, Knowles, who spent $1.1 million to Sarah Palin’s $880,000 in the gubernatorial general campaign, garnered just over 97,000 votes. Diane Benson, running against Don Young for Alaska’s sole U.S. House seat, received about 94,000 votes statewide, while spending $192,000 to Young’s $2 million in the campaign.

Benson was initially impelled to run for the seat Young has held since 1972 in early 2006, after Alaska Democratic Party chairman Jake Metcalfe had been unsuccessful in persuading any of Alaska’s leading Democrats to file for the race. Benson’s son, Latseen, an airborne infantryman in the 101st Airborne Division, had been severely injured near Kirkuk in November 2005, during his third tour.

Since the 2006 race, Benson has extended her contacts with the Wounded Warrior network, with Veterans groups, with military families, and with Native American organizations in Alaska, and nationwide. She has also remained highly critical of Don Young's conduct in the U.S. House, calling for an ethics investigation by that legislative body, of his conduct during the passage of the 2005 U.S. transportation bill. She knew, before deciding to run again in 2008, that she would face serious primary challengers.

Two other challengers have entered the Democratic primary race for Young’s seat. Former State Democratic Party chair Jake Metcalfe whose support for Diane Benson in 2006 was tepid, filed from Washington, D.C. the first week of August. Former State House Minority Leader Ethan Berkowitz, who, like Benson, has been highly critical of the ethical lapses of Alaska politicians, filed on October 1. Both Berkowitz's and Benson's campaigns have recently released polls showing their candidates beating Young in a general election. Berkowitz’s poll, especially its claim that Berkowitz would soundly beat Benson in the primary, is tainted by the unabashed direct links between pollster and candidate.

A three-way Democratic primary race for Young’s seat by a group of credible, fairly liberal candidates is unprecedented in Alaska. The primary isn’t until late August, but it is likely that the winner will emerge as Alaska’s next member of the U.S. House, as Young seems determined to try to hold on until the FBI frog-marches him out of his animal head-adorned DC lair Besides, indications are that he's spending more money on attorneys than his campaign is taking in. If things don’t improve for the out-of-power, increasingly discredited, foul-mouthed relic from his own largely mythical past, he’ll be out of money by mid-July.

Anchorage mayor Mark Begich, who visited Washington D.C. last January at the behest of organizations interested in his candidacy for Young's seat, passed on running against Young. Many observers here are wondering why Begich is waiting so long to declare his candidacy for Ted Stevens’ seat. I've speculated that Begich's hesitancy is based on a genuine fear that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin will declare her candidacy against Stevens. But I'm beginning to doubt that she will do that. As a friend told me last night, "She's having way too much fun right now as Gov." But if Mark Begich waits until after the inevitable indictment of Ben Stevens by the Feds, he'll appear to be a shameless opportunist.

It has been interesting watching Alaska’s mainstream media trying to cover the corruption trial of GOP ex-state legislator Vic Kohring in Anchorage, as Sarah Palin also convened her first-ever special session of the legislature in Juneau. Journalistic resources were sorely stretched.

The session was to rewrite the corruption-tainted oil extraction fee legislation from August 2006. Even though lobbyists from the most thoroughly despised big oil company in Alaska, Exxon, openly sought to change legislation in congressional offices, they failed to have an impact on the governor’s relentless, behind-the-scenes pressure on what is likely to be a new legislative coalition when the state house and senate convene in January. The session ended up in the most remarkable victory by an Alaska politician in the state’s history, with the enactment of the highest extraction fee for petroleum products from State land, in our history. The new fee schedule will bring in billions of dollars. It was Palin's triumph. She was already the most popular governor in the USA.

Local elections in 2006 and 2007 have indicated a growing distrust of vacuous promises by wingnut candidates, or for wingnut-sponsored initiatives. The Matanuska-Susitna Borough and its rapidly growing suburban areas around and between Palmer and Wasilla, one of the most conservative regions in Alaska, has seen a succession of liberal and moderate victories at school board, borough assembly and city council levels. Most recently, the Mat-Su Valley electrical co-op, Matanuska Electrical Association, withdrew plans to erect a huge coal-fired power plant south of Palmer. It would have been the first man-made object people would see as they crossed one of the most scenic and inspiring river valleys in the world. Not to mention the pollution.

Soon after the 2008 Alaska legislative session opens, the U.S. Supreme Court will take up the class-action lawsuit filed against Exxon in the wake of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. It has been wending its way through the courts since my son, who is now in college, was a toddler. Over a thousand plaintiffs have died, some by their own hands, waiting for this settlement.

When the Supreme Court decided to take the case, Governor Palin called the news “a kick to the guts” of all Alaskans. Last week the three Democratic party candidates for Don Young’s U.S. House seat provided statements to me regarding their support of the governor’s statement, and of the state’s notice it will be filing an amicus brief on behalf of the plaintiffs, and against Exxon’s position.

Diane Benson, supporting the governor, noted “Governor Palin has called this case “a kick in the guts” to Alaskans. She almost got it right. What Exxon did to us, to our fishers and coastal residents, rhymes with “a kick in the guts,” but was an even lower blow. To use another maritime law term-- we’ve been Shanghaied.

Ethan Berkowitz stated “It’s too bad that we’re no longer surprised when Exxon has the audacity to lobby our legislators in Juneau for tax fairness, stall in the D.C. courts and leave Alaska twisting in the tide. The Palin Administration did the right thing filing a “friend of the court” brief on behalf of the state and making sure Alaska stands up to Exxon.”

Jake Metcalfe, in spite of my request that he specifically endorse the governor’s position, failed to mention Palin, who is unpopular in Southeast Alaska, Metcalfe’s bastion. He said “Exxon should do the right thing and pay the plaintiffs now. That said, I'm confident the judicial branch of our government will do the right thing in the end.”

Benson isn’t so sure about this Supreme Court, commenting, “for the focus of this case to now shift, at the Supreme Court level, to an archaic maritime law case, that of the privateer Scourge, in the aftermath of the War of 1812, is almost beyond words. I’m concerned about this intersection of Exxon’s cynical defense and George Bush’s corporation-friendly Court.”

One thing is sure for 2008 in Alaska. It will be the most important election here since 1994, when-- like many other parts of he USA-- the selfish, consciously deceitful Gingrich agenda was foisted on us, and true conservatism, moderation, and liberalism were all subordinated to a mean-spirited me first modality.

Labels: , , , , , ,

EXPENSIVE JUNK TO AVOID-- TODAY AND FOREVER


One of the things Roland loves doing when we go to Bangkok, something that basically makes no sense to me at all, is to buy fake Rolex watches and other brand name tokens to the excesses of consumerism. I like buying jade Buddha heads and traditional art. Last night we were pouring over tour books and planning out our trip to Burma and Roland blurted out, "Oh, I bet they have some cheap Rolexes at the Bogyoke Aung San Market or at the Theingyi Zei" (which is even cheaper and offers another Roland specialty that goes right over my head: a snake section that features the fresh blood and organs of various snakes; some live ones are disemboweled on the spot for medicinal consumption). Let a psychiatrist deal with the snake thing. I want to talk about the fake Rolexes. Actually, what I really want to talk about is a story in today's NY Times by Dana Thomas, author of Deluxe: How Luxury Lost Its Luster.

Ms Thomas deals with luxury items made in China and other places that are neither Italy nor France, but not the illegal counterfeits Roland craves, the super-expensive, authorized ones that have become a mainstay of the "democratized," newly middle class, luxury industry. "For more than a century, the luxury fashion business was made up of small family companies that produced beautiful items of the finest materials. It was a niche business for a niche clientele. But in the late 1980s, business tycoons began to buy up these companies and turn them into billion-dollar global brands producing millions of logo-covered items for the middle market. The executives labeled this rollout the 'democratization' of luxury, which is now a $157-billion-a-year industry."
Maybe this is where Bush gets his ideas about democratizing Iraq and the Middle east and any country he doesn't like. This is mostly bait-and-switch production, with the newly corporatized-- rather than democratized-- name brands outright lying, or just deceiving, about where and how their overpriced consumer garbage is made. Example: "To please customers looking for the 'Made in Italy' label, several luxury companies now have their goods made in Italy by illegal Chinese laborers. Today, the Tuscan town of Prato, just outside of Florence and long the center for leather-goods production for brands like Gucci and Prada, has the second-largest population of Chinese in Europe, after Paris. More than half of the 4,200 factories in Prato are owned by Chinese entrepreneurs, some of whom pay their Chinese workers as little as two Euros ($3) an hour."
Luxury brand executives who declare that their items can be made only in Western Europe because Western European artisans are the only people who know what true luxury is are being not only hypocritical but also xenophobic. They are not selling “dreams,” as they like to suggest; they are hawking low-cost, high-profit items wrapped in logos. Consumers should keep in mind that luxury brands are capable of producing real quality at a reasonable price. They know better, and so should we.

I avoid that stuff. Two days ago I noticed my Levys were precariously hanging together in a few sensitive areas by some threads so I braved Roland's scorn, drove over to a K-Mart and plunked down $15 for a new pair of Levys, which I intend to wear 'til they get drafty. And today, like I said earlier, is a Buy Nothing Day at my pad.

Labels: ,

JANE WAS ON C-SPAN THIS MORNING FOR AN HOUR-- AND KEPT KNOCKIN' IT OUT OF THE PARK

Jane Hamsher runs Firedoglake and she's one of the foundations of Blue America. Today she was the guest on C-Span's Washington Journal. She's brilliant and articulate and sums up much of what we've been talking about for the last couple of years. Start here with a 10 minute segment:



If you like that, you can watch the whole hour (in order), here, here, here, here, here (a clip with the craziest Republican to call in and spout all his hatred and ditto-headed nonsense), and here. And, of course, there's a great discussion over at Firedoglake.

Labels: ,

ARE BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES OWNED BY THE VERY WEALTHY?


You can file today's Moonie Times story about how Democrats are the party of the grasping, greedy rich under the heading "How to make statistics prove whatever you want."

First recall that some of the richest Americans, many of whom are neither grasping nor greedy, support sound fiscal policies that are good for America even if they don't feed into the grotesque selfishness and avarice that are among the most hysterically-defended hallmarks of the Republican Party. The best example of that, of course, is the great number of extremely wealthy Americans, Bill Gates and George Soros pop immediately to mind, who support progressive taxation-- including the estate tax-- even though they are the very ones-- the only ones-- who have to pay anything under the estate tax. Last week Warren Buffet, one of the richest-- and financially savviest-- men in America, explained to the Senate Finance Committee why progressive taxation is good for society, despite the fact that it is so vehemently opposed, even loathed, by the actual party of the rich.

Buffet is worth over $50 billion and he's willing to say what few really wealthy people do-- that "the current tax system favors the elite and overburdens the middle class." He told the committee that repealing the estate tax, near and dear to all who are greedy and grasping, would "unjustly benefit America’s wealthiest."
The estate tax has been a hot-button issue on Capitol Hill this year. Under a 2001 law, the estate tax will be gradually reduced until 2010, when it is suspended for on year. Then in 2011, the tax returns in full force, and estates worth over $1 million could face a 55% tax. While some Republicans have pushed for the tax’s full repeal, many Democrats want the tax to stay in place. It is unclear where Republicans and Democrats will find common ground, but many expect the sides to reach a compromise before 2011.

According to Buffett, the estate tax is important, because it bridges the gap between the poor and rich. “A meaningful estate tax is needed to prevent our democracy from becoming a dynastic plutocracy,'' he said. He said low taxes on the rich (many of the richest Americans are taxed at the lower dividends and capital gains rate) have given them an unfair advantage over the middle class, which fork over a greater percentage of their income to the government.

In a recent interview with Tom Brokaw of NBC, Buffett produced a document that showed he had about $49.6 million in taxable income, 18% of which was paid to the government. For comparison, he said the average federal tax rate for a Berkshire employee was nearly double that-- 33%.

Proposing a more-direct redistribution of wealth, Buffett said the approximate $24 billion in proceeds from the estate tax, should be redirected to the poor. One way to do it, he argues, would be to give $1,000 tax credit to 23 million low-income households.

Buffett’s focus on U.S. economic disparity may seem like a modern dilemma, but his arguments echo the words of Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th president of the United States. In 1906, the president Roosevelt told Congress: "The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the state, because he derives special advantage from the mere existence of government,” he said. And the man of great wealth “should assume his full and proper share of the burden of taxation.”

To a great extend both parties, at in terms of their Inside the Beltway factions, are the parties of the greedy, grasping rich and powerful. Yes, Democratic "leaders" like Rahm Emanuel, the Clintons, not to mention the whole Republican-lite Blue Dog DLC end of the party, are very... sensitive, for whatever reasons, to the demands of the wealthiest one percent of society. The difference, of course-- and what makes the Moonie "analysis" bunk-- has to do with the underlying philosophy of each party. Political parties of the right, by definition, represent the interests of the ownership class and inherited wealth. Parties of the left represent the interests of working families.

Regardless of the shabby way the Democratic Party has been captured by men and women of the right, the party's basic philosophy is still a philosophy that would lift up the working class and strengthen the middle class. Republican philosophy seeks only to conserve the wealth of the very rich. Solution: better Democrats before more Democrats. In IL-14 we have a great chance to elect the real deal (John Laesch). If Emanuel can push through his Blue Dog Foster, it doesn't really matter who wins the general election; both will be pushing the interests of the very wealthy-- although it matters to Democratic congressional leaders who need more-- regardless of better-- Democrats so they can get the good offices and close parking spots. There are other key primary races like the one in IL-14 around the country. Illinois has several in fact. Mark Pera is challenging reactionary Democrat Dan Lipinski in IL-03 and Randi Scheuer is challenging anti-worker Blue Dog lapdog Melissa Bean in IL-08. One state over, Gretchen Clearwater is going after reactionary Baron Hill in IN-09 and Donna Edwards is doing the same thing in MD-04 (against a corrupt and corporate-oriented Al Wynn). Wanna help?

And if you're still confused by the difference between the two parties, just look at the 4 thirty-second TV spots the Center for American Progress put together to highlight the differences.

Labels: ,

ON THANKSGIVING WEEKEND, WE SHOULD ALL REMEMBER OUR IMMIGRANT HERITAGE-- AND DO SOMETHING TO HONOR IT


No illegal aliens could ever have been more aggressive, bloodthirsty and rapacious than the ones whose arrival we celebrated yesterday. Well, the ones most of us celebrated yesterday. Roland and I went to Jitlada, our favorite East Hollywood Thai joint and talked about the great food we'd soon be eating in our favorite restaurants in Thailand. We both had som tom, green papaya salad. My part of town is vibrant and alive with immigrants from Thailand, Armenia, Mexico, Central America, Iran, Russia, China and India. The richness of this non-Pilgrim America probably isn't something narrow-minded bigots like Tom Tancredo and Heath Shuler will ever experience or grasp.

This morning's NY Times has a weighty editorial about how our political class has failed the country in terms of putting together a cohesive and practical set of policies on immigration.
Asked if she supported Mr. Spitzer, Senator Hillary Clinton tied herself in knots looking for the safest answer.

The Republican presidential candidates, meanwhile, are doggedly out-toughing one another-- even Rudolph Giuliani, who once defended but now disowns the immigrants who pulled his hard-up city out of a ditch. A freshman Democratic representative, Heath Shuler of North Carolina, has submitted an enforcement bill bristling with border fencing and punishments. Representative Tom Tancredo, Republican of Colorado, for whom restricting immigration is the first, last and only issue, says he will not run again when his term expires next year. I have done all I can, he says, like some weary gunslinger covered in blood and dust.

The natural allies of immigrants have been cowed into mumbling or silent avoidance. The Democrats’ chief strategist, Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, went so far as to declare immigration the latest “third rail of American politics.” This profile in squeamishness was on full display at the Democratic presidential debate last week in Las Vegas, when Wolf Blitzer pressed the candidates for yes-or-no answers on driver’s licenses and Mrs. Clinton, to her great discredit, said no.

This year’s federal failure will not be undone until 2009 at the earliest, while states and local governments will continue doing their own thing, creating a mishmash of immigration policies, most of them harsh and shortsighted. But the wilderness of anger into which Mr. Tancredo helped lead America is not where the country has to be on this vitally important issue, nor where it truly is.

Foolishly, many Democrats are following Emanuel, Tancredo and the Republicans down the road to political perdition. Just weeks ago GOP attempts to drum up anti-immigration hysteria and use it against Democrats in local elections failed spectacularly. With the exception of the backward racist hotbed of bigotry known as Mississippi-- where the Democrat running for governor was following the Emanuel-Shuler playbook word for word-- the Republicans lost everywhere. Emanuel looked at the data-- the new local legislative majorities in Virginia and New Jersey, the new progressive governor in Kentucky-- and still insists anti-immigrant demagoguery is the only way to go.

Blue America and our allies have been working hard to inform Emanuel's constituents about his anti-immigrant activities, a cover for the "free" trade policies he has championed, policies that have been more harmful to the American middle class than any other misguided policy-- and there were plenty-- in the last two decades. Emanuel is the ugly face of NAFTA-- he was Bill Clinton's hatchet man forcing this inherently corporatist, Republican trade agenda down the throats of unwilling Democrats-- and today he is the Democrats' ugly face of anti-immigration policies that have helped make the GOP anathema to the fastest growing population in America. Whose side is Emanuel on? Good question-- although the answer has been obvious to me for many years.

Tuesday another kind of Illinois Democrat, a forthright, grassroots progressive, John Laesch, showed that there is hope for a movement among Democrats to topple reactionary, pro-war corporatist power-mongers like Emanuel from congressional power. Unlike most Democrats, Laesch, a union carpenter, is taking on immigration straight up. His campaign posted his ideas at Daily Kos. Laesch is battling extreme right wing xenophobic Republicans and an equally clueless Blue Dog Democrat, supported by Emanuel, to replace the retiring Denny Hastert. Laesch showed up at the World Relief Immigration Services office in downtown Aurora and called for right-wing loon Jim Oberweis "to take back his anti-immigrant and pro-national ID card message portrayed in a series of mailings and TV ads... 'The idea behind this advertising campaign is to make people so afraid of immigrants that they are willing to cede their civil liberties, the right to privacy and allow for a big-brother solution like a national ID card,' said Laesch."
John wrote his own blog on this issue at Fireside 14. He pointed out that the last four soldiers from this district to lose their life while serving our country were all of Hispanic heritage.

... Laesch also brought up his adversary in the primary, Democrat Bill Foster, who "in some ways even goes further than Mr. Oberweis’ proposal." Laesch noted that Foster’s plan wants all workers in the U.S.-- not just immigrants-- to carry national ID cards as proof of employment eligibility...

"These ads," said Laesch, "are designed to make people afraid by blaming immigrants and keep people distracted from the real issues like stagnating wages, unfair trade agreements, out of control healthcare costs and the war in Iraq." Laesch rejected the idea that any human being is illegal. "At the end of the day we may have different skin colors, different languages and different cultures, but we all belong to the human race. "

Oberweis and the Blue Dog Foster (along with Emanuel) are staunch "free" traders. Laesch is for fair trade.

The Times seems willing to be dragged along-- at least sooner than our completely corrupted political class-- the correct path. "Fixing immigration," the editors write today, "is not a yes-or-no question. It’s yes and no. Or if you prefer, no and yes-- no to more illegal immigration, to uncontrolled borders and to a flourishing underground economy where employer greed feeds off worker desperation. Yes to extending the blanket of law over the anonymous, undocumented population-- through fines and other penalties for breaking the nation’s laws and an orderly path to legal status and citizenship to those who qualify."

Unlike the Shuler/Tancredo bill that Emanuel is trying to shove down Democrats' throats the way he shoved NAFTA down their throats at the behest of Bill Clinton, serious legislators know immigration is a complex problem and comprehensive reform is what is needed, not political talking points that sound good on Fox or on Lou Dobbs' infotainment show. "It rests," according to the Times "on the idea that having an undocumented underclass does the country more harm than good."
This is not “open-borders amnesty,” a false label stuck on by those who want enforcement and nothing else. It’s tough on the border and on those who sneaked across it. It’s tough but fair to employers who need immigrant workers. It recognizes that American citizens should not have to compete for jobs with a desperate population frightened into accepting rock-bottom wages and working conditions. It makes a serious effort to fix legal immigration by creating an orderly future flow of legal workers.

Americans accept this approach. The National Immigration Forum has compiled nearly two dozen polls from 2007 alone that show Americans consistently favoring a combination of tough enforcement and earned legalization over just enforcement. Elections confirm this. Straight-talking moderates like Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona and Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico thrive in the immigration crucible along the southern border. Those who obsess about immigration as single-issue hard-liners, like the Arizonans J. D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, have disappeared, booted by voters. Voters in Virginia this month rejected similar candidates and handed control of the State Senate to Democrats.

...America is waiting for a leader to risk saying that the best answer is not the simplest one. As John Edwards said at the last debate, “When is our party going to show a little backbone and strength and courage and speak up for those people who have been left behind?”

He was talking about the poor and people without health insurance, but he could-- and should-- have included a host of others: Business owners who want to hire legal workers. Americans who don’t want their opportunities undermined by the off-the-books economy. Children whose dreams of education and advancement are thwarted by their parents’ hopeless immigration status. And the immigrants, here and abroad, who want to find their place in a society that once welcomed their honest labor, but can’t find a way to do it anymore.


Tomorrow I will look at a hotly contested congressional race where even one of Emanuel's favored candidates thinks he's full of malarkey and ought to keep his nose out of other peoples' races. I'll have time to do that because I'm boycotting Black Friday. If you decide to do the same-- or even partially do the same-- you can divert some of your money to help with the struggle against Emanuel's xenophobia by donating even a small amount to the Accountability Moment, which is purchasing full page newspaper ads (like the one on the left which you can click on to see larger) in Spanish, Polish and Korean newspapers in his congressional district.

Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, November 22, 2007

I'M BOYCOTTING BLACK FRIDAY


I didn't celebrate Thanksgiving today but tomorrow I am celebrating Buy Nothing Day, even if it does gross out MTV.

1969 found me in Kabul, Afghanistan... very young and very high. I got a letter through poste restante from my friend Helen telling me about an American student boycott of Coke and Pepsi in retribution for the ramping up of American aggression in Vietnam (I think... let I said... very young and very high). I've never had a sip of Coke or Pepsi or any related products since reading that letter at the cafe in front of the Finance Ministry. Only problem is, no one remembers any boycott and that includes Helen, who doesn't even remember writing me a letter. Basically, I'm not even sure I was in Afghanistan when I started my boycott. It may have been Kathmandu in 1970 (which makes more sense since I recall that the impetus was the tragic shootings at Kent State in May, 1970, a month or two after I got to Nepal).

Tomorrow's action is just a 24 hour moratorium on consumer spending. I think if I've gone for 37 or 38 years without a Coke or Pepsi, I can certainly handle that. Here's the ad MTV refuses to run; I hope it inspires you too:

Labels:

VITTER WON'T HAVE TO EXPLAIN TO A JURY WHY HE LIKES WEARING DIAPERS WHEN HE HIRES  PROSTITUTES OR DISPROVE THEIR CLAIMS ABOUT HIS WEENIE


Last week the Washington Post was reporting that Louisiana right-wing hypocrite David Diapers Vitter was laying low as his prostitution addiction started making the headlines again.
On Tuesday, the day Vitter was subpoenaed by the former owner of an escort service to which he has been linked, Vitter skipped a Louisiana delegation news conference with Rep. Bobby Jindal (R-La.), the state's incoming governor. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D), Rep. Rodney Alexander (R) and outgoing Gov. Kathleen Blanco were all there.

On Thursday of last week, Vitter was conspicuously missing from the limelight as Landrieu and the rest of the Louisiana delegation touted their "$12 Billion Day"-- having secured that much money to help the state's continued rebuilding effort from Katrina and provide future storm and flood protection.

But then again, Thursday was the day Hustler magazine provided advance copies to the media of its upcoming January issue (see video below) featuring the former prostitute who claims she provided services to Vitter in 1999, the year he won a House race in a special election.

Vitter was so very distraught because the DC Madam, Deborah Jeane Palfrey, who ran one of the many escort services he used, had subpoenaed him in her trial. She "is trying to prove that her business was not a prostitution ring, as the government alleges in its racketeering and money laundering case against her. Vitter, Palfrey's legal theory goes, would be able to help prove that nothing illegal-- i.e., sex for money-- happened between him and any of the gals working for the escort service." Problem is, of course, Vitter has already admitted he was a client. What's he going to tell the jury, that he just liked dressing up in a diaper and chatting over tea?

Well, it's all academic now. The judge just gave him a great big Thanksgiving present, not quite as big a deal as Bush pardoning May and Spring, but for Vitter, still
a relief. "Judge Gladys Kessler canceled the hearing Wednesday, saying it served no purpose in the criminal case. It was Kessler who originally set the hearing but, after seeing Palfrey's witness list, the judge said she was convinced Palfrey was just trying to game the judicial system."

Meanwhile Hustler is promoting the new issue with a free video that is being eagerly watched all over the Bayou State. On it one of the dozens of prostitutes Vitter has hired over the years talks about their long affair-- which was broken off after she told Vitter her real name, "Wendy," just like his wife. Wendy also explains that Vitter didn't want her taking a shower or wearing any perfume and that he was unimaginative in bed and extremely not hung. If you don't know what I mean by that, listen to this lovely song by Julia Lee and keep in mind that Senator Vitter wouldn't make it into the clip. Oh, and here's Vitter's gal, not the Wendy who threatened to do a Lorena Bobbitt on him, the one who just emasculated him in another way.

Labels: ,

RAHM EMANUEL MIGHT NOT WANT DEMOCRATS TO KNOW, BUT THERE IS AN IMPORTANT ELECTION IN OHIO ON DECEMBER 11


Yesterday I got a pssstttt from a Beltway Insider who's also a pal of mine. "Don't connect this to me but there's a candidate running in OH-05 that you'd love," he confided. "Yeah, Robin Weirauch; I've already been covering the race. But why are you bringing this up? Is Emanuel behind her? Doesn't seem to be his type of candidate; she comes across like a real solid Democrat."

"No," he assured me; "you should check with your DCCC sources but my impression is there's no way in hell Weirauch has anything to do with Emanuel. I don't want to play psychiatrist but I don't think he sees a woman who worked at a college whose main campaign issues are fair trade and ending the war as someone he looks at and says, 'that's my candidate.' Now  if Weirauch were a centrist who was a sheriff or something, I think he'd be pushing to get involved with the district."

But Robin Weirauch a grassroots, down-to-earth populist Democrat and Emanuel is sitting on his hands. Local Ohio bloggers aren't. AsOhioGoes, OhioDailyBlog and BuckeyeStateBlog are all pumped up. Inside the Beltway hacks like Charlie Cook and Rahm Emanuel may be saying the race is hopeless for Democrats because Bush took the district against Kerry with 61% and because Paul Gillmor, recently passed away, won with 67% in 2002 and 2004 (though down to only 57%-- against Robin-- last year). But her progress against the entrenched incumbent isn't the only thing they're overlooking back at the DCCC. Governor Ted Strickland and Senator Sherrod Brown both won the district last year, which certainly flies right in the face of conventional Beltway wisdom. And Bush's job approval rating in Ohio has been sinking lower and lower. Last count: 31%. On top of that, the Republican Party just went through a bruising primary between a mainstream conservative and an extremist proto-fascist. The conservative, Bob Latta, won but he's still trying to unite the his own party behind him-- trying but not succeeding-- instead of reaching out to independents and Democrats.

The special election is December 11. Emanuel has already decided to let the race go to the Republicans. It's up to grassroots Democrats with values and ideals his kind don't share with us to support our candidates. You can learn more about her campaign at her website, where you can also volunteer or donate.

Labels: , , , ,

FCC CHAIRMAN KEVIN MARTIN: SNOTTY LITTLE REPUBLICAN SOCIOPATH


-by Noah

While media outlets distract the populace with the doings of barely sentient human-like cretins such as Britney, Paris, and Pat Robertson, endless 24 hour coverage of the latest kidnapped white girl (apparently kidnapped "others" don't rate unless they're the grandchildren of a right-wing congressloon taken by their mom), OJ's life story, constant attempts to get you to focus all of your frustrations on immigrants so you'll scapegoat them instead of the real corporate culprits, put criminal former Congressional leaders on camera 10 hours a day, enrich them and proclaim them experts on everything from tax code to God's will (like they'd know), something much more insidious is going on.

Our corporate media is becoming one very dangerous, mind-numbing, opinion controlling voice, hypnotically drilling its corporatist slogans into the public mind with that ONE voice. No diversity of
opinion. Forget Pravda. Forget Hitler's Big Lie. The world Orwell warned us about so many decades ago is here. Instead of telling you that the Food and Drug Administration has been gutted to the point of e.coli death by spinach dysfunction by the current criminal Lex Luther wannabe in the People's White House, they'll pump up the fear level about mystery plagues that are on our doorstep, due any day now, brought to you, no doubt, by the dreaded immigrants, or, worse, the Muslim family that's been living next door to you for the last 20 years. Instead of telling you who is profiting from the war, they'll tell you it's a war against terror and not a war for oil profits. They also won't tell you that while Saudi oil is now $100 a barrel, Venezuelan oil is half that. Why won't they tell you? Well, maybe it's because the biggest crime family in our country has "a close personal relationship" with their buddies, the Saudi royals while their relationship with Hugo Chavez is... not so good. They won't get their cut of the booty with the swarthy Latino guy. The media even tell you Chavez is nuts. Yeah, like Saudis who flog rape VICTIMS with 200 lashes and hold public beheadings every Tuesday afternoon are sane! Can anyone convince me that Bush is sane? Don't waste your valuable OJ News time trying. Saddam's biggest crime was that our leaders weren't getting a piece of the action. Chavez better watch out. How often do you hear that on your TV or read it in your paper or weekly corporate news rag? Nope, it's all Britney all the time. Everyone likes to run down the street to see the car crash.

How'd it come to this? It started with old senile Ronald Reagan's unholy lust for deregulation and his repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, a doctrine which mandated equal time provisions. It continued up through the present, enabled by some of the worst Presidents (including the absolute worst) this country has ever had. I now include cigar aficionado Bill Clinton. After all, it was he who between chasing plumpers around his desk in the Oval Office, found time to sign the Telecommunications Act Of 1996, a bill that was sold as a chance for the little guy to own a TV station. Yeah right. Now, due to the resulting merger and acquisition mania, you or any minority investor can buy an FM radio station, as long as they can meet the ever rising price tag, which zoomed to $200 million because of Clinton's pen. What the act was really designed to do is what it did. That one thing undid a lot of whatever good Clinton did for the country. It headed us down to Orwell land and totalitarian government. It removed restrictions on just how many media outlets a corporation could own. The result was a bunch of goons in San Antonio creating Clear Channel and buying up every station they could get their slimy money on. Now, instead of thousands of individual shows, you get the same damn one where ever you go, in the country or on the dial. All programming will soon come from one place. You already don't hear of the many Bush scandals and crimes in the mainstream media. Don't get me wrong. Clear Channel is not the only one of its nefarious kind. There's Infinity and a few others, all structured along the same lines. Just six media conglomerates control virtually everything you see and hear in the media. That goes for Radio, TV, Papers, Magazines, Books, and Films. Where there once was a multitude of diverse programming and opinion voices, now there is just a handful. Soon the mergers will increase and eventually there will be just one, kinda like State Radio; you know, like they had in the good old days of the Soviet Union. Just who won the Cold War anyway? What's happening to our media is the stuff that totalitarian governments are built on.

Dictators have dreams too. Their's consist of, among waterboarding and other delights, a media which just parrots government and corporate press release hand outs, kinda like the New York Times reporting on WMDs in Iraq. It isn't just Congress that protects Bush from Impeachment, Conviction, and Imprisonment for high crimes and the treason of outing CIA agents.

Now, the FCC wants to go even further. Despite a massive public outcry, FCC Chairman, Kevin Martin wants even more media consolidation. He's doing Bush's bidding. He wants to lift a ban on one company owning both a TV outlet and a newspaper in one market. Keep in mind that the FCC's charge is to ensure diversity, localism, access, and fairness. These concepts are an anathema to Republicans  and dictators. Showing typical Repug disdain for "ordinary citizens," Martin argues, unconvincingly, because like always with Repugs, the reality-based facts just don't back him up, that newspapers will wither and die unless they can have a TV station too. I would argue that our nation's newspapers would sell more copies if they actually had something people wanted to read other than government press handouts which go unedited and unquestioned by "reporters" and "editors" who would fail a junior high school journalism class. TV stations already have canned, prepackaged programming from government agencies that they run as news. Fake is fake, no matter what the media calls it. On top of all of this, the average profit margin of a typical newspaper in this country is a healthy 17-18%. That's higher than the average Fortune 500 company. So, who's suffering? In addition, two-thirds of our papers are already owned by conglomerates.

Martin also deviously claims that lifting the ban would only cover the Top 20 markets. Not so. He conveniently fails to mention a loophole that would open up all markets to the same corporate monopoly. I guess he forgot, but then, snakes like this heinous Bush tool (His previous job was General Counsel for Bush/Cheney during the Florida recount.) are not exactly in favor of Freedom of Information and a free exchange of ideas. Thomas Jefferson once said that if he was given the choice between a government without a free press or a free press without a government, he would opt for the latter. Kevin Martin is no Thomas Jefferson. If people like Martin have their way, coming generations of Americans will never even hear about Jefferson OR that little document he wrote called The Constitution. Like another Bush crony, Alberto Gonzales said about the Geneva Conventions being "quaint," I guess Martin feels same about The Constitution. We already know his boss does.

Finally, some reserved types would say we shouldn't get personal when writing about enemies of the country. I'm not one of those. Better men than cloying, sycophantic Kevin Martin have sold out their integrity for lowlifes like Bush and the chance of a very profitable post administration career in the corporate sector. Let's see what media corporation Martin ends up with in a high paying gig. Colin Powell, who's son Michael preceded Martin, was at least once thought to be a man of integrity before he threw it all out the window and lied, not just to his country, but the entire world about WMDs. Kevin Martin doesn't even rise to the stature of Chemical Ali, and, if you look at him in the video (below), Kevin needs a tailor REAL BAD. What's with those pants Kevin? Yeesh!

Labels: , ,

THANKSGIVING PRAYER FOR OUR READERS AND ALL AMERICA


Our pals over the Center for American Progress have been running a TV ad campaign in 3 Midwestern cities (Milwaukee, Indianapolis and Columbus). Instead of confusing people about what Democrats are and what we believe in, the way power-mongers and reactionaries like Rahm Emanuel on the one hand, and Heath Shuler on the other, do, this series of ads proudly bolsters the "progressive" brand by highlighting our core values and philosophical differences with conservatives.

All indications are now pointing to a massive rejection of Republicans and their philosophy of governance-- if self-serving rapaciousness, selfish greed and bigoted demagoguery can be termed a philosophy. Weak, timid and insecure Democratic leaders, rather than take the opportunity to hammer home what is inherently wrong with the Republicans and their essential right-wing "inner core," just want to keep a low profile and wait for power to drop into their laps.

Since the day DWT started publishing, we've been warning our readers that Rahm Emanuel really is our Tom Delay, every bit as bad in the deepest ways: a politician in love with power for its own sake and willing to do whatever he thinks it takes to get it. In Emanuel's case that has meant beating up on progressives and trying to shut down the Democratic grassroots. Later today we're going to take a look at the race for Congress in Ohio's 5th CD and examine Emanuel's role there. The ads I want to offer this morning are the polar opposite of what Emanuel and our Democratic Party "leaders" have been offering. Watch them and envision them saving our country from the grasp on the Tom Delays and Rahm Emanuels.







Labels:

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

LOW KEY BATTLE FOR THE SOUL OF PENNSYLVANIA


I used to live in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, just north of PA-15. But I didn't live there long enough to be able to give you any in depth or worthwhile first hand accounts of the area. Noah, on the other hand, has spent a great deal of time in the district and has very strong and vivid opinions that he suggests as an addendum to the story that ran yesterday. I'd like to add that this is Noah's opinion; I have none. I was struck by how this vision of the area is the polar opposite of the way Democratic candidate Sam Bennett views it. Her whole life in Allentown has been devoted to helping like-minded residents upgrade and beautify the city. Her nonprofit company, Properties of Merit is based on the premise that "well tended neighborhoods are safer neighborhoods" and she has been working to help upgrade Allentown's beautiful and charming neighborhoods with the goal of helping shore up people's dignity, self-respect, pride and hopes for the future.

ONE MAN'S IMPRESSIONS

by Noah

I have spent a lot of time in the Allentown/Bethlehem area. Among other things, it's a land of bargain stores and really obese people who have lost all self-esteem. I've been to an IHOP in Allentown and watched 400 pounders (NO exaggeration) who haven't washed their hair in weeks
waddle in and order a big stack of pancakes. It's so depressing.

The IHOP is in the same mall as two different dollar stores, not that  I don't use them. I get things like batteries and envelopes there. I've been in Bethlehem on Saturday mornings and seen that the local Goodwill is, sadly, the busiest store in town, with people either buying or selling the furniture they haven't chopped up for firewood to heat their homes. All of those good union steelworker and rail jobs that built the middle class and provided money for education of youth and a healthy future for the area are long gone and it doesn't look like new job opportunities have arisen. I hope that is changing but it doesn't look like it. Yet, Bethlehem is the home of Lehigh University, an excellent college, especially for engineering students. The school probably keeps the town going. For those who can afford them, there are a few decent restaurants in the area, just a few. There's also quite an impressive Lehigh Medical/Hospital complex in the area which must be kept very busy, at least by those who can afford the costs of health care. As for those who can't, I suppose the Repugs would say they can just eat cake. Sharpen up the guillotine, I say!

Emmaus is strange. It appears to be a town that at least tries. There are some nice, modest looking homes and mom and pop type stores of various kinds, well kept up, but, get off the main drag and you'll see poverty. The most interesting thing is the local road between Allentown and Emmaus. It's
lined with new car dealerships, including BMW and Lexus and the like. I don't know who's buying the cars, but I don't think it's many people in the towns I have mentioned. I've eaten at the Emmaus Diner a few times. Saw a 350 pound guy at the next table buttering a bagel before he put on CREAM CHEESE AND JAM. [And your point?] At the same time, I saw a guy in the parking lot who was so fat, he literally could barely walk. I felt so bad. The check out counter sells home-baked goods, in case you didn't get enough! Oh well, it's obvious that the home baked goods make a little money for the people who make them. It augments whatever income they have.

If you go to Easton, you will see that about every fourth or fifth building is empty and has an old "For Rent" sign in the window. There is one reason to go to Easton though. It's the PEZ Museum!

What I have seen of the district is that it has been sucked dry, as has Reading, a little further west, but that was a mafia town. In spite of what I have just described, western PA is much worse. I have made the cross state drive many times. Virtually whole villages just abandoned. Crumbling buildings with only the local church being kept up. The local church is often a PALACE. Johnstown, for example, is a land of rusted out, empty factories and women with broken front teeth. There's a lot of
sadness, frustration, unhappiness, violence, drinking and crack in these places, yet, there are good people there. They try. Still, the best economic week they have each year is, no doubt, in June when a national biker "convention" comes to town. Johnstown and the surrounding area, by the way, is in Rep. Murtha's district. There are two big reasons for the poverty in the Johnstown area, factory closings/jobs shipped overseas and floods.

Between Johnstown and Pittsburgh (which has made somewhat of a comeback; nice place), you will find towns like McKeesport. That place looks like it was nuked, a town of vacant, bulldozed  lots, truly the extreme, sad rust belt. The busiest place of business in so many of these PA towns is the local bar, which may even be physically falling apart. You see lots of cars in the parking lots, before noon! Lots of human misery and despair. Young people get out as soon as they can, leaving just their elders who are now dying off. Yet, so many victims in these towns vote for candidates and a party that does nothing but harm to their interests and the interests of their children. People like Repug Rep. Dent do things like set up immigrants, legal or otherwise, as targets for their frustrations. They voted for Reagan and his deregulation. Then they voted for Daddy Bush and more of the same.
Then they split their votes for either Dole and more deregulation or Clinton and his NAFTA. Then they voted for Dubya and his tax cuts for the wealthy and his culture of death. Like I said, no self-esteem.
It's been beaten out of them. It's the worst of times without the best of times.

Labels: , , ,

HOW SMALL A MINORITY ARE STRAIGHTS IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY-- AND WHY HASN'T BISHOP ROMNEY FIGURED THAT OUT YET?

Five brothers think campaigning for Mitt is more important than fighting terrorists in Iraq

Maybe Romney is losing all his support and will probably fail to come in even in the top 3 among the pygmies™, despite having spent more more than all of them, because he has no clue what right-wingers really want to hear about. His carefully researched utterances are kind of a cross between cardboard and plastic and resonate with... well, Mormons and no one else (sorry). But Bishop Romney should take off the holy underwear and go out among the real wingnuts and see what they're actually talking about. Not safe for someone of his wealth and stature? Well he can do it online then. Lots of Republican extremists go online. They don't use normal websites that regular Americans use, but they lurk around their own sites. No, I'm not suggesting the Bishop go to porn sites or neo-nazi sites-- we'll leave them for  people like David Diapers Vitter and Ron Paul-- but Flip Flop Mitt need go no further than Conservapedia, the Republican answer to the universally used and non-partisan, reality-based Wikipedia.

Before we explain why Bishop Romney needs to check out Conservapedia, we should look at a little story from 2 days ago in the Salt Lake Tribune in which he says "he's done talking about sex-sting tainted Sen. Larry Craig, his onetime Idaho campaign co-chair." Romney was up there harvesting money from fellow Mormons when a reporter asked him about Craig's refusal to resign from the Senate.
"I don't have further comments on Sen. Craig's tenure or experience," the Spokesman-Review reports Romney as saying. "That's something I've spoken about before. I don't really have anything to add to what I've said before. I can tell you that I am focused on the future."

Romney is focused on one thing: trying to get into the White House without being forced to write a big check everytime he crosses the threshhold. And he thinks Republicans are sick and tired of hearing about "Wide Stance" Larry and about David Dreier and Lindsey Graham, Miss McConnell, Bob Allen, Mark Foley and all the other Republican perverts, child molesters and toilet trawlers. But that's where he's making a GIGANTIC mistake, perhaps a fatal one, politically speaking.

Do you think I'm exaggerating when I tell you that the Republican base doesn't want to hear about anything as much as about lurid tales of homosexuality? I'm not. And when the Bishop finally figures it out, he'll be sending Josh, Craig, Seamus, Tagg, Merrill and Lynch out to campaign in their jock straps.

I got this story from BoingBoing.
Wikipedia is "The Free Encyclopedia." What's on the mind of Wikipedia its readers? Here are the top ten most viewed pages on Wikipedia:

     1.     Main Page [30,090,900]
     2.     Wiki [904,800]
     3.     Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows [413,400]
     4.     Naruto [401,400]
     5.     Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock [396,000]
     6.     United States [330,000]
     7.     Wikipedia [329,400]
     8.     Deaths in 2007 [321,300]
     9.     Heroes (TV series) [307,500]
     10.     Transformers (film) [303,600]

Conservapedia is "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia." What's on the mind of its readers? Here are the top ten most viewed pages on Conservapedia:

     1.     Main Page? [1,906,729]
     2.     Homosexuality? [1,572,713]
     3.     Homosexuality and Hepatitis? [517,086]
     4.     Homosexuality and Promiscuity? [420,687]
     5.     Gay Bowel Syndrome? [389,052]
     6.     Homosexuality and Parasites? [388,123]
     7.     Homosexuality and Domestic Violence? [365,888]
     8.     Homosexuality and Gonorrhea? [331,553]
     9.     Homosexuality and Mental Health? [291,179]
     10.   Homosexuality and Syphilis? [265,322

So there you have it. Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Mitch McConnell, Patrick McHenry-- they really are the quintessential reprentatives of the down deep Republican Party.

Labels: , , , ,

ROMNEY CRASHIN' AND BURNIN'-- ALL THAT MONEY WASTED! WILL SOMEONE EVEN MAKE HIM AN AMBASSADOR TO SOMEWHERE?


Republicans don't seem too concerned that Mitt Romney is the most dishonest flip-flopper to ever come their way, nor do they care he was a draft-dodger who, like their current catastrophe with the 24% approval rating, lied about it. Actually, I shouldn't imply none of them care. Those who have seen the most of Romney, Iowa Republicans (who have been barraged by millions and millions of dollars worth of his dishonest TV and radio ads-- more than all the other candidates combined-- and who have had to put up with months of the whole Romney brood of ne're-do-well sons-- have started turning away from him in disgust and towards... Huckabee (who is also creeping up-- as Giuliani slides-- in South Carolina).

Huckabee who's spent about a penny for every dollar Romney has spent in Iowa is now tied with him among likely Republican caucus participants. "Huckabee's surge is equal parts size and intensity, having gained considerable ground among key parts of the GOP base in the Hawkeye state-- evangelicals, conservatives, weekly chuch goers and abortion opponents-- with 50% of his supporters "very enthusiastic" about him, compared by 28% of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's supporters."

Dissatisfaction with the rest of what Newt Gingrich so aptly dubbed the pathetic pygmies™ is driving most of the last-minute support towards Huckabee, who himself is a man of meager qualifications.  So while Romney orchestrates fake scandals involving his own staffers making calls to smear him for being part of the Mormon cult and offers anti-consumer/pro-insurance company health care plans that would prevent patients from suing for malpractice, Iowa Republicans are turning away from him in droves.

Chances are good that if Romney loses Iowa and then gets beaten in the just-moved up Michigan GOP primary he'll fold up the tent, strap the dog to the top on the car and drive out of the public spotlight, hopefully forever.

Labels: , , , , ,

IS THE GOP READY TO NOMINATE A POLITICIAN MIRED IN DEEP RELATIONSHIPS WITH ORGANIZED CRIME?


Giuliani's problems go well beyond his immediate associates-- criminals and ne'er-do-wells like best buddy/Mafia bagman Bernie Kerik, South Carolina cocaine dealer Tom Ravenel, or an assortment of monstrosities in his inner circle from child molesting priest Alan Placa to countless unscrupulous money men and paid off shills working to rig the election for Giuliani, like Paul Singer, the guy who has been bankrolling the attempt to steal California's electoral votes and the one fireman willing-- for cash-- to dispute Rudy's shameful real 9/11 record.

Today's Chicago Tribune has been digging where Republicans feared someone was bound to go eventually: Giuliani's multimillion dollar, very shady business connections. And "each revelation raises new questions for the first major presidential candidate in memory to build a multimillion-dollar business on the foundation of his time in elected office, and not the other way around."

Giuliani has managed to hide most of his mobster connections-- but not all. He hides behind "confidentiality agreements" and, basically, says that the crooks he's dealing with are entitled to their privacy. "Questioned during a campaign appearance Tuesday in Chicago, Giuliani said that, 'all of Giuliani Partners' clients, maybe with one or two exceptions, I'm not even sure that's right, are public. ... At least the ones that I was familiar with.'"

The Tribine uncovered a direct and personal Giuliani connection to a big time Macao/Hong Kong gambling mobster/billionaire who is in cahoots with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il. Giuliani was to have been paid an immense amount of money to provide security for the gambling resort in Singapore Kim Jong Il and his criminal partners wanted to put up to help launder drug money and other criminal enterprises they are engaged in. Giuliani went to Singapore for the presentation right after he announced his intention to run for president (of the United States) and hobnobbed with some of Asia's most notorious gangsters.

Giuliani lamely claims he was dealing with the gangster's son, Lawrence Ho, not the elderly mobster himself, Stanley Ho. If Giuliani weren't running for president, this would just be funny. It would have been like saying you were dealing with Michael Corleone not Vito Corleone. The government of Singapore looked at the collection of gangsters and shady characters who were part of the Giuliani team, decided they were a dangerous bunch of mobsters and triad hoodlums, and gave the contract to another company. Republicans look at the same sordid mix-- and want to give Giuliani the White House!

Labels: , , ,

INSIDER PLOT TO ALLOW CROOKED REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMEN TO WALK AWAY SCOTT FREE


What do Jerry Lewis (R-CA), Tom Delay (R-TX), Ken Calvert (R-CA), Tom Feeney (R-FL), John Doolittle (R-CA), Denny Hastert (R-IL), Heather Wilson (R-NM), Gary Miller (R-CA), Patrick McHenry (R-NC), Virgil Goode (R-VA), Don Young (R-AK), Ted Stevens (R-AK) and a dozen other crooked Republican lawmakers have in common today? They're all celebrating an appellate court decision that the Justice Department says will sharply limit investigations into their criminal activities.

Bush's incompetent and overly partisan appointments to the courts have ruined the entire justice system of the United States and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is now an outgrowth of the neo-nazi outfit known as the Federalist Society. They are making it impossible to prosecute the overt criminal activities of bribe-taking congressmen by  abusing statutes "intended to protect legislators from intimidation under civil or criminal law."

The Federalist Society court has ruled the Justice Department can't use evidence against the crooked Republicans that was obtained through court-approved wiretaps, searches of home offices and voluntary interviews of congressional staffers. Of the 10 current members of the court, seven are rabid right wing fanatics appointed by Reagan, Bush, Sr and, mostly Bush, Jr, who allowed the Federalist Society to dictate each nominee, none of whom faced any serious opposition from a collaborationist Senate.

The entire Republican Culture of Corruption case and the hundreds of millions of dollars involved in the Abramoff/Delay scams will be dismissed if the decision stands. And who will overrule it? Scalia? Thomas? Roberts? Alito? Not likely. The decision makes it nearly impossible to investigate crooked congressmen.

Ironically, the decision was handed down in the case of the one corrupt Democrat caught stealing in recent years, Louisiana crook William Jefferson. But would it also mean that Republican convicts like Bob Ney and Duke Cunningham will have to be let out of prison? And where does this leave the case against ex-Republican congressman/child molester Mark Foley?

Labels: , , , , ,

IT'S A FAR CRY FROM THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL REID SHOULD BE CONVENING, BUT AT LEAST SHOWS THE DEMOCRATS HAVE A BIT OF A PULSE

Apparently neither Pelosi nor Hoyer heard about Scott McClellan's admission yesterday that Bush and Cheney, as well as several of the top cronies in the criminal enterprise known as the Bush Regime, were guilty of outing Valerie Plame, a clear crime. How do I know they didn't hear? They haven't put impeachment back on the table, where the Founding Fathers left it for just such an occurrence. Fortunately Chris Dodd was paying attention and has already asked for a thorough investigation.
"Today's revelations by Mr. McClellan are very disturbing and raise several important questions that need to be answered. If in fact the President of the United of States knowingly instructed his chief spokesman to mislead the American people, there can be no more fundamental betrayal of the public trust.
"During his confirmation process, Attorney General Mukasey said he would act independently. Accordingly, today, I call on the Attorney General to live up to his word and launch an immediate investigation to determine the facts of this case, the extent of any cover up and determine what the President knew and when he knew it."

And Huckabee agrees that this egregious example of Bush criminality needs to investigated. Maybe if all the Republicans running for president tell Pelosi it's ok...

That few Americans-- outside of arch-enablers Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer-- trust Bush any longer is reflected in his rapidly sinking poll numbers, currently in the mid-20s, the lowest of any American president ever.  And today's NY Times reports on another first, the Senate refusing to recess over the holidays, worried-- and rightfully so-- that Bush will go back on his worthless promise not to make recess appointments. And the Democrats know just which sack of crap he plans to burden the American people with this time.
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, chose to schedule the so-called pro forma sessions because Mr. Bush took advantage of past recesses to install nominees including John R. Bolton, as ambassador to the United Nations, and, most recently, Sam Fox, a donor to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, as ambassador to Belgium. This time, Democrats were particularly suspicious of plans to appoint as surgeon general a nominee they oppose.

“This is the first time that pro formas have been used to block recess appointments,” said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Mr. Reid.

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

OH PLEASE DON'T TELL ME ANOTHER DOMINIONIST KOOK IS A RAPIST, CHILD MOLESTER AND GENERAL PERVERT!

The Good Lawd wants you to bite on this... but gently my dear

Back in 1927 when Dominionist archbishop Earl Pearly Paulk, Jr. was born, it was still not that uncommon for his kind of people to screw barnyard animals. But even among these folks, they knew you weren't supposed to have carnal knowledge of the relatives. Paulk, whose daddy was also an Elmer Gantry variant, has always been a huckster, often claiming, falsely to have marched with Martin Luther King and to have been a signer of the 1957 Atlanta Manifesto criticizing southern racism. (He may have signed it in invisible ink-- or in a dream.) He built a megachurch in suburban Atlanta and was one of Bush Sr's "thousand points of light."

He is also a well-known sex pervert and a serial rapist. Like many religionist perverts he tells his deluded victims he has a "special gift of love outside holy matrimony." One of his many victim's husbands, Bobby Brewer, punched Paulk in the face after he seduced his wife with a bunch of mumbo-jumbo about how "God" wanted her to have sex with him. Brewer also sued the old pervert, who has also had sex with 7 year old children. (He settled one suit by a girl who claims he raped her over and over again from the time she was 7 until she was 11. He paid her $400,000 for an out-of-court settlement in 2003.)

And more recently, his "nephew," Donnie Earl Paulk, let the congregation know that he isn't really the nephew, but the biological son of the pervert archbishop, a claim that has been confirmed by court-ordered DNA testing last month. Paulk has since stepped down and the nephew/son has taken over. The megachurch is less mega than it was when the congregation included 12,000 deluded fools. Only one tenth of the imbeciles-- if that many-- remain.

AP covers the repulsive story today stating flatly in the first paragraph that Paulk "slept with his brother's wife and fathered a child by her... In truth, this is not the first-- or even the second-- sex scandal to engulf Paulk and the independent, charismatic church. But this time, he could be in trouble with the law for lying under oath about the affair."
The archbishop, his brother and the church are being sued by former church employee Mona Brewer, who says Earl Paulk manipulated her into an affair from 1989 to 2003 by telling her it was her only path to salvation. Earl Paulk admitted to the affair in front of the church last January.

In a 2006 deposition stemming from the lawsuit, the archbishop said under oath that the only woman he had ever had sex with outside of his marriage was Brewer. But the paternity test said otherwise.

...Jan Royston, who left the church in 1992, started an online support group for former members to discuss their crushed faith and hurt feelings.

"This is a cult. And you escape from a cult," she said. "We all escaped."

These days, Earl Paulk has a much-reduced role at the cathedral, giving 10-minute lectures as part of Sunday morning worship each week.

"My uncle is 100 percent guilty, but his accusers are guilty as well," D.E. Paulk said, declining to talk further about the lawsuits.

Labels: ,

TOM DELAY OFF THE RESERVATION: BOEHNER HAS NO BACKBONE, "HILLARY WILL BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT"


Tom Delay, for some reason, is still not in prison. He granted an interview at a book party for fellow-kook and fanatic John Bolton in the fashionable, well-decorated Georgetown home of GOP closet queen Ken Mehlman yesterday. I don't know if Delay was snorting anything behind closed doors but he sounds too drunk to... drive in the interview with Yeas & Nays.
DeLay told Yeas & Nays that Republicans in Congress are "looking for something to believe in" and "they're not getting it out of this Republican leadership. … The leadership just isn't getting it."

"They're looking for some backbone," said DeLay, who also chimed in on the 2008 election. He said the Republican party is "going to get our clocks cleaned in 2008" and unequivocally said that "Hillary [Clinton] will be the next president." Which ought to give DeLay’s newest projects, the Coalition for a Conservative Majority and a consulting firm called First Principles, LLC, plenty to do.

Other members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy at Mehlamn's tastefully appointed pad were the Cheney Girls (Lynne and Liz), Scooter Libby (like Delay, not in prison), Grover Norquist (not embarrassed to show his face in public-- at least not among this crew), Kate O'Beirne (free food), Byron York, John Fund, Ramesh Ponnuru, Mary Matalin, Armstrong Williams, Barbara Comstock, David Keene... don't you wish you were on that circuit party list?

Labels:

McCLELLAN FINGERS BUSH, CHENEY, ROVE, LIBBY... IMPEACHMENT STILL OFF THE TABLE, MS. PELOSI?


Lucas got it exactly right over at the Battle School. Scott McClellan's bean spilling today goes right to the heart of Bush Regime competence... uh, incompetence. McClellan's new book is making waves today-- and probably something worse than waves over among the den of vipers still holding the White House.

He is quite clear that Libby and Rove lied about outing Valerie Plame and he puts the blame exactly where it belongs-- even beyond where cowardly Democrats like Nancy Pelosi put it: Bush and Cheney.
In an excerpt from his forthcoming book, McClellan recounts the 2003 news conference in which he told reporters that aides Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby were "not involved" in the leak involving operative Valerie Plame.

"There was one problem. It was not true," McClellan writes, according to a brief excerpt released Tuesday. "I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest-ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice president, the president's chief of staff [Andrew Card] and the president himself."

At what point do wonderers start wondering if Ms Pelosi's insistence that impeachment is off the table mean that she is an accomplice to their criminal behavior. I'm there.

McClellan isn't doing interviews today and the hack who replaced the hack who replaced him, Dana Perino, has "no comment." Scotty's book, What Happened comes out in April.

Apparently now is the time, "now" being after a lucrative book contract:




UPDATE: VALERIE REACTS

"I am outraged to learn that former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan confirms that he was sent out to lie to the press corps and the American public about two senior White House officials, Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby who deliberately and recklessly revealed my identity as a covert CIA operations officer.

Even more shocking, McClellan confirms that not only Karl Rove and Scooter Libby told him to lie but Vice President Cheney, Presidential Chief of Staff Andrew Card, and President Bush also ordered McClellan to issue his misleading statement. Unfortunately, President Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's felony sentence has short-circuited justice.

Vice President Cheney in particular knew that Scooter LIbby was involved because he had ordered and directed his actions. McClellan's revelations provide important support for our civil suit against those who violated our national security and maliciously destroyed my career."

Labels: , , , , ,

WHY DO THE REPUBLICANS HATE CANCER SURVIVORS?


Well, not all Republicans hare cancer survivors. In fact, some Republicans are cancer survivors-- like 3 of the pathetic pygmies™, Giuliani, McCain and Frederick of Hollywood. Odd thing, though, those 3 cancer survivors are the very ones I'm talking about. Their health care proposals have lots of love for big medical corporations-- but not so much for consumers and none at all for cancer survivors. Today's L.A. Times explains how the anti-government party wants to deal with health care.

Oh, one caveat, the 3 cancer survivors above are all multimillionaires who have no worries about medical care. "Under the plans all three have put forward, cancer survivors such as themselves could not be sure of getting coverage-- especially if they were not already covered by a government or job-related plan and had to seek insurance as individuals." In fact an analysis of the 3 pygmies™ proposals by an economist from the Employee Benefit Research Institute says "People with preexisting conditions would not be able to get coverage or would not be able to afford it." Sounds like the GOP. The pygmies'™ plans seek to help their campaign contributors, not regular Americans. They want to "expand the existing private insurance system, offering new tax breaks as a way of helping people buy insurance individually. But they also want to avoid federal regulation that would tell insurers whom they have to cover and how much they may charge."
That means the self-employed and others seeking individual coverage would be subject to a marketplace in which insurers generally pick the healthiest applicants and turn the rest away. Cancer survivors-- even if they have been free of disease for several years-- are routinely denied health insurance when they try to purchase it as individuals.

Even if coverage is offered, it often comes with restrictions or high premiums that many find unaffordable.

In the individual market, coverage rules "are really quite fussy," said Karen Pollitz, a Georgetown University research professor who specializes in the field. "Most companies won't touch you if you have a cancer history within five years, and with some companies... if you've ever had cancer, you can't get coverage."

Labels: , , , , ,

CONGRATULATIONS JOHN HALL!

Howie, Rep. Hall, John Amato, Lucas Gardner

Congressman Hall has been a real leader on the issues that made him want to get into politics and government. Even in a Republican leaning district he hasn't catered to the knuckledragging mouth-breathers Rahm Emanuel thinks need to be coddled by Democrats. Hall won his race last year despite Emanuel's hysterical warnings that he was too anti-war for the district-- and despite the fact that Emanuel backed a conservative insider against him. But John stuck to his guns and went out of his way to stay in close touch with his constituents and to bring them along on his key ideas about the war. He's been an excellent representative for the 19th CD in New York.

But he had a problem-- a big one. A billionaire Republican hack, Andrew Saul, promised to spend whatever it takes, as much as $5 million of his own money in fact, to beat Hall. Notice I said "had." After being slammed by the NY Times a couple days ago for serious ethical-- if not criminal-- problems, Saul and his wife decided they could do without that kind of publicity-- what will the people at the countryclub think?-- and he pulled out of the race and told the RNCC to go find someone else.

Saul was vice chair of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and was taking "political donations from two developers [one of whom has a company Saul is a part owner of!] bidding for the right to build a mammoth residential and commercial complex over the authority’s West Side railyards." Not good, although Saul at first tried toughing it out by claiming he was above these kinds of considerations, presumably because he's too rich to be bribed. That didn't fly and today he announced he was giving up his bid to unseat Congressman Hall.


UPDATE: AND THE REPUBLICANS HAVE... NOTHIN'

Republicans started scurrying for a candidate as soon as Saul dropped out. But the list is less than impressive in a district where Hillary Clinton (who lives there) is likely to have massive coattails and against a very impressive and popular incumbent who is voting in Congress the way most of his constituents want him to-- and who has put together a million dollar war chest. "Several Republican names surfaced immediately as possible standard-bearers for the GOP in the district. The list of potential contenders includes state Sen. Vincent Leibell, Assemblyman Greg Ball, Orange County Executive Ed Diana and Michael Finnegan, an investment banker and longtime aide to former New York Gov. George E. Pataki, according to a Republican operative and interviews conducted by CQ Politics."

One of the hapless Repugs, Assemblyman Ball knows 2008 isn't likely to be a Republican year. “George Bush," he said, "has not only hurt the Republican Party, he’s left the nation without leadership. It’s going to be a tough year to run as a Republican at the national level.”

David at Swing State makes the point, eloquently, that New York isn't the only place where the Republicans are experiencing a "debacle" in candidate recruitment. Even before right-wing nut Jon Bruning dropped out in Nebraska this morning, Republicans have been pulling their heads out of their asses, sniffing the fresh air of reality and shoving their heads right back in again. Potential GOP disasters due to recruitment loom in Virginia, New Jersey, Ohio, Connecticut, Illinois, New Mexico, and Colorado.

Labels: ,

SOMETIMES MEDIA MATTERS A LOT MORE THAN IT SHOULD-- TAKE THE RACE IN PA-15, FOR EXAMPLE


You can't believe everything you read-- and when the writer and his publication have a markedly reactionary and distinctly Republican agenda, as is so often the case with regional newspapers and the lackeys who work for them, you're better off ignoring whatever they have to say about politics altogether and just heading straight for the high school sports scores. It's bad all around the country, but I've probably never seen it so bad as in Pennsylvania's Lehigh Valley, where the Allentown Morning Call functions as a mouthpiece for the forces of right-wing reaction. Their DC-based political "reporter," a wet-behind-the-ears, two-bit hit man named Josh Drobnyk seems to have a goal-- and it isn't reporting.

Drobnyk is out to derail Democratic chances to defeat Bush rubber stamp Charlie Dent. By any standard, the tripe he pours out about the Democratic candidate-- in the Morning Call and at the paper's poisonous website, Pennsylvania Ave.-- wouldn't pass muster at a beginners journalism class. It goes far beyond partisan bias and into the realm of character assassination and premeditated propaganda.

But at least we can turn to the internet for some reality, right? Um... not in the Lehigh Valley, apparently. Aside from Drobnyk's asinine and transparent distortions, the two bloggers covering Sam's campaign against Dent are even worse than Drobnyk. One is apparently the mentally ill chief of staff to hack local politician Lisa Boscola. Bernie Kieklak uses the name "Bernie Takes NO prisoners" when he blogs. This summer he went to Lehigh Valley Ramblings and left-- and then defended-- a vicious, filthy, sexist rant.
Sammy Bennett is a phony political whore who gives good head and makes cheap, blatant political opportunists look like Mother Fucking Teresa. Even her [we don't use that word at DWT] is made of plastic.

And the site owner, Bernie O'Hare is a volunteer for a putative Democrat challenging Sam, but who basically agrees with Dent on almost every important issue. Remember, Bernie Kieklak (Bernie Takes NO Prisoners) is on the public payroll. The other Bernie admires his political acumen and his way with words but wrote this about him recently: "...over the past few weeks, he's posted increasingly bizarre and bigoted comments about nuking Iraqis and Muslim holy sites, followed by sexist rants directed at Sam Bennett and female bloggers."

A DWT reader alerted me to this situation writing that "it looks like there is someone in Allentown who is going after Sam Bennett big time ugly." To me it looks like there are more than one-- starting with Drobnyk who seems to think journalism is regurgitating press releases and unsubstantiated claims from Republicans and while slyly-- if clumsily-- undermining Democrats. And wasn't I surprised to see that he had come across our chat with Sam at Firedoglake and tried using it to stir up animosity against her.
Bennett, who’s challenging Lehigh Valley Rep. Charlie Dent, a two-term Republican, was interviewed about a month ago by the liberal Web site Firedoglake.com, where she criticized Pennsylvania freshmen Democrats Jason Altmire and Chris Carney for being too soft on the Bush administration.

“Far be it from me to speak ill of another Democrat but I’m very, very deeply disappointed," Bennett was quoted as saying by Howie Klein when asked whether she might "turn into another Chris Carney or Jason Altmire, both freshmen Democrats who have been supporting the reactionary Bush agenda since being elected last year."

She continued, according to Klein: "There’s a motto, to paraphrase, that is very important to me-- something we raised our children with: ‘If I am silent people think I agree.’ There are hard, hard fought battles-- like a woman’s right to choose, and like the GBLT communities’ rights to have basic civil rights every other American is entitled to-- that some of the votes that we have seen by the folks on our side of the aisle not only are disappointing in the immediate but upend many, many years of work by people who have dedicated and given their lives for these basic values. And when we get to the war in Iraq…very, very troubling.”

I have that interview on tape and Sam never criticized Altmire or Carney; I did. His overly hackish coverage, when not presenting Dent's talking points as indisputable facts, consists basically of talking about fundraising. And aside from the $140,000 Dent was given by Tom Delay, Denny Hastert and other crooked congressional Republicans in the form of PAC donations, his biggest source of campaign contributions came from big corporations and lobbyists eager to lock up his vote on their issues, particularly HMOs and hospitals, the chemical industry, real estate companies, electric utilities, banks, pharmaceutical companies, contractors, etc.

And when Drobnyk has written about issues, he parrots Republican talking points.
She said she supports a 12-month deadline for pulling troops out of Iraq. Dent opposes timelines, but wants to shift the mission away from combat and toward counterterrorism and training Iraqi forces.

On immigration, Bennett said she would have supported a Senate bill that failed earlier this year that would have provided a path to citizenship for the nation's illegal immigrants. Dent opposed that plan.

Overall, she aims to cast Dent as a lawmaker in lockstep with President Bush."Charlie Dent represents the wishes and interests of the Bush administration on a consistent basis rather than the best interests of his constituency," she said.

Dent campaign manager Shawn Millan called that argument a "tired" line from Democratic opponents that isn't backed up by his votes in Congress.

"When you actually look at the issues that impact the people in the Lehigh Valley, Charlie clearly has their interests in mind and not the administration's," Millan said.

He pointed to Dent's support for embryonic stem cell research-- in contrast to Bush-- and to his opposition to the administration's immigration proposal. "She is not going to make any political hay by saying that Charlie Dent is failing to represent the people of the 15th District. There is nothing to bear that out." Key to the contest will be the support of the national parties. For now, that's confined to news releases from each parties' campaign committees attacking the other candidate, and to helping Bennett with campaign hiring decisions. A more important indicator to watch for down the road will be whether the committees put money into the race. If they do, it's a sign they truly believe the contest is up for grabs.


Perhaps a real reporter might look at Dent's voting record instead of just passing along-- as fact-- Dent's campaign manager's assertion that Dent isn't a rubber stamp. He certainly is a rubber stamp on the most important issue facing America today: Iraq. Since getting to Congress Dent participated in 21 roll call votes regarding Iraq. And how many times did Mr. Not A Rubber Stamp differ from the extremist positions of Bush and Cheney, positions that are highly unpopular in the Lehigh Valley? None... Dent's voted the Bush-Cheney line 21 times out of 21 opportunities.

On a related matter, the well-being of America's military personnel, Dent participated in 13 roll calls and he voted against our military men and women and for Bush every time except for one procedural vote. And when it comes to granting special privileges to big Republican campaign donors, like credit card companies, nuclear energy companies, and oil and gas companies they know they can count on Charlie Dent 100% of the time, no matter how badly it hurts his constituents. Why not, with Josh Drobnyk the only reporter covering him, few in the Lehigh Valley will ever find out the true story about Charlie Dent's record.

Instead they'll just think the race is about Sam not attracting big donors and about Sam being "pro-immigrant."

Labels: , , , , ,

PRAY FOR A THANKSGIVING MIRACLE


And pray hard... the safety of our country is at stake.

Labels: , , , ,

SURE, IT'S ONLY TUESDAY BUT BARBARA LEE HAS THE BEST IDEA I'VE HEARD ALL WEEK-- LET'S GET SOME PEOPLE OFF TAX-FUNDED WELFARE-- RICH ONES


Recently Barbara Lee (D-CA) introduced an interesting bill that makes an awful lot of sense but drives Republicans and Democrats-in-Republican-clothes right up the wall-- H.R. 3876. The intent is to slow down the unconscionable and widening gap between the very rich and the very poor. Since the begiining of the Bush Regime, the rich have gotten richer-- much richer-- and the poor have gotten poorer-- and the middle class has gotten smaller-- and poorer. And this isn't like a coincidence; it's the result of careful planning, Regime policy and legislation.

Congresswoman Lee's bill seeks to slow down CEO and other top management pay growth by capping the amount of executive compensation that can be deducted as a "legitimate business expense" to 25 times the salary of the lowest paid worker in the company. Companies are still entitled to pay their top executive whatever they like but beyond the 25 times mark, those salaries are no longer subsidized by taxpayers. In other words, if the lowliest illegal alien cleaning floors at WalMart gets $10,000 a year, then WalMart would only be able to deduct $250,000 of the CEO's salary as a legitimate business expense. If they add a zero to that salary, then $2,250,000 is not tax deductible. And yes, the Republicans will scream like stuck pigs.

Barbara's PAC, OneVoice includes more information and a petition on her website. Here's the text of the letter she sent out to the PAC list that so inspired me:
We have a problem with our economy. The raw numbers say the economic pie is growing, but the larger pieces are all going to a small minority of Americans-- meaning that for most Americans, wages are barely keeping pace with inflation.

We see this rising income inequality clearly in recent IRS data, which show that the share of income going to the wealthiest Americans is the highest it has been since before the Great Depression. To pick but one example of this disturbing trend, last year the average CEO made more in one day than the average worker made over the entire year.

When the economy is growing and the only people who are benefiting are the wealthiest among us, we have a problem with our priorities.

When the share of income going to the wealthiest Americans is growing, and the number of people living in poverty is rising as well, we have a problem with our priorities.

When issues like income inequality and poverty are not part of our national political debate, we have a problem with our priorities.

It is time to finally put to rest the ridiculous idea that if we just take care of the wealthy then the rest of the economy will take care of itself. The evidence is overwhelming: it is just not true.

That's why I have introduced new legislation designed to fight income inequality in America starting at the top: by reconnecting the economic fortunes of those in the executive suite with those of their
frontline employees.

My bill, the Income Equity Act of 2007, is a simple, common sense piece of legislation that would limit the amount of executive compensation corporations can deduct as a legitimate business expense to 25 times the pay of a company's lowest paid worker.

It's not the government's job to tell corporations what they can pay their executives, but American taxpayers have the right to choose whether or not to subsidize these out of control executive salaries. If a corporation chooses to provide compensation packages that are disconnected from the wages of average workers, then I believe we should have a say over how much of that compensation is tax deductible.

Click here to email Congress today, urging support for my Income Equity Act of 2007!

http://ga6.org/campaign/incomeequity/

While this particular driver of income inequality can be slowed through specific legislation, it speaks to a larger trend that will require comprehensive changes to fully address. In short, the basic
assumptions of the Bush "ownership society" have been shown to be bankrupt: the culture of individualism; the conviction that people who aren't getting ahead "just aren't trying"; the belief that
government's only responsibility is to protect business and the wealthy, and the rest will magically take care of itself-- these ideas are not just unsustainable, but fundamentally at odds with the
sense of collective responsibility that is a core part of who we are as a nation.

The consequences of this flawed view of our government's role were on full display when we witnessed the tragedy in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. People around the nation were scandalized not just by the Bush administration's cronyism and incompetence, but by their long standing refusal to address the structural inequality, the endemic poverty and the flat out racism that transformed a natural disaster into a human catastrophe of epic proportions.

On a very basic level, we understand that our fates-- rich and poor alike-- are ultimately connected. I believe that we should aspire as a nation to be judged not by how well we do by the wealthy, but
rather, in the words of gospel, by how we treat "the least of these."

That's why I hope that you will help us take a first step towards correcting this misguided state of affairs by emailing Congress in support of the Income Equity Act of 2007!

Keep in mind that despite all the corporate scandals that have been one of the many hallmarks of the Bush Regime-- and despite the much-ballyhooed but toothless "reforms" bandied about-- things have actually gotten much worse every single year single the Enron catastrophe. According to The Economist, in 2004 America's top 2000 CEOs averaged pay raises of around 30% bringing their salaries to nearly $6 million annually. And CEO bonuses at the top 100 companies rose gigantically and are well over a million dollars each. If there is any correlation between overpaid CEOs and stock values, it is a negative correlation, with stock prices actually declining as CEO pay packages rise into the stratosphere. Between 1990 and 2004 the average worker's pay remained basically flat at $27,000 while CEO pay went from $2.8 million to almost $12 million. And in the entire industrial world, the U.S. has the worst disparity between workers and their CEO bosses, far worse than Japan, Sweden, Germany, France, Italy, England, Canada... more in line with places like Saudi Arabia. The Bush Regime agenda of regressive tax policies are at the heart of this.

Labels: , ,

Monday, November 19, 2007

IS NICK LAMPSON A DEMOCRAT OR A REPUBLICAN?


Since being elected to Tom Delay's former seat, Nick Lampson has been one of the most reactionary members of the Democratic caucus. According to ProgressivePunch's "Chips Are Down" rankings, the only Democrat more likely than Lampson to desert the party on important issues is fake Dem John Barrow (GA). Yep, Lampson has been even worse than Jim Marshall (GA), Gene Taylor (MS) and Dan Boren (OK), three whose treachery and conservatism the GOP can almost always count on in a pinch. Lampson thinks pandering to ignorance and bigotry is more important in a deeply red district like his than being a leader. It's always harder, that's for sure. Will the pandering save him? Today's Houston Chronicle examines one Democrat who has moved right/(wrong).

Lampson is busy raising money to stave off what is sure to be one of the biggest GOP efforts to take back a seat they lost last year. Last year he outspent his Republican opponent by nearly 4 to 1, a rarity in American politics, where Republicans are almost always far better financed than Democrats. His voting record is one traditional Republican business donors should have little problem getting behind. He's the kind of Democrat, Republicans like-- a lot. The Post story says he's "tacked to the right to keep in sync with his heavily Republican 22nd District" and that he's "refashioned himself."
Gone is the moderate-to-liberal Beaumont Democrat from his earlier days in Congress. Nowadays, Lampson, 62, is keeping company with the Blue Dogs, a fiscally conservative bunch of Democrats working to bring budget discipline to Capitol Hill. [Ed: The last 8 words are mindless propaganda mainstream media innocuously inserts in stories like this to brainwash people who are too busy trying to make ends meet to pay close attention.]

And he's far from a solid vote for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and her lieutenants, joining a small band of other endangered Democrats to defect on sensitive issues.

Last week, Lampson broke with his party over Iraq. He was among 15 House Democrats who sided with President Bush by voting against a $50 billion Iraq spending bill that would have required the administration to start bringing some troops home almost immediately.

Lampson has ranged afield on other votes, opposing a tax package designed to keep millions of Americans from being hit by the alternative minimum tax; a bill banning workplace discrimination against gays and lesbians; several energy bills; and legislation limiting the administration's spying authority.

Lampson portrayed his Iraq vote less as a philosophical shift than opposition to a bill with contradictory elements. But he said he is not hesitant to steer a course that places him at odds with some Democrats.

"I'm not going to be afraid to go against the party," Lampson said in an interview in his Capitol Hill office. "I'm not going to be afraid to do what's best for the country."

Last year, when Lampson was first running, Blue America was repeatedly approached by his supporters for an endorsement. He didn't smell right and we demurred. We got it wrong in the case of Chris Carney, whose voting record has a very similar reactionary bent, but luckily we never got behind Lampson. Now he's trying to blur the distinctions between what a Democrat is and what a Republican is. The local GOP isn't buying it.
"Obviously Nick Lampson will do or say whatever it takes to try to get elected," said Jared Woodfill, the Harris County Republican Party chairman.

Already, local GOP officials have placed more than 400,000 automated phone calls to 22nd District residents, highlighting Lampson votes for tax increases and showcasing his $168,000 in contributions from the liberal MoveOn.org.

"Whether he is voting to strong-arm small businesses, switching his vote to provide taxpayer-funded benefits for illegal immigrants or happily taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from MoveOn.org, one thing is for sure: Nick Lampson's time in Congress is running short," said Ken Spain, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee.

I bet MoveOn wishes they had never raised any money for this one-- and I'll bet the Republicans won't be able to make the claim about them doing so this year. Instead he'll have Rahm Emanuel-- who approves of Lampson's xenophobic Tancredo-like stance against immigrants.
Perhaps more than any other House Democrat, Lampson has sided with the GOP on last-ditch parliamentary maneuvers designed to trip up Democrats by amending legislation on the House floor or sending it back to committee.

Of the 71 "motions to recommit" for which Lampson has been present-- many on hot-button issues such as immigration, taxes or gun control-- he's voted with Republicans for more than half, at times with only one or two other Democrats defecting.

That has created tremendous friction with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, which bristles at vulnerable Democrats' willingness to vote for anti-immigration resolutions.

Republicans "are continuing to bring up racist issues to try to use them as a political wedge," said Rep. Joe Baca, D-Calif., caucus chair. As for the defectors, he said, "The threat has got so many people scared and they think they have to vote one way when they don't have to."

After the Hispanic Caucus staged a revolt on the House floor to demonstrate anger at leadership for failing to halt the GOP resolutions, Baca said he and his allies are monitoring Democrats who vote for the measures. "We are going to have conversations with every one of them," he said.

Pelosi [now utterly dependent upon and under the control of Hoyer and Emanuel], who has exalted Lampson and his fellow freshmen as the "majority makers" who swept her into the speaker's job, has not forced the dissenters to toe the party line.

Lampson denied pressure from the leadership but acknowledged his votes have drawn colleagues' attention: "There's been some cross looks," he said.

Cross looks may be all Lampson can expect from his House colleagues. Grassroots Democrats may have something more effective in mind for him.

Labels: , , ,

REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMEMBERS GETTING BUYER'S REMORSE OVER THEIR SUPPORT FOR FREDERICK OF HOLLYWOOD'S ANEMIC CAMPAIGN

zzzzzzzzz...

Today's Congressional Quarterly claims House Republicans who endorsed Fred Thompson are sorry they did and some are eager for him to drop out of his silly, meaningless bid for the GOP nomination.
Several House Republicans who endorsed Fred Thompson for president now say that they are frustrated with what they view as an apathetic campaign, and at least one regrets having committed to the former Tennessee senator.

“I think he’s kind of done a belly flop,” said an estranged Thompson backer who indicated he will not pull his public support before the “Super Tuesday” primaries. “We’ll just wait till after Feb. 5 because I think he’s going to get beat.”


In his one campaign theme-- that he is the new Reagan-- he is emulating Reagan's lazy, distraction and utter indifference. What he forgets is that Reagan waited until after he was elected to let that cat out of the bag. When he first ran, he came across-- even if he was just acting-- as a fiery reformer. Thompson is putting every audience he comes in contact with to sleep. Republicans and observers alike say he is "unwilling to campaign hard enough to win the presidency."

And the congressmembers who did endorse him "aren't lifting a finger." One told CQ “I’ve kind of pulled back. I’m not not supporting him, but I’m not doing anything."

Thompson currently has been endorsed by 21 members of Congress, 6 of them from his home state, Tennessee. With McCain, Flip Flop Mitt and Giuliani gobbling up most of the endorsements, Thompson is left with this batch of far right kooks he's scraped off the bottom of the barrel:
Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Bob Corker (R-TN)
Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
David Davis (R-TN)
John Duncan (R-TN)
Zach Wamp (R-TN)

Thad Cochran (R-MS)
james Inhofe (R-OK)
Gresham Barrett (R-SC)
Dan Burton (R-IN)
Steve Buyer (R-IN)
Louie Gohmert (R-TX)
Don Manzullo (R-IL)
Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), widely thought to be one of the anonymous sources for the anti-Thopmpson hit piece, along with Adam Putnam
Jeff Miller (R-FL)
Sue Myrick (R-NC)
Adam Putnam (R-FL)
Lee Terry (R-NE)
John Sullivan (R-OK)
Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA)
Roger Wicker (R-MS)

Meanwhile, CNN is reporting that chocolate chips make the best cookies for your holiday recipes Frederick of Hollywood is now polling #6 among the pathetic pygmies™, behind even Ron Paul and Huckabee. And even if Thompson managed to scrape the bottom of the congressional barrel, look what garbage Huckabee's come up with: Chuck Norris, Ted Nugent, The Nature Boy (aka- Ric Flair) and, lowest of all, putative Democrat Rahm Emanuel.

Labels: , ,

WHICH POLITICIANS WILL BE HURT BY THE MORTGAGE CRISIS?

Mortgage crisis likely to destroy Donna's opponent, Al Wynn

Somewhat ironically, a DCCC employee sent out a powerful piece from the new issue of Time today, Will Bad Mortgages Hurt the GOP? It's very likely they already have. A slew of Republican rubber stamps in districts with worried and pissed off homeowners have been announcing their retirements every week. All of these retirees have something in common-- aside from craving lucrative jobs on K Street: they all voted for Bush's heinous and, for hundreds of thousands of homeowners, catastrophic bankruptcy bill.
Tim Walberg was one of the rare Republican success stories in 2006. After defeating Joe Schwarz, the moderate G.O.P. incumbent Congressman in his rural southwestern Michigan district, he went on to narrowly beat Democrat Sharon Renier with just 50% of the vote. Walberg, a fiscal conservative, ran on a platform of limited government, tax cuts and strong support of the war in Iraq.

Last Thursday, to the delight of Democrats, Walberg lived up to his conservative ideals-- voting against a bill in the House that tightens restrictions against predatory lending. The measure, which garnered the support of 64 Republicans