...will he ever win?

Did the Pantload just claim credit for Sarah Palin’s tactical face-plant?

Palin Resigning [Jonah Goldberg]

Well, aside from my timing being impeccable, the best I can say is I’m flabbergasted.

Not running again could make sense as a pre-presidential move. Resigning strikes me as very strange. I do hope all is well with her family and that there’s the best possible reason for this fairly shocking news.

Oh, and: It’s not my fault!

‘Timing’? ‘It’s not my fault’? What could Jonah possibly be talking about? Aha – seems he splooged a mash note Palin’s way today:

A Letter to Sarah

Dear Governor Palin,

You’re blowing it.

With all the rampant speculation about Palin’s motives going around, this the first I’ve seen it theorized that she quit because Jonah Goldberg ordered her to fellate him. Talk about ‘central’ to your ‘point’ … rowwrrr!

July 04, 2009 04:49 AM

Most Americans are unaware that much of our patriotic culture--including many of the leading icons and symbols of American identity--was created by artists and writers of decidedly left-wing and even socialist sympathies. A look at the songs sung at post-9/11 patriotic tribute events and that appear on the various patriotic compilation albums, or the clips incorporated into film shorts celebrating the "American spirit," reveals that the preponderance of these originated in the forgotten tradition of left-wing patriotism. --Peter Dreier & Dick Flacks, "Patriotism's Secret History," The Nation magazine, May 16, 2002.

As I announced earlier this week, , I want to do something special for the 4th of July this weekend, and this is where it starts,  I'm inviting everyone in the Open Left community to join me in taking back patriotism from the know-nothing rightwing jingoists, by sharing what America means to you, whether from your own direct experience, or from the lives or writings of others who have inspired you.

As I said in that earlier diary, our country has always had its flaws--and below the fold, in my personal sharing to kick things off, I'll have more to say about that. Here, I just want to invite join with me, posting your stories or thoughts about what being an American means to you, what it should mean to all of us, or anything else you wish to write on a truly patriotic theme.

It's okay to respond to one another, of course.  But mostly, I hope that people will use the comments to speak to us all.  Sometime tomorrow, after people have had sufficient time to contribute, and to rate each others contritubions, I will repost the most recommended comments--plus, perhaps, my own personal favorites--either as separate front page entries, or in thematic groupings if that seems more appropriate, to spur further discussion of what true patriotism means to all of us.

So, start your patriotic juices flowing, folk.  This is a Fourth for all of us to hold forth.
To me, above all, America is a land of becoming, it is where people come, from all around the world, to become the people they wish to be.  Even more, the country itself is engaged in a ferocious struggle to become the country it has promised itself to be.  And no other piece of literature expresses this better than the Langston Hughes poem, "Let America Be America Again".  As I've written before, in an earlier diary, this poem "begins with two voices, the main one expressing the naive faith in America that sees current troubles as a falling away from an idealized past, and a second voice, bounded by parentheses, that calls that naive faith--but not America itself--into question."

The very form of this dialogue is itself inseparable from the poem's message, and it's entirely fitting that a single voice does not speak alone in this poem, but in tension, struggle, and dialogue with another, fitting as well that it does not speak as a single identity, claiming multitudes, instead, echoing Whitman, and fitting, finally, because this voice that began parenthetically becomes the central voice as the poem hits its full stride:

Let America be America again

Let America be America again.
Let it be the dream it used to be.
Let it be the pioneer on the plain
Seeking a home where he himself is free.

( America never was America to me.)

Let America be the dream the dreamers dreamed--
Let it be that great strong land of love
Where never kings connive nor tyrants scheme
That any man be crushed by one above.

(It never was America to me.)

O, let my land be a land where Liberty
Is crowned with no false patriotic wreath,
But opportunity is real, and life is free,
Equality is in the air we breathe.

(There's never been equality for me,
Nor freedom in this "homeland of the free.")

Say, who are you that mumbles in the dark?
And who are you that draws your veil across the stars?

I am the poor white, fooled and pushed apart,
I am the Negro bearing slavery's scars.
I am the red man driven from the land,
I am the immigrant clutching the hope I seek--
And finding only the same old stupid plan
Of dog eat dog, of mighty crush the weak.

I am the young man, full of strength and hope,
Tangled in that ancient endless chain
Of profit, power, gain, of grab the land!
Of grab the gold! Of grab the ways of satisfying need!
Of work the men! Of take the pay!
Of owning everything for one's own greed!

I am the farmer, bondsman to the soil.
I am the worker sold to the machine.
I am the Negro, servant to you all.
I am the people, humble, hungry, mean--
Hungry yet today despite the dream.
Beaten yet today--O, Pioneers!
I am the man who never got ahead,
The poorest worker bartered through the years.

Yet I'm the one who dreamt our basic dream
In the Old World while still a serf of kings,
Who dreamt a dream so strong, so brave, so true,
That even yet its mighty daring sings
In every brick and stone, in every furrow turned
That's made America the land it has become.
O, I'm the man who sailed those early seas
In search of what I meant to be my home--
For I'm the one who left dark Ireland's shore,
And Poland's plain, and England's grassy lea,
And torn from Black Africa's strand I came
To build a "homeland of the free."

The free?

Who said the free? Not me?
Surely not me? The millions on relief today?
The millions shot down when we strike?
The millions who have nothing for our pay?
For all the dreams we've dreamed
And all the songs we've sung
And all the hopes we've held
And all the flags we've hung,
The millions who have nothing for our pay--
Except the dream that's almost dead today.

O, let America be America again--
The land that never has been yet--
And yet must be--the land where every man is free.
The land that's mine--the poor man's, Indian's, Negro's, ME--
Who made America,
Whose sweat and blood, whose faith and pain,
Whose hand at the foundry, whose plow in the rain,
Must bring back our mighty dream again.

Sure, call me any ugly name you choose--
The steel of freedom does not stain.
From those who live like leeches on the people's lives,
We must take back our land again,
America!

O, yes,
I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath--
America will be!

Out of the rack and ruin of our gangster death,
The rape and rot of graft, and stealth, and lies,
We, the people, must redeem
The land, the mines, the plants, the rivers.
The mountains and the endless plain--
All, all the stretch of these great green states--
And make America again!

  -- Langston Hughes

I find reflections of the central tension that blazes forth in this poem in most every piece of patriotic literature that moves me.  For example:

America, The Beautiful (Katherine Lee Bates):

America! America!
God mend thine ev'ry flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law.

This Land Is Your Land (Woodie Guthrie):

As I was walkin'  -  I saw a sign there
And that sign said - no tress passin'
But on the other side  .... it didn't say nothin!
Now that side was made for you and me!

This land is your land, this land is my land
From California, to the New York Island
From the redwood forest, to the gulf stream waters
This land was made for you and me

In the squares of the city - In the shadow of the steeple
Near the relief office - I see my people
And some are grumblin' and some are wonderin'
If this land's still made for you and me.

I Have A Dream (Martin Luther King, Jr.)

Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.

But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.

In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check - a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quick sands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.

People Have the Power (Patti Smith)

Vengeful aspects became suspect
and bending low as if to hear
and the armies ceased advancing
because the people had their ear
and the shepherds and the soldiers
lay beneath the stars
exchanging visions
and laying arms
to waste / in the dust
in the form of / shining valleys
where the pure air / recognized
and my senses / newly opened
I awakened / to the cry

The people have the power
The people have the power
The people have the power
The people have the power

Wasteland of the Free (Iris DeMent)

We kill for oil, then we throw a party when we win
Some guy refuses to fight, and we call that the sin
but he's standing up for what he believes in
and that seems pretty damned American to me
and it feels like I am living in the wasteland of the free

With God On Our Side (Bob Dylan)

In a many dark hour
I've been thinkin' about this
That Jesus Christ
Was betrayed by a kiss
But I can't think for you
You'll have to decide
Whether Judas Iscariot
Had God on his side.

So now as I'm leavin'
I'm weary as Hell
The confusion I'm feelin'
Ain't no tongue can tell
The words fill my head
And fall to the floor
If God's on our side
He'll stop the next war.

Now it's your turn.

July 04, 2009 04:00 AM

Lots of speculation tonight over the "real" reason for Sarah Palin's abrupt resignation as Governor of Alaska. An Alaska-based blogger for HuffPo is talking about the possibility of criminal charges relating to how her Wasilla home was paid for/built. (Hey, that's just Alaska political tradition, nothing to see here).

But why would she quit over that possibility? Would it be easier to defend yourself on those charges as the sitting Governor or as an ex-Governor? I think the former.

My own take is that Sarah Palin quit to pursue what really matters to her now: money and fame. The politics thing was becoming a drag what with ethics investigations and questions - all those pesky questions! Somewhere inside it had to hurt looking like a fool on national television with Katie Couric blinking at you expectantly for an answer you had no idea how to give or even dodge gracefully. I don't think she wants to do that again or do the work involved to better prepare. 

Here's a telling quote from a story in the Alaska Daily News:

Anchorage Rep. Hawker noted that Palin's decision to quit "gives her unfettered ability to pursue her economic interests, whether it be a book deal or speeches, that type of thing, without being cluttered by state ethics law."

I think that's about right. She may even have lucrative offers before her now. I think the kind of easy money she could make right now is just too appealing for her. Last fall, instead of focusing all her energy on campaigning or preparing for interviews/debates, she spent considerable amounts of time shopping. $150,000 worth. Clothes for the family too. It was her time to cash in - after several years of work as mayor of Wasilla and 2 years as Governor, she was getting paid!  

Here's another piece from the ADN story:

Larry Persily, a former aide to Palin in her Washington, D.C., office, said he thinks she is shedding all that is bad about her job as governor -- from the ethics complaints to her bruising fights with the Legislature -- "and she can just be a national star in front of adoring crowds." "It's like the kid who leaves college early for the NBA draft and says, this is when I am at my height in the market and I'm going for it," said Persily, a former Anchorage Daily News opinion editor who is now an aide to Rep. Hawker.

Again, this sounds right to me. Instead of her basketball metaphor - a point guard facing a full-court (and hostile) press who passes the ball to their Lt. Governor teammate - Palin is dropping out of college after 2 years so she can get paid. Losing a Republican primary in 2012 would leave her past her earning peak (anyone heard from Dan Quayle since his aborted Presidential run?).

So, where does that leave Republicans? Let's see. Bobby Jindahl bombed in his non-State of the Union response. Besides, he's 10 years younger than President Obama. He won't run in 2012. Utah Governor Huntsman is off to China. Florida Governor Charlie Crist is running for Senate in 2010. If he wins he would take office in January 2011 which is also when he would need to announce plans for a Presidential run. He's not running. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush is still named "Bush." South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford is..... oh, you get the point. Pretty much it's Mittens' nomination if he wants it. 

 

 

July 04, 2009 03:50 AM

"You won't have Miz Palin to kick around anymore."

Click here for larger.

Open Thread below...

July 04, 2009 03:30 AM

Title: Fourth of JulyArtist: Soundgarden Christmas sure has a lot of songs, but 4th of July not so many. This one by Soundgarden is a fantastic slab of total sludge that's buried toward the end of their classic album Superunknown, and I always skip ahead to it. "Fourth of July" by X is another great one. What will you be spinning at your BBQs this weekend?

July 04, 2009 03:00 AM

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player! clMediaLoader.loadEmbed("88594cdf0","audio","dp=2009/07&mid=8859&controller=audio&model=mp3&movieLength=264.307&mediatitle=Proposition+13+reports+June+9%2C+1978&embedkey=&nodelink=http://crooksandliars.com/gordonskene/ode-sacred-cow-proposition-13-1978&lup=1246483704&ar=0.75",300,75); DOWNLOADS: 174 PLAYS: 117 (Gann and Jarvis - the boys you can thank your IOU for today) With California circling the economic drain, it's interesting to consider where this chaos all started. A little populist movement called "Prop 13" that captured the anger of California in 1978 and plunged us into the stone age as the result. It all centered around property taxes, placing a cap of 1% of the property's value as taxable. The anger centered around tax revenues being redistributed to other communities, rather than the community where the tax was being levied, not to mention tax rates increasing for everyone, not just new home buyers. The fear card was played that older home owners would be forced to sell their homes because tax rates would increase to the point of bankruptcy for most, and certainly this became the rallying cry. The effect was almost instant, with a $5 billion dollar surplus evaporating in a short time with services and education funds slashed to practically nonexistent. Since it has been written into it's constitution, California has slid into depression almost continuously since then. And Prop 13 has become the infamous "third rail" by which no one dares question - challenges to the laws validity have been struck down by the State Supreme Court and politicians caught even breathing Prop 13 revision have been hounded out of office, or threatened with it. The lobby surrounding the Prop 13 movement has a vice grip on the state legislature. So any thought of revision or modification is ignored. But on June 9, 1978 the news was pretty much like it is now. Only now we have 31 years of failure to look at. And we're left scratching our heads.

July 04, 2009 02:00 AM

Caribou Barbie could take a lesson from Dick Cheney — you’re supposed to shoot the other guy in the face, not yourself.

But that’s not what I’m here to talk about.

Rather, it’s a wonderful new column from the Moonie Times’ Diana West:

Iraq is Victorious… Over the ‘Foreign’ U.S.?

I’ve been stewing over something really lousy that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has been saying since June 20: that Iraqis have won a “great victory” over the “foreign presence in Iraq.”

That “great victory,” as he calls it, is the June 30 withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq’s cities. That “foreign presence,” as he calls it, is the United States — the thousands of mainly young American men who have fought a vicious enemy under the harshest conditions for more than six long years, with 4,321 Americans killed, many thousands wounded, often grievously so, and some small, tortured number wrongfully ensnared by the U.S. military justice system in apparent deference to Iraqi political considerations.

“Ingrate” doesn’t begin to describe this al-Maliki creep — or, as all too many conservatives and Bush loyalists persist in thinking of him, our Iraqi “ally.” But let’s skip the labels and stick to the implications of the Iraqi prime minister’s rhetoric: He has transformed long-term American sacrifice on Iraq’s behalf into a residual “foreign presence” over which he now declares Iraqi victory.

Speaking of Cheney, he really has been doing his bit to keep the spirit of 2005 alive — and in the frankly dull Age of Obama, this has not been unappreciated by liberal comedy bloggers. Mocking garden-variety stupidity is one thing, but stupidity that is in a position of authority is the real mother lode … I’ve been pretty much mailing it in since the election because teasing the politically marginalized just doesn’t instill one with the same sense of purpose, no matter how venal the wingnuts remain.

Which is why Diana West’s little diatribe caught my attention. The scare quotes around ‘foreign’ are pleasing enough, but trotting out ‘ingrate’ really puts this bit over the top — it’s a throwback to a time when the invasion of Iraq was still being defended by its architects as a great victory for human rights, a little trip down memory lane for anyone who ever felt the guilty thrill of encountering a particularly juicy example of the up-is-downism that propped up that earlier era’s conventional wisdom on aggressive war.

It brings some small joy to my heart to see that someone out there in wingnuttia is still defending our Baghdad satrapy in the old, neocon fashion — by flat-out denying that our occupation of another country is really an occupation, that we are not gate-crashing foreigners in Iraq at all but rather invited guests who occasionally shoot our hosts and blow up their property.

The Bush years were awful, of course, but you have to admit they were also awfully fun. Almost enough to make me want to tempt fate and hope for Cheney-Palin in 2012, if only just to relieve the ennui.

July 04, 2009 01:41 AM

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player! clMediaLoader.loadEmbed("8879307b3","video","dp=2009/07&mid=8879&controller=video&model=flv&movieLength=427.877&mediatitle=Glenn+Beck+deeply+worred+about+obscure+French+book&embedkey=&nodelink=http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/glenn-beck-gets-all-worked-about-obs&lup=1246641213&ar=0.75",400,336); DOWNLOADS: (283) PLAYS: (725) Glenn Beck was frothing at the mouth this week -- just before he went on an obviously much-needed vacation -- about an obscure French book that is hard to obtain and which no one appears to be reading, aside from a handful of anarchist aesthetes: While the government warns that right-wing extremists could be domestic terrorists, and The New York Times, says I could incite those crazy conservatives to violence, the extreme left is actively calling for violence! As world economies go down the tank and unemployment continues to rise, disenfranchised people are set to explode. The dangerous leftist book that could spark this is "The Coming Insurrection." This is a call to arms for violent revolution, authored anonymously by a French group called the Invisible Committee who want to bring down capitalism. This started in France and spread to countries like Greece and Iceland, where people are out of work, out of money and out of patience. Now it's coming here. The book comes out in English in the U.S. in August. I have one of the first English copies. ... Remember the media will tell you the right is the one to be feared. They do everything they can to tie any random nutjob shooting to conservatives. "The shooter was a fan of '24' — '24' starred Jon Voight — Jon Voight is a conservative!" But this is a call for violence. Here is more: "It's a question of knowing how to fight, to pick locks, to set broken bones and treat sicknesses; how to build a pirate radio transmitter; how to set up street kitchens; how to aim straight." The synopsis of the book describes it as "an eloquent call to arms arising from the recent waves of social contestation in France and Europe... a strategic prescription for an emergent war-machine to spread anarchy and live communism." A few years ago I said that Europe is on the brink of destruction. This is yet another sign that it's coming. Even in Japan where protests have been seen as taboo since the 1960s, young people angered over the economy and fear for their future — taking to the streets, beginning to unionize. The communist party of Japan says they are getting 1,000 new members a month. This book has not even been released in this country yet. It has been passed hand to hand and via the Internet, much like the pamphleteers in pre-revolution America. Thomas Paine was one of them. He issued a call to arms. I am not doing that. You are an idiot if you start shooting people — all that does is delegitimize the cause. Be like Ghandi, like Martin Luther King. But people on the extreme left are calling people to arms. Funny thing about that. The extreme right -- the people Glenn Beck wants you to forget all about -- have actually been calling people to arms for a number of years now. They've done it with books like The Turner Diaries and Hunter, as well as lesser-known texts such as Richard Kelly Hoskins' Vigilantes of Christendom, Robert Pummer's The Road Back to America, and Ben Klassen's The White Man's Bible. All these texts explicitly advocate the use of lethal violence on a massive scale in instituting white-supremacist rule. And they have roughly the same kind of circulation that The Coming Insurrection does. Which is to say, they're largely relegated to the fringes. But that doesn't mean people don't act on them -- these books have in fact inspired the very kinds of acts of domestic terrorism that Beck wants to pretend away as just "isolated incidents" that have nothing, nothing at all!, to do with right-wing fearmongers like himself. The people who read th

July 04, 2009 01:00 AM

Krugman was right again. Instead of taking a strong leadership position and insisting on a larger package, Obama played nice with the so-called "moderates" of both parties (i.e. morons who would sell their own mothers to feed their swollen egos). And here we sit, in a stagnating economy that sinks even deeper in recession as jobs are flushed down the drain. I'm reminded of one of my favorite business books, "Management by Baseball." Author Jeff Angus (who also has a great blog) says one of the most common management mistakes is when a manager assumes a strategy that has been successful for him as a player will apply to all situations when he's a manager. Obama's built his career on being a cautious incrementalist, but what's called for now is bold vision. So what's Obama going to do about it? Krugman has some suggestions: So what do we have to counter this scary prospect? We have the Obama stimulus plan, which aims to create 3½ million jobs by late next year. That’s much better than nothing, but it’s not remotely enough. And there doesn’t seem to be much else going on. Do you remember the administration’s plan to sharply reduce the rate of foreclosures, or its plan to get the banks lending again by taking toxic assets off their balance sheets? Neither do I. All of this is depressingly familiar to anyone who has studied economic policy in the 1930s. Once again a Democratic president has pushed through job-creation policies that will mitigate the slump but aren’t aggressive enough to produce a full recovery. Once again much of the stimulus at the federal level is being undone by budget retrenchment at the state and local level. So have we failed to learn from history, and are we, therefore, doomed to repeat it? Not necessarily — but it’s up to the president and his economic team to ensure that things are different this time. President Obama and his officials need to ramp up their efforts, starting with a plan to make the stimulus bigger. Just to be clear, I’m well aware of how difficult it will be to get such a plan enacted. There won’t be any cooperation from Republican leaders, who have settled on a strategy of total opposition, unconstrained by facts or logic. Indeed, these leaders responded to the latest job numbers by proclaiming the failure of the Obama economic plan. That’s ludicrous, of course. The administration warned from the beginning that it would be several quarters before the plan had any major positive effects. But that didn’t stop the chairman of the Republican Study Committee from issuing a statement demanding: “Where are the jobs?” It’s also not clear whether the administration will get much help from Senate “centrists,” who partially eviscerated the original stimulus plan by demanding cuts in aid to state and local governments — aid that, as we’re now seeing, was desperately needed. I’d like to think that some of these centrists are feeling remorse, but if they are, I haven’t seen any evidence to that effect. And as an economist, I’d add that many members of my profession are playing a distinctly unhelpful role. It has been a rude shock to see so many economists with good reputations recycling old fallacies — like the claim that any rise in government spending automatically displaces an equal amount of private spending, even when there is mass unemployment — and lending their names to grossly exaggerated claims about the evils of short-run budget deficits. (Right now the risks associated with additional debt are much less than the risks associated with failing to give the economy adequate support.) Also, as in the 1930s, the opponents of action are peddling scare stories about inflation even as deflation looms. So getting another round of stimulus will be difficult. But it’s essential. Obama administration economists understand the stakes. Indeed, just a few weeks ago, Christina Romer, the chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisers, published an article on the “lessons of 1937” — the year that F.D.R. gav

July 04, 2009 12:00 AM

If that’s true, her announcement today makes a lot more sense.

Here’s the story from MSNBC:

And, if true, she’d be doing the GOP a huge favor by not being a focal point in the coming years.

More as it develops…

July 03, 2009 11:48 PM

First, a portion of the video. I can’t find the entire thing yet, but when I do I’ll just swap it out.

Did you catch that? She’s resigning because she doesn’t want to be a lame duck Governor and waste taxpayer money.

Well, I do know one thing that’s lame….

In any event, here’s the text of the speech…

#####

Hi Alaska, I appreciate speaking directly TO you, the people I serve, as your Governor.

People who know me know that besides faith and family, nothing’s more important to me than our beloved Alaska. Serving her people is the greatest honor I could imagine.

I want Alaskans to grasp what can be in store for our state. We were purchased as a territory because a member of President Abe Lincoln’s cabinet, William Seward, providentially saw in this great land, vast riches, beauty, strategic placement on the globe, and opportunity. He boldly looked “North to the Future”. But he endured such ridicule and mocking for his vision for Alaska, remember the adversaries scoffed, calling this “Seward’s Folly”. Seward withstood such disdain as he chose the uncomfortable, unconventional, but RIGHT path to secure Alaska, so Alaska could help secure the United States.

People who know me know that besides faith and family, nothing’s more important to me than our beloved Alaska.

Alaska’s mission - to contribute to America. We’re strategic IN the world as the air crossroads OF the world, as a gatekeeper of the continent. Bold visionaries knew this - Alaska would be part of America’s great destiny.

Our destiny to be reached by responsibly developing our natural resources. This land, blessed with clean air, water, wildlife, minerals, AND oil and gas. It’s energy! God gave us energy.

So to serve the state is a humbling responsibility, because I know in my soul that Alaska is of such import, for America’s security, in our very volatile world. And you know me by now, I promised even four years ago to show MY independence… no more conventional “politics as usual”.

And we are doing well! My administration’s accomplishments speak for themselves. We work tirelessly for Alaskans.

We aggressively and responsibly develop our resources because they were created to be used to better our world… to HELP people… and we protect the environment and Alaskans (the resource owners) foremost with our policies.

Here’s some of the things we’ve done:

We created a petroleum integrity office to oversee safe development. We held the line FOR Alaskans on Point Thomson - and finally for the first time in decades - they’re drilling for oil and gas.

We have AGIA, the gasline project - a massive bi-partisan victory (the vote was 58 to 1!) - also succeeding as intended - protecting Alaskans as our clean natural gas will flow to energize us, and America, through a competitive, pro-private sector project. This is the largest private sector energy project, ever. THIS is energy independence.

And ACES - another bipartisan effort - is working as intended and industry is publicly acknowledging its success. Our new oil and gas “clear and equitable formula” is so Alaskans will no longer be taken advantage of. ACES incentivizes NEW exploration and development and JOBS that were previously not going to happen with a monopolized North Slope oil basin.

We cleaned up previously accepted unethical actions; we ushered in bi-partisan Ethics Reform.

We also slowed the rate of government growth, we worked with the Legislature to save billions of dollars for the future, and I made no lobbyist friends with my hundreds of millions of dollars in budget vetoes… but living beyond our means today is irresponsible for tomorrow.

We took government out of the dairy business and put it back into private-sector hands - where it should be.

We provided unprecedented support for education initiatives, and with the right leadership, finally filled long-vacant public safety positions. We built a sub-Cabinet on Climate Change and took heat from Outside special interests for our biologically-sound wildlife management for abundance.

We broke ground on the new prison.

And we made common sense conservative choices to eliminate personal luxuries like the jet, the chef, the junkets… the entourage.

And the Lt. Governor and I said “no” to our pay raises. So much success in this first term - and with this success I am proud to take credit… for hiring the right people! Our goal was to achieve a gasline project, more fair oil and gas valuation, and ethics reform in four years. We did it in two. It’s because of the people… good public servants surrounding the Governor’s office, with servants’ hearts and astounding work ethic… THEY are Alaska’s success!

We are doing well! I wish you’d hear MORE from the media of your state’s progress and how we tackle Outside interests - daily - SPECIAL interests that would stymie our state. Even those debt-ridden stimulus dollars that would force the heavy hand of federal government into our communities with an “all-knowing attitude” - I have taken the slings and arrows with that unpopular move to veto because I know being right is better than being popular. Some of those dollars would harm Alaska and harm America - I resisted those dollars because of the obscene national debt we’re forcing our children to pay, because of today’s Big Government spending; it’s immoral and doesn’t even make economic sense!

Another accomplishment - our Law Department protected states’ rights - TWO huge U.S. Supreme Court reversals came down against that liberal Ninth Circuit, deciding in OUR state’s favor over the last two weeks. We’re protectors of our Constitution - federalists protect states’ rights as mandated in 10th amendment.

But you don’t hear much of the good stuff in the press anymore, do you?

Some say things changed for me on August 29th last year - the day John McCain tapped me to be his running-mate - I say others changed.

Let me speak to that for a minute.

Political operatives descended on Alaska last August, digging for dirt. The ethics law I championed became their weapon of choice. Over the past nine months I’ve been accused of all sorts of frivolous ethics violations - such as holding a fish in a photograph, wearing a jacket with a logo on it, and answering reporters’ questions.

Every one - all 15 of the ethics complaints have been dismissed. We’ve won! But it hasn’t been cheap - the State has wasted THOUSANDS of hours of YOUR time and shelled out some two million of YOUR dollars to respond to “opposition research” - that’s money NOT going to fund teachers or troopers - or safer roads. And this political absurdity, the “politics of personal destruction” … Todd and I are looking at more than half a million dollars in legal bills in order to set the record straight. And what about the people who offer up these silly accusations? It doesn’t cost them a dime so they’re not going to stop draining public resources - spending other peoples’ money in their game.

It’s pretty insane - my staff and I spend most of our day dealing with THIS instead of progressing our state now. I know I promised no more “politics as usual,” but THIS isn’t what anyone had in mind for ALASKA.

If I have learned one thing: LIFE is about choices!

And one chooses how to react to circumstances. You can choose to engage in things that tear down, or build up. I choose to work very hard on a path for fruitfulness and productivity. I choose NOT to tear down and waste precious time; but to build UP this state and our country, and her industrious, generous, patriotic, free people!

Life is too short to compromise time and resources… it may be tempting and more comfortable to just keep your head down, plod along, and appease those who demand: “Sit down and shut up”, but that’s the worthless, easy path; that’s a quitter’s way out. And a problem in our country today is apathy. It would be apathetic to just hunker down and “go with the flow”.

Nah, only dead fish “go with the flow”.

No. Productive, fulfilled people determine where to put their efforts, choosing to wisely utilize precious time… to BUILD UP.

And there is such a need to BUILD up and FIGHT for our state and our country. I choose to FIGHT for it! And I’ll work hard for others who still believe in free enterprise and smaller government; strong national security for our country and support for our troops; energy independence; and for those who will protect freedom and equality and LIFE… I’ll work for and campaign for those PROUD to be American, and those who are INSPIRED by our ideals and won’t deride them.

I WILL support others who seek to serve, in or out of office, for the RIGHT reasons, and I don’t care what party they’re in or no party at all. Inside Alaska - or Outside Alaska.

But I won’t do it from the Governor’s desk.

I’ve never believed that I, nor anyone else, needs a title to do this - to make a difference… to HELP people. So I choose, for my State and my family, more “freedom” to progress, all the way around… so that Alaska may progress… I will not seek re-election as Governor.

And so as I thought about this announcement that I wouldn’t run for re-election and what it means for Alaska, I thought about how much fun some governors have as lame ducks… travel around the state, to the Lower 48 (maybe), overseas on international trade - as so many politicians do. And then I thought - that’s what’s wrong - many just accept that lame duck status, hit the road, draw the paycheck, and “milk it”. I’m not putting Alaska through that - I promised efficiencies and effectiveness! ? That’s not how I am wired. I am not wired to operate under the same old “politics as usual.” I promised that four years ago - and I meant it.

It’s not what is best for Alaska.

I am determined to take the right path for Alaska even though it is unconventional and not so comfortable.

With this announcement that I am not seeking re-election… I’ve determined it’s best to transfer the authority of governor to Lieutenant Governor Parnell; and I am willing to do so, so that this administration - with its positive agenda, its accomplishments, and its successful road to an incredible future - can continue without interruption and with great administrative and legislative success.

My choice is to take a stand and effect change - not hit our heads against the wall and watch valuable state time and money, millions of your dollars, go down the drain in this new environment. Rather, we know we can effect positive change outside government at this moment in time, on another scale, and actually make a difference for our priorities - and so we will, for Alaskans and for Americans.

Let me go back to a comfortable analogy for me - sports… basketball. I use it because you’re naïve if you don’t see the national full-court press picking away right now: A good point guard drives through a full court press, protecting the ball, keeping her eye on the basket… and she knows exactly when to pass the ball so that the team can WIN. And I’m doing that - keeping our eye on the ball that represents sound priorities - smaller government, energy independence, national security, freedom! And I know when it’s time to pass the ball - for victory.

I have given my reasons candidly and truthfully… and my last day won’t be for another few weeks so the transition will be very smooth. In fact, we will look to swear Sean in - in Fairbanks at the conclusion of our Governor’s picnics.

I do not want to disappoint anyone with my decision; all I can ask is that you TRUST me with this decision - but it’s no more “politics as usual”.

Some Alaskans don’t mind wasting public dollars and state time. I do. I cannot stand here as your Governor and allow millions upon millions of our dollars go to waste just so I can hold the title of Governor. And my children won’t allow it either. ? Some will question the timing. ? Let’s just say, this decision has been in the works for awhile…

In fact, this decision comes after much consideration, and finally polling the most important people in my life - my children (where the count was unanimous… well, in response to asking: “Want me to make a positive difference and fight for ALL our children’s future from OUTSIDE the Governor’s office?” It was four “yes’s” and one “hell yeah!” The “hell yeah” sealed it - and someday I’ll talk about the details of that… I think much of it had to do with the kids seeing their baby brother Trig mocked by some pretty mean-spirited adults recently.) Um, by the way, sure wish folks could ever, ever understand that we ALL could learn so much from someone like Trig - I know he needs me, but I need him even more… what a child can offer to set priorities RIGHT - that time is precious… the world needs more “Trigs”, not fewer.

My decision was also fortified during this most recent trip to Kosovo and Landstuhl, to visit our wounded soldiers overseas, those who sacrifice themselves in war for OUR freedom and security… we can ALL learn from our selfless Troops… they’re bold, they don’t give up, they take a stand and know that LIFE is short so they choose to NOT waste time. They choose to be productive and to serve something greater than SELF… and to build up their families, their states, our country. These Troops and their important missions - those are truly the worthy causes in this world and should be the public priority with time and resources and NOT this local / superficial wasteful political bloodsport.

May we ALL learn from them!

*((Gotta put First Things First))*

First things first: as Governor, I love my job and I love Alaska. It hurts to make this choice but I am doing what’s best for Alaska. I’ve explained why… though I think of the saying on my parents’ refrigerator that says “Don’t explain: your friends don’t need it and your enemies won’t believe you anyway.”

But I have given my reasons… no more “politics as usual” and I am taking my fight for what’s right - for Alaska - in a new direction.

Now, despite this, I don’t want any Alaskan dissuaded from entering politics after seeing this REAL “climate change” that began in August… no, we NEED hardworking, average Americans fighting for what’s right! And I will support you because we need YOU and YOU can effect change, and I can too on the outside.

We need those who will respect our Constitution where government’s supposed to serve from the BOTTOM UP, not move toward this TOP DOWN big government take-over… but rather, will be protectors of individual rights - who also have enough common sense to acknowledge when conditions have drastically changed and are willing to call an audible and pass the ball when it’s time so the team can win! And that is what I’m doing!

Remember Alaska… America is now, more than ever, looking North to the Future. It’ll be good. So God bless you, and from me and my family - to ALL Alaska - you have my heart.

And we will be in the capable hands of our Lieutenant Governor, Sean Parnell. And Lieutenant General Craig Campbell will assume the role of Lieutenant Governor. And it is my promise to you that I will always be standing by, ready to assist. We have a good, positive agenda for Alaska.

In the words of General MacArthur said, “We are not retreating. We are advancing in another direction.”

#####

July 03, 2009 11:01 PM

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player! clMediaLoader.loadEmbed("88762ca69","video","dp=2009/07&mid=8876&controller=video&model=flv&movieLength=105.144&mediatitle=Sean+Hannity+Has+the+New+Republican+Party+Theme%3A+The+Party+of+the+American+Dream&embedkey=&nodelink=http://crooksandliars.com/heather/sean-hannity-has-new-republican-party-them&lup=1246598950&ar=0.75",400,336); DOWNLOADS: (390) PLAYS: (964) Funny Sean, my recollection was more of a nightmare than a "dream" with how the GOP ran things under Bush. But never let that get in the way of Sean Hannity bringing on Karl Rove to propagate the latest GOP propaganda. Can someone please explain to me why this man is on Fox News instead of in a jail cell? I'd really like to know. Karl seems to think that the GOP just needs a more positive message. Hannity...freedom!!!...lol. And Karl reminds us not to forget about those "family values" as well. Yeah... save that advice for Sanford and Ensign and spare the rest of us from your empty rhetoric please. Hannity and Rove decide on "The Party of the American Dream" being the new mantra for the GOP. These guys Can't stop writing their own punch lines.

July 03, 2009 11:00 PM

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is looking to build a national political operation in advance of 2012. (AP Photo/Chris Miller, File) Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin will resign her office later this month, according to several sources familiar with her decision, freeing her to build a national political team and travel the country in support of an expected 2012 presidential bid. The first term governor is stepping down "so that she can take the fight for her issues elsewhere," according to a Palin aide. Palin's decision comes amid polling that showed her losing altitude from the stratospheric heights to which she ascended following her election in 2006 but remained a strong favorite to win reelection. Some Republican strategists expressed skepticism about Palin's decision. "I'm not smart enough to see the strategy in this," said John Weaver, a senior party strategist. "Good point guards don't quit and walk off the court." Ron

July 03, 2009 10:41 PM

If Sarah Palin really does have presidential aspirations, today’s move was the worst she ever could have made.

I discuss why over at True/Slant.

July 03, 2009 10:37 PM

The New Yorker has a great profile of Sheila Bair, the populist Republican who's at the helm of the FDIC. (h/t Riverdaughter) As you may already know, Bair is not well liked by the Wall St. crowd that's running the White House show. (Apparently she has this bizarre idea that her job is to look out for working folk. Crazy talk!) Well, she's very popular with regular people - the administration wouldn't get rid of her, it would make a stink. Instead, they've just neutered her: These debates entered into the Administration’s discussions about building a new regulatory architecture. In late March, Geithner previewed for Congress some of the key concepts that Treasury wanted. The outline seemed to match the Bair camp’s ideas. [Ladies, has this ever happened to you?] A new authority with the power to take over large financial institutions that posed a systemic risk to the economy was modeled on the F.D.I.C., which, Geithner suggested in his testimony, would be an equal partner with Treasury in resolving such firms if they failed. He seemed to be saying that although he and Bair may have disagreed about how to handle the current crisis, there was much more consensus about how to deal with a future one. But in the white paper detailing the new legislation, which the Administration released on June 17th, all the new authority to regulate firms that posed systemic risk was vested in the Federal Reserve. During Geithner’s testimony before the Senate, Jim Bunning, of Kentucky, echoing Bair, was incredulous. “It took fourteen years for the Fed to write one regulation on mortgages after we gave it the power to do that,” he said. “What makes you think that the Fed will do better this time around?” In addition, while the March plan said that the “Secretary and the FDIC would decide” how to resolve a failing firm, the new plan said such power should “be vested in Treasury.” Geithner could appoint the F.D.I.C. to do the technical work of cleaning up the firm, but between late March and mid-June — when Bair’s aggressive ideas about how to handle Citigroup leaked to the press — Bair’s agency had been downgraded from Treasury’s equal partner to a sidekick. The senior Treasury official said that stripping authority from the F.D.I.C. had nothing to do with pressure from the banks. “Making a group decision on something that must be done really quickly is not easy,” he said. “At the end of the day, someone has to have the ability to make a call, and it’s better to have that authority vested in one person.” When I asked Bair about the plan, she said, “I think it reflected a lot of input from a lot of different agencies, and the private sector, and insurance and consumer groups. It’s a very difficult task to try to balance all the different perspectives and come up with a package, and every compromise is going to have people who are unhappy about various parts of it. So I think it’s a starting point.” I said that she sounded disappointed. “I don’t know if ‘disappointed’ is the right word,” she replied.

July 03, 2009 10:00 PM

Dan Gelber, Democratic candidate for Florida Attorney General, did some fun math recently on his blog, making the case for a federal public health insurance option:

There is a lot of debate about the federal health care plan that is taking shape in the Congress.  Many folks who recoil from a “public option” (like Medicare) suggest we can simply rely on the market to take care of our uninsured. I think it only fair that we respond with the facts as they are presented in our own state of Florida.  Presently, Florida has 3.8 million of its residents without health insurance, including 800,000 children. Only one state has a higher rate of uninsured.  On January 5, 2009, the Governor and the Legislature rolled out the “Cover Florida” plan which was intended to address this crisis by soliciting private health care plans that would cover less benefits and, therefore, because they were cheaper to buy, cover more people. So assuming we stick with the current “market-based” system and refuse to adopt the plans that are being considered in Washington, when can Floridians expect health care for our citizens?

Here is the analysis. After 146 days, 3,226 Floridians have enrolled in the Cover Florida plan (about 22 per day). Although math was never my specialty, one of my FCAT trained friends quickly calculated that at the current rate of enrollment it will take only 172,727.27 days or 473 years for Cover Florida to enroll the remainder of Florida’s uninsured.

For those of you who want to begin preparing for the health care coverage party that the legislature will sponsor when Florida’s current plan reaches 100% coverage, that date would be…..Monday, April 27th 2482.

Is it possible to set up a "Florida Universal Health Care Victory Celebration" on Meetup.com for the year 2482? Anyone know? That would be a hot party.

Or, I suppose we could fight for the public health insurance option now...and help elect candidates who are willing to stand up and be counted...

July 03, 2009 09:22 PM

WASILLA, Alaska — In a stunning announcement, Sarah Palin’s children said they will resign from her family in a few weeks.  Speculation has swirled for several months that the Governor’s children would step down if Palin entered the 2012 presidential race, and today’s resignation is being taken by many as a firm indication of Governor Palin’s plans for her political future.  Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell will be inaugurated as her successor at the Governor’s Picnic at Pioneer Park in Fairbanks on Sunday, July 26.  An emotionally choked-up Parnell said he plans to keep all state commissioners, and all children currently serving in the First Family.

In their statement, the Palin children — Spoor, Twig, Benzene, Skeeter, and Scat — said that the “media circus” surrounding their mother made it “difficult to focus on the job to which Alaskans indirectly elected us.”  They concluded by pledging that their forthcoming adoption by Lt. Governor Parnell would “help to restore honor and dignity to the First Family.”

July 03, 2009 09:17 PM

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player! clMediaLoader.loadEmbed("888112c2b","video","dp=2009/07&mid=8881&controller=video&model=flv&movieLength=416.938&mediatitle=Palin+quits&embedkey=&nodelink=http://crooksandliars.com/node/&lup=1246655073&ar=0.818",400,363); DOWNLOADS: (539) PLAYS: (2075) [Media from Scarce at our own Video Cafe.] From the MSNBC: WASILLA, Alaska - Sarah Palin plans to resign as governor of Alaska in a few weeks, KTUU-TV reported Friday. Palin, the Republican vice presidential candidate in 2008, made the announcement at her home Friday morning, the station said. Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell will take over at the end of the month, KTUU reported. This raises many questions. Palin says she thinks she can be more effective outside of government. Really? More effective than being Governor? Hell, Mark Sanford was caught with a mistress and is in the midst of a major, public meltdown and he's staying in office. We'll stay on top of this and bring you more information as it happens.

July 03, 2009 09:15 PM

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player! clMediaLoader.loadEmbed("88784aae2","video","dp=2009/07&mid=8878&controller=video&model=flv&movieLength=237.717&mediatitle=Charles+Krauthammer%3A+Palin+is+%27not+a+serious+candidate+for+the+presidency%27&embedkey=&nodelink=http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/krauthammer-voices-beltway-view-pali&lup=1246639454&ar=0.75",400,336); DOWNLOADS: (520) PLAYS: (1808) UPDATE: Sarah Palin is stepping down as Governor of Alaska. Details here. Quick! Someone alert the Red State Army Strike Force! Republican backstabber on Aisle 26 of Fox News! We mentioned the other day that, if nothing else, the recent Vanity Fair profile of Sarah Palin made clear that the Beltway Villagers' view of Sarah Palin is "road kill in the rear-view mirror". Charles Krauthammer on Fox the other day drove that point home by completely dismissing her as a potential candidate: Krauthammer: Now, as to Palin, I agree entirely with what Mara [Liasson] said -- she is, she has star power without any doubt, she has an extremely devoted following, but she is not a serious candidate for the presidency. She had to go home and study and spend a lot of the time on issues with which she was not adept last year. And she hasn't. She has to stop speaking in cliches and platitudes. It won't work. It could work for eight weeks if you're the No. 2 candidate, as she was last year. But even so, she got singed a lot in that campaign. You cannot sustain a campaign of platitudes and clichés over a year and a half if you’re running for the presidency. Interestingly, even Allahpundit at HotAir was inclined to agree. Surely the RedState Strike Force, as the action wing of "Operation Leper", will be descending upon these hapless backstabbers in short order. Hey, whatever happened to "Operation Leper" anyway?

July 03, 2009 09:00 PM

In a certain sign that she is first looking to cash in, and then run for President in 2012, Sarah Palin will not seek re-election in 2010.

A Republican source close to her political team told CNN's John King that it was a "calculation" she made that "it was time to move on." The governor's "book deal and other issues" were "causing a lot of friction" in her home state, the source said, adding that he believes she is "mapping out a path to 2012."

To put it a different way: she wants to focus on making a lot of money instead of annoying things like governing. Then, she wants to run for President.

Now, Palin is undeniably popular among the Republican grassroots, so she would definitely have a chance at winning the Republican nomination. Drawing 20,000 people to anything in Auburn, New York, is very impressive. She will be able to use this support to raise plenty of money, and probably win caucus states, too. Further, her favorable / unfavorable ratio has hovered around the break-even point ever since the election. That is pretty good for a Republican, and enough that might actually be a threat if the economy doesn't recover. For now, Obama leads Palin 52%-40%, according to the latest poll for 2012.

However, stepping down as Governor halfway through her first term won't give confidence to anyone who already had doubts that she could perform well as President. Maybe it is just because I am a gay Muslim Mexican socialist coastal terrorist secular liberal elitist who doesn't "get" middle America, but this seems like a terrible, terrible strategic move.

P.S.: Many commenters will inevitably say this is becuase of some sort of looming scandal. Maybe, but I am still going with Palin being a bit flaky and looking to cash in.

P.P.S. Here is the video:

Also, Andrea Mitchell is reporting that Palin is "out of politics, period." That actually kind of makes sense.

July 03, 2009 08:32 PM

In a surprise move, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has announced she is resigning, effective July 26th. She claims that because she is not running for re-election, she doesn’t want to be a lame duck and subject herself to politics as usual.

Odd excuse. Either some scandal is about to break or Palin has decided that stepping down over a year before her term is over will help her prepare for a 2012 run at the presidency. Or, you know, she’s sick of the publicity.

It’ll be interesting to see what the former vice-presidential nominee does next.

July 03, 2009 08:26 PM

She didn’t even finish out her first term as Alaska’s governor. K-Lo, amazingly, thinks this shows she’s more fit than ever to be president:

Mother Palin [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Who knows all the reasons — Todd and Sarah Palin, presumably fully understand.

Listening to her, it seems like this is a combination of stepping back and moving forward. Stepping back, because it’s way too overwhelming to be Sarah Palin, political phenom, Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, and Sarah Palin, wife and mother. I don’t know that anyone can fulfill all those roles well, simultaneously. And we’re unrealistic, I think, when we assume people can or should.

One reservation I’ve always had about Sarah Palin has to do with her family. If she is stepping down because of what politics has done to her family, because of something in her family life she doesn’t want to see as David Letterman fodder, because it’s impossible to be governor, a star, and a mom to an infant … this is good. It demonstrates good judgment and priorities.

Uh, well gee. Barack Obama is somehow able to be a political phenomenon, a father and husband and the president of the freaking United States. We don’t elect people because they aren’t able to multitask, K-Lo.

---

UPDATE: This is not a normal person:

I thought that she still had a shot to win the GOP nomination before watching the video. Then I watched the video. Mitt Romney is popping champagne as we speak.

---

UPDATE II: K-Lo has been reduced to sad blubbering. Look at this:

Gerry Seib’s Romney Time Timing Is Better Then He Knew?

Keep her away from the sharp objects, someone!

---

UPDATE III: The nail in the coffin — Bill Kristol thinks this was strategic brilliance:

Kristol: A Contrarian Take

If Palin wants to run in 2012, why not do exactly what she announced today? It’s an enormous gamble – but it could be a shrewd one.

After all, she’s freeing herself from the duties of the governorship. Now she can do her book, give speeches, travel the country and the world, campaign for others, meet people, get more educated on the issues – and without being criticized for neglecting her duties in Alaska. I suppose she’ll take a hit for leaving the governorship early – but how much of one? She’s probably accomplished most of what she was going to get done as governor, and is leaving a sympatico lieutenant governor in charge.

And haven’t conservatives been lamenting the lack of a national leader? Well, now she’ll try to be that. She may not succeed. Everything rests on her talents, and on her performance. She’ll be under intense and hostile scrutiny, and she’ll have to perform well.

All in all, it’s going to be a high-wire act. The odds are against her pulling it off. But I wouldn’t bet against it.

Posted by William Kristol on July 3, 2009 05:06 PM | Permalink

---

UPDATE IV: It just occurred to me that these things always occur in threes. So who’s next? Bobby Jindal, do you have a lobster fetish we should know about?

July 03, 2009 08:13 PM

Here is Specter earlier this week:

"My voting record has been more in line with the Democratic approach than Republicans, and I'd been urged for many years by (Vice President) Joe Biden and (Gov.) Ed Rendell to become a Democrat.

Specter claims that he votes more in line with Democrats than Republicans. However, the most comprehensive voting scorecards all indicate that simply is not true:

1. According to DW-Nominate, Specter votes more with conservatives than with progressives. Among Democrats, he votes significantly more conservatively than every Democratic Senator, including Ben Nelson. In fact, his voting record is even more conservative than Republicans Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins:
   DW-Nominate Scores, 2007-2008
   Arlen Specter: 0.091
   Susan Collins: 0.074
   Olympia Snowe: 0.034
   (Precisely Moderate: 0.000)
   Ben Nelson: -0.068
   Max Baucus: -0.193
   (the higher the score, the more conservative the voting record)

2. According to Progressive Punch, Arlen Specter has a significantly more conservative lifetime voting record on crucial votes than all Democrats, including Ben Nelson. He is much closer to Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins than anyone else:
   Progressive Punch Lifetime Crucial Votes
   Max Baucus: 64.35%
   Kay Hagan: 56.41%
   Ben Nelson: 43.58%
   Arlen Specter: 27.62%
   Olympia Snowe: 27.16%
   Susan Collins: 24.20%
   

   Specter's voting record isn't anywhere close to how most Democrats vote, according to Progressive Punch. He is under 50% in all four of the overall Progressive Punch measurements. Further, he is behind every Democrat on three of the four measures, and behind everyone except Ben Nelson on the fourth. Still further, he is even behind Republicans Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins on overall 2009 voting patterns.

3. According to National Journal, in both 2007 and 2008, Arlen Specter voted with the conservative position more often than he voted for the liberal position (54.5% conservative in 2007, and 55.2% conservative in 2008). Further, in both years, he voted more conservatively than every Democrat, and even more conservatively than Republicans Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins.

Of course, we didn't need voting scorecards to tell us that Specter wasn't being truthful about voting more like Democrats than Republicans. After all, we can just look at Specter's own campaign ads from just five years ago:

Bush: "I can count on this man, see that's important. He's a firm ally, when it matters most."

Santorum: "Arlen is with us on the votes that matter."

Now, there were times when it certainly seemed that voting like a Democrat actually meant voting with Bush when it mattered the most, so perhaps Specter is simply confused rather than distorting his record. However, no matter what the case is, the numbers show that no Democrat, and not even Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, voted with Bush and Santorum as often as Arlen Specter.

July 03, 2009 08:06 PM

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player! clMediaLoader.loadEmbed("88756fbc6","video","dp=2009/07&mid=8875&controller=video&model=flv&movieLength=101.986&mediatitle=Fox+Nation+Ad+--+Fox+News+%22Great+American%22+Pundits+Champion+Their+%22Core+Principles%22&embedkey=&nodelink=http://crooksandliars.com/heather/fox-nation-ad-fox-news-great-american-pund&lup=1246594895&ar=0.75",400,336); DOWNLOADS: (610) PLAYS: (2113) Fox News is airing a new commercial on their station that frankly had me almost throwing up in my mouth a little when I saw it. Fox has decided to roll out their full list of regular pundits to espouse the network's journalistic integrity and "core principles". No...I'm not joking. Here are some of the "principles" they claim Fox News promotes: civility, mutual respect, strengthening our diverse society by striving for unity, tolerance, open debate and civil discourse. Yeah, that's exactly what I think of when I see the likes of Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly screaming over one of their guests. Or Glenn Beck riding that crazy train off into the horizon. Or Laura Ingraham on one of her hate filled screeds that's akin to listening to finger nails on a chalk board. And for a real hoot, check out the ticker that's running below the ad. Breaking News!!... Fox News realizes that Helen Thomas exists and actually cares about what she has to say now that it's criticism of the Obama administration. I love Helen to death, but her whining about Nico Pitney getting a question from the White House sounds like sour grapes to me from a typical Villager. There's plenty to complain about besides a blogger getting to ask one lousy question that's wrong with that White House press corps if she wants to go on a rant about what's wrong with our media. I think this Fox Nation ad could use a better description than the one I came up with for the video and the post. I'd love to hear suggestions from the readers here who by and large are always more creative than I am when it comes to these things. We've done some "write your own caption posts". I'll gladly have this be a "write your own video description" instead. Submissions welcomed if you'd care to give all of us a laugh.

July 03, 2009 08:00 PM

The Washington Post has found itself embroiled in an ethics scandal involving a poorly conceived money-raising venture that the paper has moved fast to cancel and excuse:

Washington Post publisher Katharine Weymouth said today she was canceling plans for an exclusive “salon” at her home where for as much as $250,000, the Post offered lobbyists and association executives off-the-record access to “those powerful few” — Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and even the paper’s own reporters and editors.

Word of this leaked after a flyer distributed to lobbyists made its way into the hands of POLITICO. Post editors claim the flyer originated from the marketing department and no editor or reporter ever agreed to attend an event where lobbyists and government officials could pay for access to the editorial staff. This may be true, but it’s hard to believe such a major undertaking was planned and marketed without the knowledge of the paper’s top brass.

In fact, Weymouth has admitted the paper is looking for new ways to make money:

“We do believe that there is a viable way to expand our expertise into live conferences and events that simply enhances what we do - cover Washington for Washingtonians and those interested in Washington,” she said. “ And we will begin to do live events in ways that enhance our reputation and in no way call into question our integrity.”

Sounds to me that the Post would very much like to leverage its role as a local powerbroker in order to stave off its mounting business losses. But even if no member of the editorial staff were to attend pay-for-access events hosted by the Post, is it really a good idea for a newspaper to be charging members of a community for the opportunity to meet one another? Should the Post really be facilitating and profiting from events where lobbyists and politicians can schmooze?

I don’t think the answer to that is obvious. I firmly believe we still need a professional print news media and understand that untraditional revenue sources will likely be needed if newspapers are to survive. I just question whether or not the newspaper as local powerbroker/elite salon operator is really going to preserve the kind of journalistic integrity we want out of the print media. At what point does keeping the local power players happy outweigh the factual reportage of the news?

Clearly the Post is still working out the kinks in their new moneymaking scheme. We’ll see if they find a way to prop up their bottom line without sabotaging their core mission.

July 03, 2009 07:30 PM

I've been following this issue for a while and was pretty surprised to conclude that the government doesn't have much choice. The way data travels means the entire country's far too vulnerable to cyberattacks, and they don't really have many effective options that don't to some degree compromise our privacy. The question is, who can we trust with that kind of power? We need a robust public debate over that very issue, but since they dumped this on the last day before a three-day weekend, I'm guessing not so much:

The Obama administration will proceed with a Bush-era plan to use National Security Agency assistance in screening government computer traffic on private-sector networks, with AT&T as the likely test site, according to three current and former government officials.

President Obama said in May that government efforts to protect computer systems from attack would not involve "monitoring private sector networks or Internet traffic" and Department of Homeland Security officials say that the new program will only scrutinize data going to or from government systems.

But the program has provoked debate within DHS, the current and former officials said, because of uncertainty over whether private data can be shielded from unauthorized scrutiny, how much of a role NSA should play and whether the agency's involvement in warrantless wiretapping under the Bush administration would draw controversy.

[...] Under a classified pilot program approved during the Bush administration, NSA data and hardware would be used to protect the networks of some civilian government agencies. Part of an initiative known as Einstein 3, the pilot called for telecommunications companies to route the Internet traffic of civilian government agencies through a monitoring box that would search for and block malicious computer codes.

AT&T, the world's largest telecommunications firm, was the Bush administration's choice to participate in the test, which has been delayed for months as the Obama administration determines what elements of the Bush plan to preserve, former government officials said. The pilot was to have been launched in February.

"To be clear, Einstein 3 development is proceeding," DHS spokeswoman Amy Kudwa said. "We are moving forward in a way that protects privacy and civil liberties."

[...] The program is the most controversial element of the $17 billion cybersecurity initiative that the Bush administration launched in January 2008. Einstein 3 is crucial, advocates say, in an era in which hackers have compromised computer systems at the Commerce and State departments, and have siphoned off sensitive military jet data from a defense contractor.

July 03, 2009 07:00 PM

Earlier this week we made the case for Richard Nixon's inclusion in the Fix Political Hall of Fame. Today we make the opposite argument. Any conversation about Nixon and his legacy begins and ends -- necessarily -- with Watergate. The break-ins at the Democratic National Committee headquarters, which ultimately led to the unraveling of Nixon's presidency and a permanent scar on the body politic, is symbolic of everything that was wrong about Tricky Dick: paranoia, an inability to contextualize the happenings in the political world around him, and a troubling willingness to bend and break the rules in service of his ambitions.

July 03, 2009 07:00 PM

Check out this sad story in the New York Times: apparently Morgan Stanley has been doing the right thing by taking fewer risks in their trading than their competitors at Goldman Sachs and Citibank. But in the perverse Wall Street system we have allowed to remain in place in this country, where the big financial traders make money for their firms by big gambles, the bankers who are actually being more responsible are being punished for it. Meanwhile there are record bonuses for the traders at Citibank and Goldman.

This is the problem I have with the resuscitation model rather than the restructuring model when it comes to Wall Street.  I give the Obama team credit for wanting to regulate these big financial traders more, but they need to go further than that and change the fundamental financial trading system.  What is being recreated in front of our very eyes is the exact same system with the exact same problems that led to our financial collapse in the first place.  These big financial conglomerates will still have all the same incentives to take huge risks, and because they are so huge, the risk is to not just to their own company, but to our entire economy.  And their financial clout will be compounded by the political power of being that big, which will inevitably lead to weaker regulations and captured regulatory agencies.

Oh, and by the way, that whole "we have no choice but to revive the banks, because that will start the credit flowing and create jobs" thing: it's not working either. Unemployment is going up, we're still losing hundreds of thousands of jobs every single month.  I know that it takes a while for jobs to start being produced, but this jobs report is much worse than the forecasts predicted, and the Geithner/Summers team has consistently been too optimistic in their guesses.

We need a big, bold change of direction in this economy.  The old models aren't working.  Let's get some economists in the White House who actually made accurate predictions on the economy, and let's take on the big banks that brought us this mess.  These Wall Street guys are back to their old tricks - risky trades, huge bonuses - and the rest of us are getting hosed.

It's time for a fundamental change in direction.

July 03, 2009 06:30 PM

The plot thickens...

RIO DE JANEIRO — A television anchor who's the only journalist known to have spoken with South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford's Argentine lover since news of their affair broke last week said the couple received an e-mail threat from the person who hacked into her Hotmail account.

Eduardo Feinmann, who worked with Maria Belen Chapur when she was a translator for Argentina's C5N news channel, said in a telephone interview from Buenos Aires that a member of Chapur's family told him of the threat on Saturday.He said the family member told him that the e-mail from the unidentified person warned both Sanford and Chapur that "you don't know who you are messing with." He said he didn't know how either of them responded.

Sanford's wife has said she's known about the affair for many months, so if true, this would certainly explain a lot:

Chapur said in an e-mail to Feinmann, which the anchorman read on the air Sunday night, that her Hotmail account was hacked into around Nov. 24. She became aware of the intrusion shortly thereafter and by Dec. 8 had succeeded in having the account closed. Read on...

July 03, 2009 06:00 PM

Another controversy where the Obama administration is walking in the footsteps of BushCo!

I will say here that I'm no more optimistic that Hillary Clinton's response would have been any different. The nature of power is such that one can always find a strong enough argument for retaining it "just in case" once it's been exercised. But then again, Clinton wasn't the one who sold herself to us on the basis of a new transparent era, either:

A document filed in federal court this week by the Justice Department offers new evidence that former vice president Richard B. Cheney helped steer the Bush administration's public response to the disclosure of Valerie Plame Wilson's employment by the CIA and that he was at the center of many related administration deliberations.

The administration's discussion of Wilson's link to the CIA was meant to undermine criticism by her husband of administration allegations that Iraq attempted to acquire uranium, a matter that her husband had probed for the CIA, according to testimony presented in a 2007 trial.

A list of at least seven related conversations involving Cheney appears in a new court filing approved by Obama appointees at the Justice Department. In the filing, the officials argue that the substance of what Cheney told special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald in 2004 must remain secret.

No such agreement was reached between Fitzgerald and Cheney at the time of their chat, according to a 2008 Fitzgerald letter to lawmakers. But the Bush administration rejected requests by Congress and a nonprofit group for access to two FBI accounts of the conversation, saying the material was exempt from disclosure under subpoena or the Freedom of Information Act.

The Obama administration has since agreed that the material should not be disclosed. A Justice Department lawyer at one point last month argued that vice presidents and other White House officials will decline to be interviewed in the future if they know their remarks might "get on 'The Daily Show' " or be used as fodder for political enemies.

U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan expressed doubt about that argument. To counter Sullivan's skepticism, Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer said in a supporting affidavit to the new court filing that the department needs the ability to interview White House officials informally in future law enforcement investigations, and that if the Cheney interview summaries are made public, "there is an increased likelihood that such officials could feel reluctant to participate." Breuer served as special counsel to President Bill Clinton during the Whitewater probe.

The nonprofit group pushing for disclosure, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, responded yesterday with a statement that the Justice Department has subpoenaed such officials without difficulty in the past. "It is astonishing that a top Department of Justice political appointee is suggesting other high-level appointees are unlikely to cooperate with legitimate law enforcement investigations. What is wrong with this picture?" said Melanie Sloan, head of the group.

July 03, 2009 05:17 PM

The war of words between conservative columnist Bill Kristol and Steve Schmidt, former campaign manager for John McCain's 2008 presidential bid, has ensnared another senior adviser, Mark Salter, who has come to Schmidt's defense after a recent appearance by Kristol on "Fox & Friends". During that appearance, Kristol reiterated a battery of charges -- first made in an outstanding piece by Politico's Jonathan Martin -- including that Schmidt accused Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the vice presidential nominee, of suffering from postpartum depression, and that Schmidt had gone into the e-mail account of a McCain staffer to find out if the staffer was leaking information to the media. "This was not a well-run campaign," said Kristol. "Schmidt did not behave very honorably." Enter Salter who, upon watching Kristol's interview, e-mailed the Fix to rebut several of the charges in it. Salter, who is widely seen as McCain's alter ego, insisted that

July 03, 2009 04:40 PM

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player! clMediaLoader.loadEmbed("8872a1ed7","video","dp=2009/07&mid=8872&controller=video&model=flv&movieLength=141.807&mediatitle=Bernie+Goldberg+suggests+liberal+whites+just+give+up+jobs+to+black&embedkey=&nodelink=http://crooksandliars.com/node/&lup=1246568441&ar=0.75",400,336); DOWNLOADS: (472) PLAYS: (975) Be warned, FOX News stupidity Alert! Bill O'Reilly never has liberals fill in for him when he takes a vacation, so I was surprised to see Juan Williams in the anchor chair Wednesday night. And then I asked myself: Self, why am I surprised? Williams is BillO's chief apologist night in and night out and he would make a good little conservative talk show host in a pickle. And he did. Well, there were none of the Talking Points Memo segment that opens up The Factor every night because they probably didn't trust Juan to deliver them with the proper hateful spin, but he easily tried to do a BillO imitation the rest of the show. It was quite hilarious listening to him stiffly yell about taxes being raised by the evil Obamanites. And then came Bernie Goldberg. They were both so appalled that CBS' Scott Pelley wouldn't invite any global warming deniers on his Global Warming special. Juan said: Not a single one. The horror, I say. And then Bernie went off on his new affirmative action plan. Goldberg: I came up with a plan and it's a brilliant plan. Every white person in America who thinks that affirmative action is a good thing and it makes America a better place, voluntarily gives up his and her jobs immediately, right now on one and only one condition. That they be replaced by somebody who isn't white. That way, by tomorrow or the next day we'd have a lot more Blacks, a lot more Hispanics, a lot more other minorities in very important positions.... Juan: Bernie, hold on. Aren't you mocking the seriousness of this because to my mind look,....but the fact is doors have been closed, Bernie. Listen, we have an ugly racial history...at least my plan is addressing liberal, white liberal hypocrisy because when I put this plan.(blah, blah, blah) White liberals don't want to pay a price. They only want to dole out their racial goodies. Can Goldberg tell us the number of white liberals who have or have not got a job in part because of affirmative action? Of course not. Conservatives were the only people targeted. Oy. Bernie, your stupidity knows no bounds. I won't waste any time writing about how offensive his statements are because there are so many other implications to the rest of his rant. You can do that in the comments. And Williams couldn't even muster much of a response to Bernie's nonsensical whim other than, doors have been closed...because he was waist deep in being a conservative commentator. Go, Juan, go!

July 03, 2009 04:00 PM

Currently, as the awesome Senate targeting chart showed yesterday, we are at 38 votes for the public option. (Huge hat-tip to HCAN and DFA on the chart). As such, we need at least 12 more to pass it thorough reconciliation.

That sounds like a daunting task, but a closer look at the Senate shows that it is definitely winnable. Here are the key targets, ranked in order of perceived likelihood for supporting a public option during reconciliation. Progressive Punch lifetime scores (in parenthesis) on crucial votes were used as the main, but not only, determining factor in these rankings:

The low handing fruit (7)
Al Franken, MN
Would Al Franken's first major act as a Senator be to oppose a public option, and take a right-wing position relative to the rest of the caucus on the most prominent issue of the day. Really? Really really? I'm certain we can win over Franken.

Amy Klobuchar, MN (82.30)
Klobuchar has the second highest progressive punch score of the remaining undecideds. She also signed the HCAN petition in support of a public option. Also, she hasn't really said much either way on the public option so far. I would be very surprised if we couldn't win her over.

Ron Wyden, OR (85.92)
As hubbird reported in the comments, Wyden probably is already in support of the public plan, but he is also interested in pushing his health care proposal hard. Wyden is also the most progressive of the undecided votes.

John Kerry, MA (79.67); Tim Johnson, SD (74.12); Mark Warner, VA (79.47); Herb Kohl, WI (79.19)
All four have not too terrible voting records, and also signed the HCAN pledge on a public option. We should be able to move them all.

***

Those seven would bring us to 45 Senate supporters of the public option, only five away from passage. A look at where we can get the remaining votes can be found in the extended entry. As you will see, this is a very winnable fight.
The path to victory (7)
Mark Begich, AK (66.67); Jon Tester, MT (71.60)
These three don't vote particularly well (although Warner isn't too bad), but they have all received a lot of online support. As such, we should be in a good position to persuade them.

Mark Pryor, AR (69.59)
His statements on the public option are far more encouraging than Blanche Lincoln's. Also, he is not facing re-election until 2014. I think we can persuade him.

Diane Feinstein, CA (79.03)
Feinstein's voting record falls into the "not too shitty" category. However, she has cast doubt on health care reform in general, and said that the pressure she has felt from reformers as a result of such doubts doesn't move her "one whit." We should be able to win her over. Really, given that she is not as conservative as most other Senators in this category, we have to win her over. Feinstein is one of the two most important votes, along with Max Baucus.

Michael Bennet, CO (66.67)
Bennet is a big disappointment but, ala Specter, a primary challenger should do the trick on the public option.

Bill Nelson, FL (79.67)
Nelson is somewhere between Feinstein and the Johnson-Warner-Kohl-Kerry group. He doesn't vote too terribly. He hasn't signed the HCAN petition. In fact, he has been pretty quiet during this debate. Should be winnable, but hard to read.

Max Baucus, MT (64.35)
As chair of the finance committee, Max Baucus is the most important vote on this list. While he has said that he will fight for a public option, currently the bill in his committee does not have one. If, however, Baucus comes out in support of a public option, then it is virtually guaranteed that a public option will reach the floor of the Senate. At that point, the only thing separating a public option from becoming law will be the willingness of the Obama administration and the Democratic congressional leadership to use reconciliation to pass it.

***

Win these seven votes, and the battle is won. There are also more difficult, fallback options:

The more difficult votes (9)
Evan Bayh, IN (74.06)
In addition to being the leader of the newly formed conservodems, Bayh actually voted against the budget that included the health care funding.

Robert Byrd, WV (74.65)
Not only is Byrd ill, but he didn't even want health care to go through reconciliation. Hard to imagine Byrd rising from his hospital bed to pass a public option through with 50 votes plus Biden.

Tom Carper, DE (70.17)
Carper is a conservodem lieutenant, and right now only appears to favors the trigger.

Kent Conrad, ND (75.21)
Conrad has become champion of the lame, ineffective "co-op" idea. He is also champion of the idea that a public option can't be passed through reconciliation. As such, he will be a very difficult, but also extremely important, vote to get. If Conrad sides with a public option, then the fight is all but won. Fortunately, Conrad has signaled that he is open to at least some aspects of the public option.

Mary Landrieu, LA (67.58)
Going a step further than Carper, Landrieu only appears to be considering a trigger. She did once sign a statement in favor of a public option, however.

Blanche Lincoln, AR (68.94)
I just don't trust Lincoln. At all. Given how frequently she has caved to conservative pressure, it is difficult to imagine her voting for a public option in reconciliation.

Ben Nelson, NE (43.58)
Second-worst voting Democrat, pockets lined with health insurance money, and, like Evan Bayh, voted against the budget. Further, at one time he was completely opposed to the public option. He actually votes against the progressive position more often than not on crucial votes.

Olympia Snowe, ME (27.16)
Right now, Snowe only appears to favor the trigger. Given that she seems to think that the problem with a public option is that is would offer lower cost health care insurance, I'm not optimistic.

Johnny Isakson, GA (1.56)
Isakson has surprisingly made some positive statements in favor of a public option. However, it is hard to believe, given that Isakson is the 4th most conservative Senator. Given that he is on the Senate HELP committee, we will find out soon, when the Kennedy bill with a public option is voted on in committee.

The Dregs (2)
Susan Collins, ME (24.20); Joe Lieberman, CT (68.44)
This space intentionally left blank on account of Lieberman.

***

That is the basic run of play as I see it. This really is winnable, especially if the Progressive Block forces the White House and the Democratic congressional leadership to start really twisting arms. Also, we are also going to need keep an eye on some of the more conservative and / or newly supportive Senators:

Key votes to hand onto (7)
Mark Udall, CO
Claire McCaskill, MO
Byron Dorgan, ND
Kay Hagan, NC
Arlen Specter, PA
Jim Webb, VA
Maria Cantwell, WA

Those seven will need as much pressure as anyone else.

So, let me know what you think. I want to really nail down the targeting plan over the holiday weekend.

July 03, 2009 04:00 PM

In a show of good faith, Vice President Joe Biden flew to Baghdad Thursday evening on his unprecedented three-day visit. Typically, a high-level official – like Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney – only remains in the country for a day or less, so the trip is unusually long. But Biden said this is “the moment where a lot of Iraqis cynically believed we’d never keep the agreement” – to withdraw all combat troops by August 2010 and all U.S. soldiers by the end of 2011.

Anti-U.S. cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has said that the withdrawal pledge has left him “filled with hope,” but he added, “If the occupation forces breach the claimed withdrawal even with the government’s cover, then the people have the right to express their opinion by peaceful means and the right of self-defense in a way that does not harm the Iraqi people or security forces.”

On the flight over, the U.S. Vice President told reporters, “I think the Iraqis have become invested in their nationhood. I think they’ve become invested in the idea that they want to run their own lives, that they want to be in charge. The reason I came is [President Barack Obama] wants to focus within the White House on the implementation of our administration’s plan to…. draw down troop levels in Iraq.” …Continue reading here…

July 03, 2009 03:35 PM

What Brent Bozell meant to say in his “letter” to Oliver Stone:

Dear Oliver:

Remember when you and I were on Bill Maher? You know, back when he was funny. You know before he said something I disagreed with about the 9/11 terrorists after which nothing he ever said could ever be funny again. In fact, he could tell that hilarious joke about Al Sharpton and the watermelon — that joke still just slays me if anyone else tells it — and I wouldn’t crack a smile. No siree!

Well, anyway, as you might recall, you and I were on the Maher show together, and it was all fun until I quoted some interview which was in some paper that I’ve totally forgotten but I swear to God I didn’t make up. In that completely unfabricated and 100 percent real interview you said you were a historian and I said you weren’t a historian, you were a socialist which is the exact opposite of a historian. You got mad and said “Am not” and I said “Are too” and you said “Am not” and so I kicked you in the nuts under the table which totally shut you up for a minute.

Well, I’m writing this letter to apologize, not for kicking you in the nuts, but for saying you weren’t a historian. You are a historian. You’re a shitty historian. Isn’t this the best kind of apology ever? ROFLOL. I’m sorry I said you were prick. You aren’t a prick. You’re a syphilitic prick. I could apologize like this all day.

Well, anyway, let me stop cracking myself up and get back to my apology. You are a historian, leaving aside that movie W which I didn’t bother to see but which I absolutely know was nothing but 2 hours of filthy liberal lies. But you’re a bad historian because you were just on Bill Maher again and you quoted that RINO Richard Nixon as saying that St. Ronald was a “dumb son of a bitch.” Nuh-uh. Reagan wasn’t dumb and to prove it I asked a bunch of Republicans who worked in the Reagan White House and they all said, to the man, that Reagan was so smart he could do the Sunday New York Times crossword in ink while blind-folded, could recite the value of pi to the three zillionth digit and even had read Heidegger’s Being and Time. In German. What do you have to say to that, Mr. Smartypants?

Best of all, I talked to Al Regnery, now that’s a real historian if there ever were one, even if he made up a story about his wife getting raped by a black burglar and even though he told a tiny little fib, when he was on Reagan’s anti-pornography commission, about the pornography the cops found in his house when they were investigating that other little fib about his wife getting raped.

Oh, and I apologize for calling you a “lousy historian,” because you’re not a historian but a big fat liar who blasphemes the greatest President who ever lived in the history of the entire universe.

Your BFF,

Brent

July 03, 2009 02:47 PM

Mock, Paper, Scissors: Can Sanford salvage his book deal? Oh, yes..

Echidne of the Snakes: Hacktackular Howie

Booman Tribune: Advice for Harry Reid

Corrente: Terminological Interlude

Calitics: At the end of this process, somebody will step up to a microphone and claim how reaching agreement is a sign of success.  No.  It's a sign of failure.

OFF THE BEATEN PATH: MN Progressive Project, Blue Heron Blast, Economic Perspectives from Kansas City, archy

July 03, 2009 01:56 PM

In case you haven't heard, the Million Can March is a counter protest to the teabagging protest redux scheduled for the Fourth of July. Good luck wi dat, teabaggers. Since the news cycle is spinning the Missouri legislator who thinks summer nutrition programs for kids de-motivates them, the Million Can March is all the more timely. And should we remind the leading Tea Party advocate in the Senate, David Vitter, that food banks also need donations of disposable diapers? But seriously, I'm already in the process of cleaning out my pantry and getting some food over to the local food bank. The idea is to do something positive in response to the Teabagger business. The instigator of this project, Rev. Phat of Les Enrages, points out: This all started with a vague notion that we should do something more than just have a good laugh at the next round of tea parties scheduled for July 4th. I thought that if teabaggers are so afraid of socialism, maybe we could show 'em socialism on a national scale. And what is more socialistic than sharing our food with others. And in the spirit of forgiveness, Rev. Phat invites conservatives to provide the drinks: dry packaged drink mixes and other non-perishable beverages are welcome at food banks, too. For bloggers/webmasters the flash image above is free to copy here, and there's a free-use set of non-flash images on Flickr courtesy of Tengrain. There's also a Facebook group (login req.) for those wanting to promote the activism. Donate a can or two to your local food bank this week. Feeding America has a food bank locator if you need help finding one in your area. Thank you.

July 03, 2009 01:45 PM

As we've pointed out before, some people just can't grasp the concept that everything they post on the internet or send in and e-mail can be spread around the planet in a matter of seconds.

Case in point, one Audra Shay. Audra is the leading candidate to head up the Young Republicans National Federation and has a Facebook page with many friends. For those of you who use social networking sites, you know that you can't always control what your friends post on your pages. However, you don't always have to agree with them, especially when that friend is a racist pig. (see picture above)

The blogger at the Arkansas Blog who provided the screen cap of Shay's page notes that she has been endorsed by the YRNF and lets her down easy, referring to her as "clueless." There is one silver lining. A few of Shay's friends denounced the use of the racial slur -- Is there hope for those young Republicans after all?

July 03, 2009 12:30 PM

Remember right after the Obama victory when everyone asked what the progressive movement's role would be in this new political world?

The big question for movement leaders was (and is) what to do when Obama goes weak on an issue like FISA when the progressive base really wants to love Obama. The environmental bill presents some similarly muddy water and a strong line of progressive activism isn't obvious.

Fortunately, the public option is not muddy at all. It appears to be one big sweet spot for progressive activism -- with movement actors fighting on Obama's side (and on the side of 76% of Americans) against lame corporate Democrats who are standing in the way of Obama's agenda.

Better news -- progressives aren't missing this opportunity! We're going for it! We're fighting hard and strategically. Check out these five TV ads by movement actors. (And if you want to be part of the action, take out $20 and help fund whichever one you like best.)

AD 1 -- BLUE AMERICA PAC, "I Thought We Had Insurance"
Like this ad? Fund it here.

AD 2 -- BLUE AMERICA PAC, "Bonuses"
Like this ad? Fund it here.


 
AD 3 -- PROGRESSIVE CHANGE CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE, "WeWantThePublicOption.com"
Sign your name to this ad here.
Fund it here.

AD 4 -- CHANGE CONGRESS, DFA, MOVEON, "Will Landrieu Sell Out?"
Like this ad? Fund it here.



AD 5 -- MOVEON, "Dianne Feinstein: Lead on 'Difficult' Challenges"
(No apparent link for funding this ad.)




 

July 03, 2009 12:30 PM

Why?

Because wages are going down, down, down…

Basically, people won’t be spending more if they’re earning less.

So don’t worry about inflation…yet.

(h/t: NY Times)

July 03, 2009 08:36 AM

Most people don’t realize that the insane gas prices last year had nothing to do with increased demand and had everything to do with market speculation and hoarding encouraged by the top investment banks.

Now True/Slant’s own Matt Taibbi uncovers the truth behind the scam.

Read the rest at True/Slant.

July 03, 2009 07:57 AM

CHICAGO – Visitors to the Sears Tower's new glass balconies all seem to agree: The first step is the hardest.

The balconies are suspended 1,353 feet in the air and jut out four feet from the building's 103rd floor Skydeck. Their transparent walls, floor and ceiling leave visitors with the impression they're floating over the city.

"It's like walking on ice," said Margaret Kemp, of Bishop, Calif., who said her heart was still pounding even after stepping away from the balcony. "That first step you take — 'am I going down?'"

Click here to see more images of "The Ledge." Would you walk out on it?

Open thread below...

July 03, 2009 03:30 AM

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player! clMediaLoader.loadEmbed("8871462f0","video","dp=2009/07&mid=8871&controller=video&model=flv&movieLength=275.426&mediatitle=Green+Day+live%3A+%22Viva+la+Gloria%22&embedkey=&nodelink=http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/cls-late-nite-music-club-green-day&lup=1246567406&ar=0.75",400,336); DOWNLOADS: (637) PLAYS: (1641) I'm with Howie: Green Day's new album, 21st Century Breakdown, is yet another great piece of songwriting. I'm astonished that at the very least it equals American Idiot, which I thought would be an impossible album to top. They're kicking off their national tour Friday night in Seattle at Key Arena. I still haven't wrangled a pass yet, but I'm hoping to figure out a way to get in and report back. In the meantime, I wanted to run this live version of "Viva La Gloria" as a kind of warmup.

July 03, 2009 03:00 AM

From The Colbert Report:

The Minnesota Supreme Court rushes to declare Al Franken the winner of the Senate race after only seven months.

July 03, 2009 02:00 AM

This may be one of the most important things anyone's said yet about the Waxman-Markey climate bill, or ACES. Ken Ward Jr. writing at The Charleston Gazette shares a quote from the communications director of the United Mine Workers of America, Phil Smith:

As it stands now, the amount of money dedicated to coal in this bill is remarkable, and the future of coal will be intact.

There's also this, highlighted by David Sassoon at Solve Climate, from Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA), a "lead negotiator for coal state Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee":

I've been working extensively to fashion a controlled program that Congress can adopt which will preserve coal jobs, create the opportunity for increasing coal production and keep electricity rates in regions like Southwest Virginia affordable. The compromise that I have reached with Chairman Waxman achieves those goals.

It doesn't seem unreasonable, as many have pointed out, that industry's weeping and wailing about this bill in public hides the fact that they know it's the best deal they're going to get.

Via free pollution permission slips and the curbing of the Environmental Protection Agency's recently granted authority to regulate greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide in particular, this bill secures a bright future for the industry that rains carcinogens into our water, puts mercury into our tasty fish, flattens towns while they're still in use, levels our mountains and kills 24,000 Americans every year.

Indeed, the EPA is one of the few government agencies that's done anything constructive to push us away from the destructive, outmoded coal industry. As the indispensible David Sasson reports, they did so just yesterday:

The EPA issued a letter today stating that Sunflower Electric must restart the permit application process if it wants to build an 895 MW coal plant in Kansas, a permit the company thought it had already secured in a back room deal with the governor.

The move by the EPA's Region 7 administrator highlights the ability of the federal Clean Air Act to protect the public health and welfare, despite political horse trading.

Kansas Gov. Mark Parkinson had negotiated a private agreement with Sunflower for construction of the plant, and subsequently the state Legislature made the agreement part of a law that the governor signed on May 22.

Today, however, the EPA informed all stakeholders that the plant still must meet requirements of the Clean Air Act. The agency laid out in detail what those requirements are in a six-page letter (attached below). ...

As Jonathan Dorn noted at Celsias, since a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that the EPA could regulate emissions that contributed to global warming if they determined that climate change endangered public health, and the EPA finding that it does endanger public health, plans for nearly 100 coal plants have been frozen. Others have been fined and forced to add new pollution controls after making significant changes to existing plants.

That's your EPA in action. Before Congress could even get its shoes tied, they'd already set to work forcing polluters to shoulder more of the costs of their toxic waste, rather than letting them shift it onto the rest of us, in the form of poor health and poisoned ecosystems.

A climate preservation bill that strips EPA of enforcement authority is like a crime reduction bill that proposed to gut the criminal courts and fire half the nation's police force.

ACES in its current form has simply weakened its initial emissions targets and taken away too much authority from the EPA. I expect that although it costs virtually nothing in terms of CBO scoring, it will prove the most costly to the health of the American public and the efficacy of the bill. Progressive Rep. Lloyd Doggett made much this same criticism of the bill, but he was then strongarmed into voting for it anyway. Should that be surprising when even though it's far weaker than Obama's initial proposal, Nancy Sutley, chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in an interview with Grist in June of this year that coal is likely to stick around, and investing in coal technology is "very important"?

Even more than the free emissions credits, the restraints on the EPA are nothing more than a fabulously lucrative giveaway to the coal industry, a tragedy for everyone who drinks water or breathes air, and it needs to come out of the ACES legislation in the Senate as well as the final conference version.

July 03, 2009 01:30 AM

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player! clMediaLoader.loadEmbed("887074eae","video","dp=2009/07&mid=8870&controller=video&model=flv&movieLength=376.329&mediatitle=Levin+and+Hannity+say+Obama+is+destroying+the+country&embedkey=&nodelink=http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/mark-levin-compares-obama-bernie-mad&lup=1246562927&ar=0.75",400,336); DOWNLOADS: (778) PLAYS: (1706) Mark Levin is happy now that he's got a bestseller decrying the tyranny certain to descend upon America under liberal rule, which Sean Hannity touted on his Fox News show last night. The appearance produced some plum bon mots fresh from Planet Wingnuttia: Levin: What's going on in this country is really anti-liberty. The president is -- you know, they just put Bernie Madoff away for life. The president's policies are Bernie Madoff times a thousand. He is taking a wrecking ball to this society. Levin evidently seems to have conveniently forgotten that Bernie Madoff was an exemplar of the laissez-faire capitalism practiced by Republicans generally and George W. Bush particularly. This is essentially accusing the person in charge of cleaning up after a demolition with having wielded the wrecking ball in the first place. Levin also keeps referring throughout to Obama and his policies as "something foreign" and claims that he's undermining the Constitution. Levin also claims that Obama "wants to destroy the health-care system that most of us like." Oh really? That must be so, if your definition of "most of us" is "less than 15 percent of the population". I suspect "us" for Levin and Hannity is their little claque of right-wing pundits and wealthy Republicans, as well as Levin's perfervid readers who've been just as eagerly drinking the Limbaugh/Beck Kool Aid. He wraps up with this classic bit of wingnuttery: Levin: This president has some very bizarre and alien viewpoints, ah, that were -- that, that were, you know, he was indoctrinated with, and now that I believe that he really believes in, and advances. He is a -- he is about as left wing and about as radical as anybody ever to be in the Oval Office. Hoo boy. Talk about bizarre and alien. It must be quite the interesting view, out there on Planet Wingnuttia.

July 03, 2009 01:00 AM

Apparently the Very Serious People™ in the Village have a very different idea of journalism than they led us to believe. After their own columnist Dana Milbank lost his marbles and dignity over a DFH blogger asking a question, the Washington Post hits an all new low:

For $25,000 to $250,000, The Washington Post has offered lobbyists and association executives off-the-record, nonconfrontational access to "those powerful few": Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and — at first — even the paper’s own reporters and editors.

The astonishing offer was detailed in a flier circulated Wednesday to a health care lobbyist, who provided it to a reporter because the lobbyist said he felt it was a conflict for the paper to charge for access to, as the flier says, its “health care reporting and editorial staff."

With the newsroom in an uproar after POLITICO reported the solicitation, Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli said in a staffwide e-mail that the newsroom would not participate in the first of the planned events — a dinner scheduled July 21 at the home of Publisher and Chief Executive Officer Katharine Weymouth.

The offer — which essentially turns a news organization into a facilitator for private lobbyist-official encounters — was a new sign of the lengths to which news organizations will go to find revenue at a time when most newspapers are struggling for survival.

And it's a turn of the times that a lobbyist is scolding The Washington Post for its ethical practices.

So they're decided that the new business model for newspapers is to effectively pimp their access and reputation to the highest bidder. No wonder they got so pissy about Nico's question. They figured they could hit up some Iranian for some serious scratch to ask their question.

Apparently red-faced at being caught with their metaphoric pants down, WaPo announced this morning that they were canceling these pay-for-access salons.

UPDATED: Howie Kurtz puts out the typical CYA article: We're horrified to find pimping going on around here!

July 03, 2009 12:00 AM

From my pal Lisa Derrick: Family Values? Red States Lead in Divorce, Teen Pregnancy and Online Porn

What is astounding is the New York Times chart which takes politicians out of the mix and breaks it down into the values that the Right espouses: Anti-divorce, anti-porn and anti-teen sex. Well gosh, even with my admittedly and embarrassingly bad math skills, it's clear that eight out of the ten states with highest rates in the categories of divorce, teen pregnancy and online porn usage were states where McCain came out ahead in the 2008 election.

Ahhhh, help...we need more teabaggers to save us...

July 02, 2009 11:00 PM

So, Franken has finally won.

Now comes the hard part: establishing credibility.

Read the rest at True/Slant.

July 02, 2009 10:10 PM

First, the bad news:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Employers cut a larger-than-expected 467,000 jobs in June, driving the unemployment rate up to a 26-year high of 9.5 percent, suggesting that the economy's road to recovery will be bumpy.

The Labor Department report, released Thursday, showed that even as the recession flashes signs of easing, companies likely will want to keep a lid on costs and be wary of hiring until they feel certain the economy is on a solid ground.

June's payroll reductions were deeper than the 363,000 that economists expected.

However, the rise in the unemployment rate from 9.4 percent in May wasn't as sharp as the expected 9.6 percent. Still, many economists predict the jobless rate will hit 10 percent this year, and keep rising into next year, before falling back.

All told, 14.7 million people were unemployed in June.

If laid-off workers who have given up looking for new jobs or have settled for part-time work are included, the unemployment rate would have been 16.5 percent in June, the highest on records dating to 1994.

Since the recession began in December 2007, the economy has lost a net total of 6.5 million jobs.

As the downturn bites into sales and profits, companies have turned to layoffs and other cost-cutting measures to survive. Those include holding down workers' hours and freezing or cutting pay.

The average work week in June fell to 33 hours, the lowest on records dating to 1964.

The worse news: as some economists predicted, the stimulus package was too small to affect the "real" economy - you know, the one you and I live in? - in any significant way. Sounds like those who urged Obama to think large and visionary (a la FDR's Public Works Administration) really did have the right idea:

Reporting from Washington -- Even as the nation's economy begins clawing its way out of the worst recession in 60 years, there are growing signs that this recovery could come with an unsettling twist: The wheels of commerce may begin to turn again without any substantial boost in jobs.

Not only is the national unemployment rate, now 9.4%, likely to climb into double digits later this year, but it is also expected to remain there well into 2010, economists say. That would prolong the misery of the unemployed, squeeze retailers and other businesses, and add millions of dollars in government costs and lost productivity. It could even threaten the recovery itself.

Though it's common for the jobless rate to keep climbing for a time after economic output turns positive, the aftermath of the last two downturns, in 1990-91 and 2001, introduced the idea of a "jobless recovery." Even though the economy improved, many unemployed workers discovered that jobs as good as the ones they'd lost were almost impossible to find.

This time, many economists say, there are new factors that could make the problem worse. Many more layoffs in this recession have been permanent, not temporary.

July 02, 2009 10:00 PM

2012 is already ramping up for some folks.

From Radio Iowa:

A friend of mine in Des Moines, Iowa, got a phone call last night, testing out the names of potential 2012 GOP presidential candidates. It was an automated survey and did not indicate who the sponsor of the call might be, “but it was quite apparent it was a GOP call,” my friend reports. “…The survey started off by asking what I thought the most important issue facing America today might be, then rolled right into, ‘Who would you vote for in the 2012 Presidential primary?’ — offering choices of Huckabee, Palin, Gingrich, Jindal, and JEB BUSH.” (Her boldface type, not mine).

The call also gauged what voters thought of Obama’s job performance.

I think it’s pretty obvious that this is the work of somebody in the GOP. In fact, Jeb Bush’s people could be behind it since he’s rarely ever mentioned as a candidate and Tim Pawlenty is more visible at this point.

So that begs the question…would a guy like Jeb have a chance in a post-Dubya world?

More as it develops…

July 02, 2009 09:47 PM

By Josh Bolotsky & Justin Krebs

As promised earlier today, we're liveblogging from the Working Families Party's Mayoral Forum, at the Hotel Trades Council Union Hall in midtown Manhattan. We'll be joined by two leading Democratic candidates, Bill Thompson and Tony Avella, and the incumbent Michael Bloomberg. If you have any questions, comments or thoughts for us, please let us know in the comments, and we'll try to reflect those interests in our coverage.

You can also watch it live here.

7:55 Thompson finishing up.  They all handled themselves respectably.  People are ready for dinner in back.  Is it a standing O for Bill or for the food line?

Thanks to Charles, Levitan and crew for welcoming blogging and getting wi-fi back up.

And thank you, WFP, for planning this forum a 3-minute walk from Rudy's...it is Drinking Liberally night (and we're late!).  Come on out to keep the conversation going.  -jk

7:50 From Thompson's case for his electability: "This is not 2005. The economy was booming, people liked where they were. This is 2009, the economy is failing, people are scared and want change in City Hall." -jb

7:48 To the final question, from Dan Cantor, about convincing WFP Thompson could beat the Bloomberg behemoth, Thompson just had the first laugh-out-loud line of the night:  "I'll quote someone who said, 'Rich guys don't always win.'"...which was Bloomberg's defense of spending $100 million on the campaign just 40 minutes ago.

A second reference to Obama too... -jk

7:47 Judging by this forum, one line that is going to be used against Bloomberg consistently is that hat his response to every economic question is "But we love the rich." Oh, and "Why is Michael Bloomberg willing to run on the Republican line if he doesn't believe in parties?" -jb

7:46 Uh-oh, Bill...people in the backroom are starting to eat.  You're competing with food!

Good answer on the pride of running on party lines...and asking "Can anyone imagine Barack Obama on the Republican line?" got some laughs. -jk

7:44 By the way, we're not the only ones watching.  Public Advocate candidate just made this his Facebook status update: "is not impressed that the Mayor said at the WFP forum that calling 311 is a solution for tenants facing eviction from their home. Wrong answer!" (He's a WFP endorsed candidate) -jk

(earlier commentary below the fold)
7:42 Homelessness.  I think all three candidates understand it's a problem.  I don't believe any of them are cold to it.  How can you be?  In New York, you pass the homeless every day, and while you may need to blinder yourself to not feel the sorrow on an hourly basis, you don't forget it's there.

I don't know why the city hasn't done better over the past years.  Although, while I've heard real sympathy from the others, I have not heard solutions. -jk

7:38 Thompson has given these answers often before.  So they're good answers...but not surprising or exciting.  His answer on schools: "We need to bring parents in."  This isn't a strike against him, but I feel like people aren't energized.  Then again, we've been sitting in uncomfortable chairs for two hours.

He got applause for bringing art back into schools.

He's also beating on Giuliani...surprised that didn't draw bigger reaction. -jk

7:35 Now we return to the mother's specific question on her child being in a successful Harlem public school about to be downsized. Interesting in that it begins as a sort of inverse to Bloomberg's answer - he "supports charter schools, BUT..." In this case, the 'but' is that they only cover a small percentage of students. Talks about how failing schools improved through an intensive effort - and "we involved parents." Now transitioning to how standardized testing doesn't solve everything, and we need to put arts and music back in schools. Is this woman going to get an answer tonight that has anything to do with her child, even in the form of passing reference? Kind of remarkable. -jb

7:28 How does Thompson distinguish himself from Bloomberg's record on development?  He talks about the jobs not only during construction but the jobs that will be there a lifetime...and says the "Bloomberg administration has not done a good job."  But he didn't actually offer a specific critique.

Also, interesting rhetorical moment.  "New York City has not done a good job," he began to say, then seemed to hold himself and said: "The Bloomberg administration..."  That's the balancing act. -jk

The Spanish-language question just got asked.  Thompson knew it was about paid sick leave, and didn't get the translation.  He wasn't quite as sure as Bloomberg though.

As Mayor, he would work to develop a law for paid sick days.-jk

7:27 How do YOU pronounce "comptroller"? -jk

7:24 Here's the tough part for Thompson.  "Over the past 8 years..." begins his indictment of the Mayor and his appeal for change.  But he's also been a citywide official (one of 3) over those same 8 years.  He has to take on the challenge of claiming some serious achievements, but still criticize those same years.

He also said "new direction" which was a big Democratic Party phrase over the past few years.  I can't take it seriously, though, ever since someone pointed out to me that it was a homophone for "nude erection."

Thompson, by the way, is getting solid applause.  And he clearly feels at east with WFP. -jk

7:22 Not a good job keeping the stage warm for Thompson, who is entering now - the energy has dissipated enormously between the long conversational speech on fundraising, and the minute-or-two-long "what now?" breaks. People are getting end-of-school-day restless...a different, more tired vibe by this point. -jb

7:20 There has been a 10-minute break for WFP fundraising...with a delightful appeal...but it feels like a weird interruption.  Is Thompson late?  Or did they just want to break it up?  Or, do you do the appeal before everyone speaks so we all stick around? -jk

7:10 Tony Avella gets applause as he leaves.  He's like the Tinkerbell of this race -- if the audience just claps enough, he'll come back to life.

Bill Thompson, the presumptive Dem front-runner, is up next. -jk

7:06 Avella also called Thompson the machine candidate.  He has to beat him, before he can even think about the Big B.

He's tackling both in the closing.  "Bill Thompson has stolen the [David and Goliath] argument from me."  I'm the candidate "not selling his soul."

What about Reverend Billy? -jk

7:05 Avella's getting towards the end now. "I'm not going to stand here and say I'm going to beat Mike Bloomberg, but I will say that I'm the only game in town." He's the ethical principled guy, and the only true independent, and to beat an incumbent with Bloomberg's $100 million, you need a true 2nd choice - "a complete contrast, the real David against Goliath." He's been told be political reporters that if he won the primary, his race against Bloomberg would get national attention, because it is the average guy against the billionaire. - jb

7:01 "Term limits" mentioned for the first time.  "That's the worst thing he did," Avella says of Bloomberg.  Gets applause.

Working Families was the leader in the fight against the term limit power grab.  But interestingly, the micro-site for that fight -- http://itsourdecision.org/ -- now is a dead link.  (Fortunately it's live elsewhere on their site.)

Was it a promise that they wouldn't bring it up with the Mayor in order to get him in the door?  Having Bloomberg here lends additional legitimacy, but was there a deal to keep this topic off the table?  

A throw-down over the issue wouldn't have been a useful debate...but clearly there are those in this crowd that wanted to hear it. -jk

6:56 Would get rid of the Rent Guideline Board -- calling it a "farce" and a "landlord-based organization"

The next questioner begins by thanking Avella for help in Harlem development fights.  

Avella now talks about a homeless person across the street from the forum.  "I gave him a few dollars, and gave him my card." -jk

6:52 "It would be my pleasure, as Mayor, to say 'Joel Klein, you are fired.'"  Got applause.  Then he called Klein, what Bloomberg called a reporter recently:  "a disgrace."  Then some folks booed, as though to say "the Mayor has supporters here." -jk

6:45 First question about development.  Unions love it; community organizers are wary.  WFP is both.  Avella is saying we need standards.  "We are giving the developer a privilege" when we approve their projects. -jk

6:40 Council Member Tony Avella opens by saying this is the largest forum he's been at.  Gets applause.  "And thank you for letting me follow Mike Bloomberg...because that's exactly what I'd like to do at City Hall."

He's the long-shot Dem...but he also tends to be a bit edgier than Thompson, which could play here.

"I'm running for Mayor for one simple reason:  I am fed up with how the system is running today."  Getting more applause...like there's a contingent here trying to make clear that they take him seriously. -jk

6:36 Bloomberg finished right as wi-fi returns.  Go for it, conspiracy theorists!  His final answer had to do with the fact that "money doesn't buy elections," and he's not ashamed of the money he's spending.

He got some applause for it, and some jeers.  WFP is having an internal debate.

His closing statement hits jobs -- calls for people being able to get healthcare, take days off when sick, etc.  "You wouldn't want a Mayor you'd always agree with."  

Closes with a mention of a swearing in ceremony for new citizens he attended this morning.  One man in front stands up for an ovation as he leaves.  Good amount of applause, but not total. -jk

6:35 We're back!

6:34 His answer on money in campaigns is by far the worst, on both substance and politics, of the evening. Instead of addressing the core question (as Justin mentioned, a running trend here), he's starts by talking about his election, and then talking about how there's no such thing as a truly, perfectly fair election. "Some people go to better schools, are luckier in their backgrounds..." This gets boos and murmurs. No one here is satisfied - imagine if instead of answering the question on green jobs, the full substance of his answer was, "Well, there's no such thing as a perfectly green economy..."

He then talked about how "The rich people don't always win," claiming if you look at elections with millionaire candidate, they only win in a small percentage - "You can't buy an election with money - people are too smart for that - you can use it to get a message out," and he's unabashed, he says, about using it to talk about his message. I can't imagine who this answer helped him with. -jb

6:33 Dan Cantor asking about money in campaigns.  Is it a valid concern that he spends so much?  Why not agree to a level playing field in the spirit of fair play? -jk

6:31 Points to Albany as an example of the need for non-partisan elections; but says he won't take it up again unless "there's a clear political road to get there."  He got burned on this in 2003.  By WFP, and others.  He bankrolled a referendum, and lost.  But he suggests that non-partisan elections would help WFP break free from having to choose between party candidates. -jk

6:29 On question about spending in tough economic times, he gave an answer that led the woman behind me to murmur, "He didn't answer the question."  A lot of that.  Then again, there may be some of that all around. -jk

6:25 Should the homeless have priority for section 8 housing?  Bloomberg says section 8 should be used to prevent homelessness, keep families in their home.  "We've made the shelter system more humane and civilized.  Unfortunately that means it's more attractive to go to."  Really?  Attractive? -jk

Follow up: should eviction laws be strengthened?  "It's up to Albany, up to the courts."  He then said it's hard to get evicted, and you should call 311 if you know anyone getting evicted. -jk

6:22 "Could [Joel Klein] have better people skills?  We all could!"  Got laughter. -jk

6:21 This lack of wi-fi is definitely an argument for me to get comfortable with Twitter. -jk

6:20 Question on Joel Klein: "The chancellor has become a lightning rod - instead of bringing in constituencies, he's had a tendency to alienate them - I understand your belief in loyalty and managerial autonomy - is there something you can do to remove frictions, however? I'm not going to ask if you're going to remove him -", and Bloomberg interrupts with an "I'm not." In case anyone was wondering. -jb

6:18 Question about charter schools serving so few...how do we improve schools for the many?  He's against vouchers; in favor of "fair funding" to get more funds to poorer neighborhoods.  It's interesting -- he says schools are better.  The questions believes they are not.  I guess it depends on how people are feeling their experience in reality. -jk

6:17 What's interesting is the degree to which the questions depend on personal examples of hardship, which the mayor's answers provide not even the slightest attempt to claim will be rectified. The current question on charter schools regards a mother whose child attends a successful public school in Harlem, is doing well, but their school is about to be downsized to make way for a charter school. One expects a candidate to have a perfunctory, "I understand your situation, and we'll do our best to make sure that, whatever the larger city policy on charter schools, we ensure that children like yours remain recipients of excellent public education." Instead, an almost non-sequitir-ly standard-issue answer that begins, "First of all, I'm a big believer in public schools, I went to one..." and ends with "If there's anything I'm proud of, it's the public school system here in the last 7 years," and at no point assuages the fact that, yes, a successful school in a historically ignored neighborhood is about to be shortchanged. Weird. -jb

6:16Follow-up: do you support legislation mandating minimum level of sick days?  Mayor says he's asked Deputy Mayor Gibbs to work with WFP "to see what we can do" -- "the devil's in the details." -jk

6:13 Second question asked in Spanish.  The Mayor responded as though he understood it -- is his Spanish that good, or do the candidates know the questions in advance?  It's about paid sick days.  He doesn't think anyone should get fired for taking days off; he made a point of not closing schools during the swine flu because he didn't want to burden the parents. -jk

6:09 The "most popular" question from the online submission process is about ensuring high labor standards for city development.  The Mayor points to his record.  He just mentioned Coney Island.  Also Greenpoint / Williamsburg.  "Well paid," "good jobs"... -jk

6:07 He said a sentence in Spanish and boasted of standing with Acorn.  Says he endorses principles of President Obama's healthcare reform. -jk

6:04 Mayor Bloomberg enters to mix of boos in the applause.  Still no wi-fi.  He looks comfortable.  Just winked at someone. -jk

6:02 They just sang "Working Families Together."  Started hokey.  Got rousing. -jk

5:59  Interesting.  The guy explaining the rules made a point to say that all three candidates were in support of, and leaders on, marriage equality.  

He then said that he wanted to see how they would support development of new residences which, he made clear, meant union jobs.  He then said something negative about affordable housing being built by non-union labor.  I'll have to look at it.

He then took a moment to say he supported carriage drivers in Central Park...a slap at Tony Avella, who has been opposed to the treatment on horses.

They then let us know there's a blue form for members to rate candidates...but not a formal vote tonight. -jk

5:58 Wi-fi here is down.  Oh well.  Future, where are you?  Maybe we can ask the candidates about universal broadband. -jk

5:52 We're right now going through a series of union representatives, officially introducing the forum, speaking of the efficacy of WFP, etc. Interesting that it's being presented explicitly as a night of asking tough questions to entrenched politicians: "We pin the politicians to the wall, for positive answers to our questions, for the people." is serving as a "whoo!" line. -jb

5:49 The kind of crowd that applauds spontaneously when a speaker announces what union they're here to represent. Nice. -jb

5:45 The event is now formally starting. Meanwhile, just got a list of the questions, more or less, that they'll be asking the candidates - will upload as soon as I can get a picture up. -jb

5:41 Also here are Bloomberg's team members...you know, the long-time Democratic operatives.  Maura Keaney -- formerly at Unite-HERE and Speaker Quinn's office -- and Senator Clinton's state director Karen Persichilli Keogh. - jk

5:34 Dan Cantor, head of WFP, is the guy in the middle with the tie.  (Taken from my CREDO Katana)

5:30 Seats starting to fill up now. I recognize this is pure hypothetical, but one really has to wonder how this scene would be different with Anthony Weiner here - and, by extension, a more heated (and perhaps more prone to court progressives?) Democratic primary.

5:24  Who is here?  A bunch of union politicos, including Kevin Finnegan of 1199.  He's also not wearing a tie, so it must be ok.  Also here are NY1 reporters -- they make me happy.  Not so many of the usual Democratic personalities...which makes sense since this is the Working Families Party. -jk

5:23 On the screen upfront is a series of newspaper excerpts and blurbs touting the viability of the Working Families Party...one along the lines of, "with the State Senate poised to turn Democratic, the Working Families Party could find itself controlling much of the agenda in Albany." If only we knew then what we know now... - jb

5:21 Not much to do now but wait and listen to the soundtrack - a combination of standard protest music (e.g. Fortunate Son) and Michael Jackson (e.g. Man In The Mirror, Wanna Be Startin' Something) - jb

5:20 They're playing "Man in the Mirror."  Even a Mayoral Forum needs to acknowledge the times...-jk

5:19 Interesting mix in this crowd.  Some of it looks and feels very grassroots -- members of the Working Families Party lined up in folding metal chairs in a Union Hall, with rock music charging us up.  At the front tables appear to be the moderators -- some wear jackets and ties, others are casual.  

The reporters we're sitting next to looked at us suspiciously.  "Are you press?  This is the press section..."  We just smiled.
-jk

July 02, 2009 09:13 PM

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player! clMediaLoader.loadEmbed("886967536","video","dp=2009/07&mid=8869&controller=video&model=flv&movieLength=492.765&mediatitle=David+Neiwert+on+CNN%3A+Sarah+Palin%27s+long+history+with+the+far-right+fringe&embedkey=&nodelink=http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/how-i-helped-drive-sarah-palin-crazy&lup=1246562016&ar=0.75",400,336); DOWNLOADS: (1076) PLAYS: (4930) My first week on the job here at Crooks and Liars, I went on CNN Newsroom with Rick Sanchez to talk about an investigative piece co-written with Max Blumenthal about Sarah Palin's longtime dalliances with Alaska's far-right elements, particularly the secessionist Alaska Independence Party. At the time, the McCain campaign blew us off publicly. And unfortunately, none of our colleagues in other media settings picked up on the story and asked further questions about the issues it raised -- particularly at a time when the McCain campaign was busy accusing Barack Obama of "palling around" with "terrorists" and extremists. Now, it turns out that my short appearance on TV threw Sarah Palin into a tizzy and provoked a quarrel with Steve Schmidt of the McCain campaign. This from a CBS story by Scott Conroy and Shushannah Walshe: Internal campaign e-mails exchanged three weeks before Election Day offer a rare look at just how frustrated then Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin had become with the manner in which top McCain campaign aides were handling her candidacy. The e-mails, obtained exclusively, also highlight the power struggle and thinly veiled acrimony that pervaded the relationship between Palin and the campaign's chief strategist, Steve Schmidt. The episode in question began when an investigative report published on the left-leaning Web site Salon.com raised questions about Palin's relationship with members of the Alaska Independence Party (AIP) when she was mayor of Wasilla. The AIP's platform calls for a vote giving Alaskans the option to secede from the United States. It had already been widely known that Todd Palin was a registered member of the AIP from 1995 to 2002 and that Governor Palin had taped a recorded greeting at the party's 2008 convention. On the morning of Oct. 15, Palin was aboard her campaign jet and en route to New Hampshire when she happened to catch a disparaging CNN segment that touted the Salon.com story, complete with a provocative graphic at the bottom of the screen reading, "THE PALINS AND THE FRINGE." While shaking hands after a rally later that afternoon, someone on the rope line shouted a remark at Palin about the AIP. The comment set her off. She worried that the campaign was not sufficiently mitigating the issue of her alleged connection to the party, which despite a platform that harkens more to the Civil War than the 21st century, continued to play a serious role in Alaska politics. Palin blasted out an e-mail with the subject line "Todd" to Schmidt, campaign manager Rick Davis and senior advisor Nicolle Wallace, copying her husband on the message (all of the e-mails are reprinted below as written). "Pls get in front of that ridiculous issue that's cropped up all day today - two reporters, a protestor's sign, and many shout-outs all claiming Todd's involvement in an anti-American political party," Palin wrote. "It's bull, and I don't want to have to keep reacting to it ... Pls have statement given on this so it's put to bed." Schmidt hit "reply to all" less than five minutes after Palin's e-mail was sent. "Ignore it," he wrote. "He was a member of the aip? My understanding is yes. That is part of their platform. Do not engage the protestors. If a reporter asks say it is ridiculous. Todd loves america." This clear cut response from the campaign's top dog carried an air of finality, but it did not satisfy Palin. She responded with another e-mail, adding five more names to the "cc" box, all of whom traveled o

July 02, 2009 09:00 PM

A federal district court judge today threw out the misdemeanor convictions of Lori Drew after the judge determined that the federal anti-hacking statute under which Drew was prosecuted was inapplicable to the allegation that she violated MySpace's terms of service. Drew was convicted by a jury in November of 2008 of violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) which bars "unauthorized access" to a computer. Prosecutors argued that Drew had violated the CFAA by harassing 13-year-old neighbor Megan Meier through the use of a fake Myspace profile, harassment that prosecutors say directly led to Meier's suicide.

EFF, along with the Center for Democracy and Technology, Public Citizen, and 14 law professors and faculty members, filed an amicus brief in August arguing that the court should dismiss the CFAA claims against Drew because terms of service violations do not constitute crimes under the Act. Regardless of whether Drew could be held criminally liable under a different theory, EFF argued that the theory pursued by prosecutors was inappropriate.

U.S. District Judge George H. Wu stated that his opinion would become final when his written opinion was filed, likely next week.

July 02, 2009 08:30 PM

He’s not below 50% yet, but between these numbers and Gallup’s, the trend is clear.

Here’s more…

President Barack Obama’s first five months in office have seen his job approval remain stable overall - currently at a politically healthy 57 - 33 percent, but his disapproval has risen 8 - 10 points among several key demographic groups even as the national mood has improved somewhat in recent months, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today.

Approval among independent voters is 52 - 37 percent, compared to 57 - 30 percent in a June 4 survey [...]. The survey of more than 3,000 voters also finds that voters feel 32 - 30 percent that things in the nation have gotten better since President Obama was inaugurated. Independent voters say 32 - 27 percent that things are worse, with 40 percent saying things are the same.

Also, Rasmussen shows similar overall approval numbers, which usually fall in line with the number of independents who give the President a thumbs up…

Overall, 53% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance so far. Forty-six percent (46%) disapprove.

So what does this mean from a political survival standpoint…

First, the White House should be on notice, especially when it comes to the upcoming health care fight. In a post-Bush world, Obama can’t afford to play partisan games and shut the other side out of the debate. He has to be inclusive and at least think about developing a plan that appeases moderate members on both sides. That’s nearly impossible in the House since most of those Republicans are from very red districts, but in the Senate he can afford to lose folks like Snowe, Grassley, Collins and even the newly Democratic Specter. He needs those folks on board and publicly supporting him, otherwise independents will continue to leave.

Second, he has to reign in Pelosi. She has been running the show in the House and her partisan ways have been spread a lot of ill will. I’m not exactly sure why she doesn’t realize that her President promised bi-partisanship, but she better soon or risk facing a big turnaround in 2010. Now, this happened to Clinton and he was still a two termer, but Obama is becoming a more polarizing figure and it could hurt him more for the 2012 run.

Last, he should be very careful with this new supermajority and only use it when the public’s approval is firmly behind him. Otherwise, Independents will simply label Obama the liberal Bush and that’s a meme that will stick.

So those are my thoughts. What are yours?

July 02, 2009 08:09 PM

With this escalation, the mess in Afghanistan becomes the Democrats' war - and Obama's. Good luck with that, fellows:

American marines and Afghan troops poured into southern Afghanistan today in the first major test of Barack Obama's strategy to wrest the initiative from the Taliban.

Daybreak brought the sporadic crackle of gunfire but no immediate heavy fighting as the offensive in Helmand province began shortly after 1am local time near the village of Nawa, about 20 miles south of the provincial capital, Lashkar Gah. Insurgents in Helmand – a Taliban stronghold – have for years put up stubborn resistance against British troops.

Waves of helicopters landed marines in the valley, a crescent of opium poppy and wheat fields crisscrossed by canals and dotted with mud-brick homes. The marines disembarked and fanned out into the fields as the sun rose. Hundreds more arrived in convoys through a barren area known as the desert of death.

In a simultaneous operation, Pakistan deployed troops on its border to stop militants fleeing into its territory.

As the offensive began the US military said one of its soldiers had been captured in Paktita province, in eastern Afghanistan. He was not involved in the operation. The Ministry of Defence reported the deaths of two British soldiers in Helmand; six other Nato soldiers were injured by the same improvised explosive device (IED).

.

July 02, 2009 08:00 PM

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player! clMediaLoader.loadEmbed("88620f420","video","dp=2009/07&mid=8862&controller=video&model=flv&movieLength=405.145&mediatitle=Bernie+Sanders%3A+The+Democrats+Need+to+Commit+to+Stopping+a+Filibuster+on+Health+Care+Reform&embedkey=&nodelink=http://crooksandliars.com/heather/bernie-sanders-democrats-need-commit-stopp&lup=1246511218&ar=0.75",400,336); DOWNLOADS: (876) PLAYS: (1349) David Shuster talks to Sen. Bernie Sanders about his demand that the Democrats in the Senate commit to stopping a filibuster on health care reform. Sanders reiterated his earlier statements as reported by Sam Stein at the HuffPo: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), called on the White House and Democratic leadership in Congress to ensure that party members agree unanimously to support cloture on legislation that would revamp the nation's health care system. Democratic senators on the fence, he added, could still oppose the bill. But at the very least they should be required to let the legislation come to an up-or-down vote. "I think that with Al Franken coming on board, you have effectively 60 Democrats in the caucus, 58 and two Independents," Sanders said in an interview with the Huffington Post. "I think the strategy should be to say, it doesn't take 60 votes to pass a piece of legislation. It takes 60 votes to stop a filibuster. I think the strategy should be that every Democrat, no matter whether or not they ultimately end up voting for the final bill, is to say we are going to vote together to stop a Republican filibuster. And if somebody who votes for that ends up saying, 'I'm not gonna vote for this bill, it's too radical, blah, blah, blah, that's fine.'" "I think the idea of going to conservative Republicans, who are essentially representing the insurance companies and the drug companies, and watering down this bill substantially, rather than demanding we get 60 votes to stop the filibuster, I think that is a very wrong political strategy," Sanders added. If we only had a few more Bernie Sanders in the Senate, the United States would be a better place to live in. I hope he keeps the pressure on the Democrats to do the right thing.

July 02, 2009 07:00 PM

Originally posted by Harry Moroz at DMIBlog.

As state governments across the country grappled this week with painful decisions about tax increases and service cuts to close budget deficits, stimulus watchers raised serious concerns about the deleterious effects that these deficit-closing measures will have on economic recovery. Stephanie Kelton pointed out that "Jobs that are being created (or saved) through the left hand of the Obama stimulus package are disappearing at least as rapidly as the right hand slashes billions from state budgets." Indeed, state and local government purchases declined $78.8 billion in the last six months.

These claims are used to argue for additional fiscal assistance for state governments. One popular means of providing this assistance is the now-defunct General Revenue Sharing, a Nixon administration program ended by Reagan that directed federal funds to state and (at that time primarily) local governments with essentially no strings attached. James Galbraith was an early proponent of resurrecting GRS to mitigate the economic downturn.

As much as state fiscal relief does stimulate the economy and as much as a third stimulus might be necessary, GRS has two important flaws that point out a larger problem with the stimulus package: how we can effectively target stimulus funds to the people and institutions that need them most.

First, GRS's allocation formula is problematic. The Wall Street Journal suggests that so far stimulus aid has been insufficiently targeted to the states with the most need, that is, to those with the highest unemployment rates. An earlier San Francisco Federal Reserve research note elaborated on exactly which portions of the stimulus package are more and less targeted to needy states. The parts of the stimulus that are well-targeted are those with formulas that proxy for "rapid reversals in economic fortunes". This is true of the increased federal matching grant for Medicaid, which uses the rise in the state's unemployment rate as one variable in the formula. The parts that are rather poorly targeted are those with formulas based primarily on population. This is true of the state Fiscal Stabilization Fund, which uses population as its primary variable.
A January Congressional Research Service report on GRS suggests that the grant program would be only modestly successful at targeting aid to needy states. Of the six states with budget deficits more than 20% of their general funds - Arizona, California, Alabama, Florida, Illinois, and Rhode Island - only three would receive more per capita than the country as a whole from a hypothetical GRS allocation of $40 billion. This hypothetical allocation would provide California with less than 25% of the funds it needs to close its budget gap; Rhode Island would receive around 30%.

GRS's relationship to state unemployment is no better. Five of the ten states (including D.C.) with the highest unemployment rates would receive less than the country's per capita average from the hypothetical GRS allocation of $40 billion. In contrast, eight of the ten states with the lowest unemployment rates would receive more than the country's per capita average. GRS would certainly help states suffering from budget shortfalls. But its reliance on population, taxes, and income rather than on variables more directly associated with the economic downturn - such as the unemployment rate or, as John Judis might suggest, the number of unemployed - makes it a less-than-ideal allocation mechanism.

The second problem with GRS is that it undermines the very component that is indispensable to an effective stimulus package: coordinated spending between federal, state, and local governments. By allocating funds directly to state governments with few strings attached, GRS gives federal officials little, if any, say in how funds will be expended. Rather than utilize federal resources - ranging from experience with grant programs to less susceptibility to parochial interests - to maximize the investment potential of federal funds, GRS promotes spending decisions based on local politics and short-termism.

The need for federal aid for states is indisputable. But there are better ways to target stimulus funds than with a grant program that will help the states in most need only modestly and will damage the already tenuous coordination between federal, state, and local officials that is critical to economic recovery.

After all, the third stimulus package should be the best so far.

July 02, 2009 07:00 PM

A coalition of liberal interest groups is launching ads in 17 congressional districts over the July 4 weekend that thanks members of Congress for their vote in favor of President Obama's climate change legislation, a direct counter to a series of attacks on that same vote being sponsored by national Republicans. Environmental Defense Fund, Americans United and Vote Vets are sponsoring the commercials, which will run in the following members' districts: Reps. Betsy Markey (Colo.), Allen Boyd (Fla.), Alan Grayson (Fla.), Suzanne Kosmas (Fla.), Baron Hill (Ind), Debbie Halvorson (Ill.), Ben Chandler (Ky.), Frank Kratovil (Md.), Gary Peters (Mich.), Mark Schauer (Mich.), Paul Hodes (N.H.), Dan Maffei (N.Y.), Mary Jo Kilroy (Ohio), Zack Space (Ohio), Tom Perriello (Va.), Gabrielle Giffords (Ariz.) and Steve Kagen (Wis.). Here's a sample of the ads running in the districts above: The release of these ads is evidence that the Democratic third party groups have

July 02, 2009 06:26 PM

July 02, 2009 06:01 PM

4 That's the number of days of the Fix July 4 vacation that starts today. (Ok, so it might not be the most important number in politics but it is sort of important to Fixistas, right?) We still have a few posts up our sleeves -- the case against Richard Nixon's inclusion in the Fix Political Hall of Fame will come tomorrow, for example -- but, by and large, we will be off the grid, as the kids say. That means no Line tomorrow (will you survive?) and no Morning Fix tomorrow or Monday. The Fix will be fully operational again on Tuesday. Have a great fourth of July and try not to "Sanford it."

July 02, 2009 06:00 PM

Jacob Hacker is an exceptional mind and hits all the right notes when he discusses health care reform and the public option. This piece is a must-read, but he doesn't stop there. Check out what he says in the TNR on page two of his article. This is a not a radical idea. In many areas of American commerce, private and government programs comfortably co-exist. FHA insured loans and non-FHA loans, Social Security and private pensions, public and private universities--all have long thrived side by side. Each side of the divide has strengths and weaknesses, but in every case the public sector is providing something the private sector cannot: A backup that's there if and when you need it; a benchmark for private providers; and a backstop to make sure costs don't spin out of control. Just as it is comforting to have Social Security in case your 401(k) evaporates or an FHA loan in case your credit score tanks, a new public plan provides an added level of protection against the vicissitudes of an unaccountable insurance market. A public plan is about competition as well as choice. Even on a level playing field, the public plan will create discipline for private insurers that regulations alone simply cannot. Regulations require extensive monitoring and vigilance--and, as we know from careful study and long experience, private insurers will try to get around these rules. Having a tough public-spirited competitor means that the regulations do not have to do more work than can be expected of even the most nimble and powerful regulator, much less real-world regulators constantly subject to industry pressure, ideological attacks, and budgetary constraints. So the public plan is about more than choice and competition. It is also about regulatory realism and restraint of the kind that, in other contexts, conservatives generally espouse. The goal of the public plan isn't to eliminate private insurance, or put government in charge of American medicine, or any of the other frightening futures that critics have painted. The goal is to create accountability for the public and private sectors alike while ensuring all Americans have affordable quality care. Sure, there will be tensions and difficult questions to resolve. But the alternative, as we've seen, would be far worse. The whole article is a must-read. Imagine that, the public option would also serve as a watchdog against the entire health-care industry. If the public option were worthless, there wouldn't be a hissy-fit going on among conservatives and groups like the AMA. Jacob uses the very smart framing that the public option provides a little "law and order," and I thought conservatives were into being tough guys, no? Don't forget about Blue America's push against Blanche Lincoln because of her refusal to support a public option. UPDATE: We've raised almost 22,000 so far so if you want to get into the action, pick the ad you want to run in Arkansas and vote for it. #1 Blue America Health Care Campaign - Blanche Lincoln: "I Thought We Had Insurance" Add one cent to your contribution if you want to vote for this spot. #2 Blue America Health Care Campaign - Blanche Lincoln: "Bonuses" Add two cents to your contribution if you want to vote for this spot. #3 Blue America Health Care Campaign - Blanche Lincoln: "Bailout" Add three cents to your contribution if you want to vote for this spot. Vote for the ad here with any donation amount you want. Blue America's Campaign For Health Care

July 02, 2009 06:00 PM

Based on the news reports, public statements, and grassroots voter contacts generated from Stand With Dr. Dean, here is a chart detailing where the entire Senate stands on a public option.

While we still haven't received many clear answers on our campaign to make every Senator give specifics on what type of public option they support, the overall progress on the public option is pretty good. We are now up to 38 "yes" votes, only 12 away from enough to pass a public option through reconciliation. And, in the best news of all, the Senate HELP committee plan, that includes a public option and is already paid for in the budget, will pass through the committee with the support of all 13 Democrats. This includes Kay Hagan, who until recently was opposed to a public option.

Bottom line: your activism is working, and we are gaining big momentum in the health care fight. Keep emailing your Senators to get answers on what type of public option they support. And keep calling House members to build a Progressive Block that will vote against health care legislation unless it includes a public option.

Expanded Whip Chart
The 63 Reachable Votes
Yes--38; Maybe--16; Unknown--7; No--2

STATE/SENATOR	Public Option?	Available Day One?	Nationally Available?	Can Bargain for Rates?
AK - Begich (D)	Unknown
AR - Lincoln (D)	Maybe
AR - Pryor (D)	Maybe
CA - Boxer (D)	Yes
CA - Feinstein (D)	Maybe
CO - Bennet (D)	Maybe
CO - Udall (D)	Yes
CT- Dodd (D)	Yes
CT - Lieberman (I)	No	--	--	--
DE - Carper (D)	Maybe
DE - Kaufman (D)	Yes
FL - Bill Nelson (D)	Unkown
GA - Isakson (R)	Maybe
HI - Akaka (D)	Yes
HI - Inouye (D)	Yes
IA - Harkin (D)	Yes
IL - Burris (D)	Yes (new HCAN signer)
IL - Durbin (D)	Yes
IN - Bayh (D)	Maybe
LA - Landrieu (D)	Maybe	No	No	No
MA - Kerry (D)	Maybe
MA - Kennedy (D)	Yes
MD - Cardin (D)	Yes
MD - Mikulski (D)	Yes
ME - Collins (R)	No	--	--	--
ME - Snowe (R)	Maybe
MI - Levin (D)	Yes
MI - Stabenow (D)	Yes
MN - Franken (D)	Unknown
MN - Klobuchar (D)	Unknown
MO - McCaskill (D)	Yes
MT - Baucus (D)	Maybe
MT - Tester (D)	Maybe
NC - Hagan (D)	Yes	--	--	--
ND - Conrad (D)	Maybe	Yes	No	Yes
ND - Dorgan (D)	Yes	Maybe	Yes	Yes
NE - Ben Nelson (D)	Maybe
NH - Shaheen (D)	Yes
NJ - Lautenberg (D)	Yes
NJ - Menendez (D)	Yes
NM - Bingaman (D)	Yes
NM - Udall (D)	Yes
NV - Reid (D)	Yes
NY - Gillibrand (D)	Yes
NY - Schumer (D)	Yes	Yes	Yes
OH - Brown (D)	Yes		Yes
OR - Merkley (D)	Yes	Yes (via email)	Yes (via email)	Yes (via email)
OR - Wyden (D)	Maybe
PA - Casey (D)	Yes
PA - Specter (D)	Yes
RI - Reed (D)	Yes
RI - Whitehouse (D)	Yes
SD - Johnson (D)	Unknown
VA - Warner (D)	Maybe
VA - Webb (D)	Yes
VT - Leahy (D)	Yes
VT - Sanders (I)	Yes
WA - Cantwell (D)	Yes
WA - Murray (D)	Yes
WI - Feingold (D)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
WI - Kohl (D)	Unknown
WV - Byrd (D)	Unknown
WV - Rockefeller (D)	Yes

Notes:
--Senators who have expressed support for a "trigger" are listed as a maybe. This includes Carper, Kerry, Landrieu and Snowe

--Rhode Island's Future is arguing that Jack Reed is not in favor of a public plan, despite claims otherwsie from Reed's office. This is based on Reed introducing legislation that does not include a public option. However, I'm going with Reed's office on this one. Introducing legislation that does not include a public option is not the same thing as declaring that you will vote against other legislation that has a public option.

--Kay Hagan was a "no" until just a few minutes ago. However, now comes news that she will vote for the HELP committee bill that includes a public option.

The "likely opposition" chart can be found in the extended entry.
The Likely Opposition

STATE/SENATOR	Public Option?	Available Day One?	Nationally Available?	Can Bargain for Rates?
AK - Murkowski (R)
AL - Sessions (R)
AL - Shelby (R)	No	--	--	--
AZ - Kyl (R)	No	--	--	--
AZ - McCain (R)	No	--	--	--
FL - Martinez (R)	No (via email)	--	--	--
GA - Chambliss (R)
IA - Grassley (R)	No	--	--	--
ID - Crapo (R)	No	--	--	--
ID - Risch (R)
IN - Lugar (R)
KS - Brownback (R)	No	--	--	--
KS - Roberts (R)	No	--	--	--
KY - Bunning (R)	No	--	--	--
KY - McConnell (R)	No	--	--	--
LA - Vitter (R)
MO - Bond (R)
MS - Cochran (R)
MS - Wicker (R)	No	--	--	--
NC - Burr (R)	No	--	--	--
NE - Johanns (R)	No	--	--	--
NH - Gregg (R)	No	--	--	--
NV - Ensign (R)	No	--	--	--
OH - Voinovich (R)
OK - Coburn (R)	No	--	--	--
OK - Inhofe (R)
SC - Demint (R)	No	--	--	--
SC - Graham (R)	No	--	--	--
SD - Thune (R)
TN - Alexander (R)	No	--	--	--
TN - Corker (R)	No	--	--	--
TX - Cornyn (R)	No	--	--	--
TX - Hutchinson (R)	No	--	--	--
UT - Bennett (R)	No	--	--	--
UT - Hatch (R)	No	--	--	--
WY - Barrasso (R)	No	--	--	--
WY - Enzi (R)	No	--	--	--

July 02, 2009 05:21 PM

One of the problems with trying to track the flood of wingnuttery emitted daily by Rush Limbaugh is that there's so much of it, and it's so ceaseless, that one becomes overwhelmed trying to keep up with it. But there's been a thread in his commentary this past week that's particularly dangerous, and it needs calling out. It began on Monday, after the military coup in Honduras. Limbaugh went on the air and said this: Limbaugh: So we've got hell breaking loose in Honduras. You know what we learned about Honduras? We learned the Obama administration tried to stop the coup. Now what was -- the coup was what many of you wish would happen here, without the military. The next day, describing Obama talking to troops about the withdrawal from Iraq, he described the president thus: "This is a guy who sought their defeat." And then yesterday, he expanded on these thoughts even further: This is Barack Obama, who led from the United States Senate his party into doing everything he could to ensure the defeat of the U.S. military. ... This party was doing everything it could to impugn and dishonor the military. This thread of commentary clearly is pushing toward a single thought -- to push people in the armed forces into seeing Obama as a usurper and traitor, just like the Honduran president, and toward the idea that a similar military-based removal of him from office might be justified. Keep in mind that Limbaugh is only of only four pundits still broadcast daily on Armed Services Radio, so our men and women in uniform are getting fed this garbage on a daily basis. (And Wes Clark was right: It is well past time to take him off.) Limbaugh in fact is picking up on sentiments already circulating on the right. Larisa Alexandrovna at AtLargely picked up on the chatter going on at various right-wing blogs after Honduras coup, pointing in particular to the Gateway Pundit's commenters, who posted such items as the following: We've seen a steady drumbeat of fearmongering from the right since Obama's election. But now we're treading into truly dangerous, insurrectionary territory. UPDATE: Today Limbaugh added to the litany in a much more explicit fashion: Limbaugh: And if we had any good luck, Honduras would send some people here and help us get our government back.

July 02, 2009 05:00 PM

Because we don't have anything else to worry about, right?

SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea test-fired two short-range missiles on Thursday, further stoking tension in the region that was already high due to Pyongyang's nuclear test and threats to boost its nuclear arsenal in response to U.N. sanctions.

North Korea fired two surface-to-ship missiles off its east coast that flew about 100 km (60 miles) and splashed into the sea, a South Korean defense official said.

A South Korean daily said that the secretive North may also test fire mid-range missiles in a matter of days.

Washington said this week it had tightened its crackdown on firms linked to the North's lucrative proliferation of missiles, a major source of cash for the destitute state, and has sent the U.S. point man for sanctions to Asia for discussions.

July 02, 2009 04:00 PM

One of the abiding questions of interest to academic wingnutologists (such as the staff here at Sadly, No!) is the travel question. Why, we ask, do wingnuts travel to foreign countries? Creatures of habit, suspicious of strangers, monolingual junk food addicts and perpetual scolds, what exactly is in it for them? They wander about Rome complaining that they can’t find a Starbucks or Caribou Coffee anywhere. They return from Madrid complaining that not one restaurant served a taco salad. Imagine that, in the place that invented Mexican food, the locals eat raw ham and some kind of funny little fish called tapas.

So when I saw that Lisa Schiffren posted to America’s Shittiest Website™ from France, I could scarcely control my excitement. What news would she send us from l’Hexagone? What indignity would she report had been visited upon her by an un-shaven waiter, reeking of sweat, garlic and tobacco? How many vile shopwomen had shortchanged her? Well, kids, its better than that. Schiffren writes that the best place to eat in France is McDonald’s. Fuck the foie gras, she’s shoving another Royal Deluxe (that’s frog for Quarter Pounder with Cheese) down her craw every chance she gets.

Let’s join Lisa with her three children (Rush, Little Ronnie, and Ayn) at the Louvre:

[T]here is a lot of bad food in France — especially around tourist sites, including the great museums. I will not say what I paid for two sandwiches and two salads — all premade so unwanted ingredients could not be removed in advance — and a few soft drinks at the Louvre.

Well, certainly the best place to get a good idea of any country’s cuisine is around its biggest tourist sites. I too would be outraged if I went to a place overrun with tour buses and bought a pre-packaged sandwich only to discover that, rather than medium-rare Wagyu beef strips, artisanal goat cheese, a crisp mesclun garnish and hand-made aioli on a freshly-baked olive baguette, I got a ham sandwich on stale bread with wilted lettuce and two drops of acrid mustard. Who’d a thunk? Only the vile French could pull a stunt like that on an unsuspecting American.

And here’s another valuable travel tip from Lisa. When traveling abroad, rather than eating on the local schedule, insist on eating at the same time you’re used to eating at home:

Restaurant meals are available at very limited hours. You want lunch — it had better be between 12 and 2. Miss that and you can have a snack — but only if you are in a place big enough to have a range of restaurant types. Dinner starts at 7, no matter that you missed lunch and want a burger or a salad at 5, not ice cream or a beer.

Of course, the reason Lisa might not be able to get a burger at a restaurant in Paris at 5:00 may have more to do with where she was than what time it was. She’s in frigging Paris. You don’t find burgers on the menus in Paris any more than you can find civet de sanglier or tarte tatin on the menu at Chili’s or Applebee’s. And also, here’s a tip for Lisa. Every corner bar in France serves food, all sorts, all the time; you’re not just limited to beer and ice cream.

To explain these draconian dining hours, Lisa reaches deep into her bottomless well of nutty ideas. The reason is:

The French do not much like children

In that case, I’m amazed that French civilization didn’t disappear from the face of the earth centuries ago. But hold that thought about the French hating children for just a sec

I like the leisurely lunch as much as any journalist, of course. But not with my kids. …

She’s on vacation with her children but doesn’t want to eat nice lunches with them. Can’t you feel the love pouring from Lisa towards Rush, Little Ronnie and Ayn?

So it’s Le MacDo pour tout le monde. All I can add to this is that Lisa is clearly auditioning to be the successor to America’s Worst Mother™, formerly Meghan Gurdon, and that one day little Ayn will write a tearful memoir about how her self-absorbed mother dragged her by her pigtails through France, Le Happy Meal, her only source of nourishment, while Momma screamed at the shopkeepers who pretended not to speak English and made nasty remarks to the waiters who brought her, and overcharged her for, a bottle of Perrier every time she ordered a scotch and soda. The dust jacket will be illustrated with a picture of a young girl with her nose pressed against the window of a pâtisserie being beaten with a coat-hanger by a disagreeable woman in sweat pants and sneakers.

July 02, 2009 03:26 PM

July022009From YouTubeBy The Ultimate Fishing Show.com---Man Jumps from helicopter to fish for MarlinSo our question is was there a camera guy just hanging out underwater with a swarm of Marlin waiting for the guy to jump in? Was the camera guy in a cage? As CNN made reference to we agree that there seems like an edit as soon as the guy hits the water then all of the sudden he has the marlin in a

July 02, 2009 03:08 PM

Sensen No Sen: The health care crisis oligopoly and the real weight of the AMA

The Stranger: A classic example of the Gay Panic Defense

Jack & Jill Politics: New video from @WeekInBlackness - BET doesn't care about black people

D-Day: The Maze of Food Policy

NotionsCapital: American Milestone - 2.75 ton of fudge!

James Wolcott: Sarah Palin taunts John McCain with her runaway caboose

July 02, 2009 03:00 PM

As fladem notes in QH. But, hey, I'm really glad that the big banks are making money again. No doubt it will all trickle down to the rest of us soon.

July 02, 2009 02:45 PM

by Justin Krebs

Later today, the Working Families Party will be hosting a Mayoral Forum for the two leading Democratic candidates, Bill Thompson and Tony Avella, and the incumbent Michael Bloomberg.

You can watch it live here.

Additionally, Josh Bolotsky and I will be covering the event live.  You can find the coverage here at Open Left at 5:30pm eastern.  

Any issues in particular you want us to pay attention to?

July 02, 2009 02:36 PM

Hot Air’s Allahpundit steps away from the ledge by sweeping one leg spasmodically over the gaping precipice of rightwing nuttiness:

Scheuer to Beck: The only chance of saving America is … another Al Qaeda attack

… What’s striking about this clip is how closely it tracks some of the key tropes of nutroots paranoia during the Bush years. Now as then, it’s assumed that the greatest threat to the country is its own government. Now as then, the “solution” to getting the nation back on the right track involves some ghoulish catastrophic failure of national security (losing the Iraq war in Bush’s case, failing to prevent a new attack in this one). And now as then, because the president acted in a legally controversial way in one circumstance — Bush on “torture,” Obama on corporate takeovers — he’s instantly suspected of ruthless designs on the Constitution itself, irrespective of whether he actually has the support he’d need to change it.

Unfortunately, with few exceptions, Allah’s commenters do not appreciate his nuance:

It may seem alarmist, but a wakeup call is needed. It’s too bad that for most of the elites, in fact, all of them, one 9/11 wasn’t enough to change how they think.

keep the change on July 1, 2009 at 6:19 PM

***********************

It sounds terrible, and it would be completely horrible, but it is going to take America on it’s knees to wake people up.

If this is what it’s going to take,I pray for another way. I just don’t see it.

portlandon on July 1, 2009 at 6:19 PM

***********************

Y’know what’s scarier than all the crazy/paranoid-seeming warnings these guys are throwing out there? That both Beck and Scheuer have track records of being right far more often than not. :-(

aero on July 1, 2009 at 6:19 PM

***********************

I would love to take comfort in the fact that Beck is just a nut job. I have found no comfort in that assessment at all. I do not know what the tipping point will be. People are just not as pissed as I am. It does keep me awake at night, because I do not know what to do to fight this president and Congress. I do not know how to protect myself and my family. I thought I knew as of last fall. After Nov. 4th it all changed.

BetseyRoss on July 1, 2009 at 6:37 PM

***********************

Why is Hot Air so hostile to Glenn Beck?

He loves America, reveres the Constituion and bewails the collapse of our culture.

Got a problem with that?

guntotinglibertarian on July 1, 2009 at 6:54 PM

And the final word, from suzyk:

I hate to say this, but if there is going to be another terrorist attack (however, I think that Obama is a terrorist attack)I hope it happens in Washington D.C.

We have friends there and I told them to get their animals out of there to be safe and prepare.

I hope all these evil politicians are taken out. There, I said it. I have had it. This is not what this Country was formed on and what it’s all about. If it can’t be Washington, D.C. then please let it be San Francisco.

suzyk on July 1, 2009 at 10:32 PM

July 02, 2009 01:56 PM

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player! clMediaLoader.loadEmbed("88565c779","video","dp=2009/07&mid=8856&controller=video&model=flv&movieLength=56.311&mediatitle=Quackery%3A+Hannity+compares+Obama+to+Rodney+Dangerfield&embedkey=&nodelink=http://crooksandliars.com/node/&lup=1246476829&ar=0.75",400,336); DOWNLOADS: (741) PLAYS: (4361) Sean Hannity usually just smears President Obama for the things that he says and the policies he puts forth, but on this segment he actually attacks him because someone in the audience had a quacking duck ring tone. Hannity must feel threatened by the insane ramblings of Glenn Beck because in this segment it's quite apparent that Hannity is just "Daffy." FOX really has gone hog wild off the wall since Obama took office. Sure, their ratings are going up but that's because they want to attract the crazy people demographic. Hey, and it's working.

July 02, 2009 01:45 PM

Originally posted by John Petro at DMIBlog.

The housing bubble provided some clear indicators that there is something wrong with our current patterns of housing development. The suburban sprawl model that fueled the growth of many Sunbelt economies, from South Florida to Phoenix to southern California, sputtered out, leaving foreclosed homes, half-finished developments, and never-filled strip malls in its wake. It is difficult to determine cause and effect, but it is clear that the financial crisis had its roots in the wave of foreclosures that has swept the country.

But, according to Joel Kotkin, once the dust settles we should just continue on our current trajectory. Kotkin believes that a "renewed quest for homeownership could underpin a sustainable recovery."

However, there is nothing sustainable about our current housing model. It has real costs on our pocketbooks, our economy, and our environment. The Economist seems to agree.

More in the extended entry.

The Economist mentions that the housing bubble destroyed about $4 trillion in wealth before concluding, "[Policymakers'] efforts in the past few years seem to have weakened, though not destroyed, the best arguments for treating home ownership as something to be encouraged: that it increases people's savings and creates better neighborhoods for everyone."

Kotkin doesn't take kindly to this type of advice. He sees this type of critique as a way for "new urbanists", "big-city theoreticians", and even "the fashion police" to force people out of their leafy bungalows and into drab apartment blocks. He seems to be defending homeownership, but really he's defending suburbs.

So this is where Kotkin confuses his argument. He mixes up the concepts of homeownership versus renting and suburban sprawl versus transit-oriented development.

I've argued before that we need a more balanced housing policy, one that looks at renting as a viable option for building wealth, but not that we should restrict access to homeownership. I've also argued that we need to be building higher-density housing developments in order to increase affordability, link households to jobs, and to tackle climate change.

Luckily, some members of the administration have also sensed that the wind has changed direction. Earlier this year, HUD and the Department of Transportation announced a partnership that would "help American families gain better access to affordable housing, more transportation options, and lower transportation costs." The focus is on coordinating federal transportation and housing investments in order to drive down the two highest costs for households, their housing and their transportation.

However, the need for diversity in our housing stock isn't just an affordability issue or an environmental issue. It's also a matter of providing choices for individuals and families. Would more Americans choose to ditch the car and take transit if that option is available? Yes. Would more Americans choose to live closer in to the central city and cut down on their commuting time if more housing was available in central neighborhoods? Yes. Would this lead to a cleaner environment? Yes. Would it lead to a healthier populace? Yes.

Would it lead to, as Kotkin surmises, "declining living standards and a return to feudalism"? No.

July 02, 2009 01:39 PM

If we’re headed towards economic recovery, the path is unlikely to be a smooth one. At least that’s what June’s unemployment numbers indicate as the nation lost 467,000 jobs, more than 100,000 above estimates.

With unemployment now at 9.5%, a 26 year high, most economists foresee double-digit unemployment before the end of the year with numbers continuing to rise into 2010 before beginning to creep back down. Of course, when you figure in all those who’ve given up looking for a job and those who’ve had to settle for low-paying part-time jobs, the real unemployment rate is closer to 16.5%.

That’s a lot of unemployment for the economy to absorb. Given that some jobs aren’t coming back (automotive for instance) and others will have to come back from new sources (Linens n’ Things, Circuit City, etc.), there is no reason to think any recovery will be quick or easy. I suspect economists will be regularly confounded and estimates will be regularly wrong.

The hope is that, all-and-all, the economy trends upwards. We can handle a few bumps, I’m not sure we’d fare well under a long depression.

July 02, 2009 01:17 PM

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player! clMediaLoader.loadEmbed("8855ab0bc","video","dp=2009/07&mid=8855&controller=video&model=flv&movieLength=123.163&mediatitle=Mike+Allen%3A+He+Shut+His+Mouth+and+When+You%27re+Al+Franken+That%27s+Not+Easy+to+Do&embedkey=&nodelink=http://crooksandliars.com/heather/mike-allen-he-shut-his-mouth-and-when-your&lup=1246434295&ar=0.75",400,336); DOWNLOADS: (666) PLAYS: (2201) h/t Media Matters The Politico's Mike Allen seems to think that if you're a comedian, you can't stop yourself from making a fool of yourself in public. I get so tired of this sort of rhetoric about Franken because it completely ignores the rest of Franken's biography. Al Franken is a comedian, but he has accomplished a lot of other things during his life as well which I'm sure the likes of Mike Allen are aware of, but do their best to ignore, and instead decide to belittle him as Allen did here. The other thing that bears noting is that most successful comedians are also wicked smart, as is the case with Franken. Those in the beltway bubble would do well not to challenge or mock professional comedians. They'll find themselves on the wrong end of a punch line and regretting it if they do. Personally I'd be happier if the Drudge Report, tabloid reporters from The Politico STFU and quit making asses out of themselves on television rather than our newest Senator Al Franken being quiet.

July 02, 2009 12:30 PM

Is a Sarah Palin comeback in the works? Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images After enduring months of derision within Republican circles for her role as the party's 2008 vice presidential nominee and her uneven performance as a national figure this year, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is experiencing something of a rebound among the D.C. chattering class in the 48 hours since the release of a very tough profile on her in Vanity Fair magazine. In the wake of that piece -- a 9,800 word opus penned by Todd Purdum -- a number of operatives who worked closely with Palin during the 2008 campaign have reached out to the Fix to defend the governor. "She's a fine person, with unique and unteachable political skills," said Mark Salter, a senior adviser to Sen. John McCain's (Ariz.) presidential bid who was deeply involved with the Palin pick. "I'm sure she has a future if

July 02, 2009 11:03 AM

July 02, 2009 11:03 AM

In a previous post, I wrote about how the coal industry got its way with ACES, the Waxman-Markey climate bill. Much of their victory had to do with sharply limiting the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency, whose chartered purpose is to protect the environment, and therefore, public health.

The agribusiness industry won a similar victory. When Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN), chair of the House Agriculture Committee and point person for an alliance of rural and coal state Democrats seeking to weaken the bill, put his foot down and said, "I'm pretty sure that any role for EPA in agriculture is a deal breaker."

Rep. Peterson's main complaint about the first draft of ACES, and what seemed to be the general complaint of the House Agriculture Committee, was that the legislation didn't give farmers enough money for things they were already doing. Throw more money at us based on no scientific evidence whatsoever, he said, or no deal.

House leadership took Peterson at his word. Like, for example, this word:

...Peterson feels the bill will do too much damage to agriculture because it is not treating the industry as part of the climate solution.

He is referring to the fact that any program to manage carbon offsets will be overseen by the EPA. He feels USDA is better equipped to manage any offsets.

"We're not going to agree to any offset system that is run by EPA, we're just not going to do it. We know more about sequestering carbon than EPA does. We have soil scientists, we have NRCS, we have somebody in every county. We've offered to them a process where we set up all the verification and at the end of the day we sign off on these credits at EPA and they are the ones that allocate them." ...

The final version of the House bill gives the US Department of Agriculture the authority to verify agricultural carbon offsets, just as Peterson wanted, ignoring the science that pins global greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel consumption on agriculture. Consider energy use:

... Twenty percent of the fossil fuel used in the United States goes toward food production. The U.S. food system includes agricultural production, the processes involved in growing and harvesting food crops and livestock, as well as the post-agricultural processes of transporting, packaging, and storing food.

... The amount of energy used in agricultural production may account for only 20 percent of the total energy spent by the overall food system, but it is still staggeringly high. Industrial farms use fossil fuels to power inefficient fuel systems and spread large amounts of fertilizers and pesticides--approximately 5.5 gallons of fossil fuels per farm acre.7 The Environmental Protection Agency reported that U.S. agricultural production in 2005 emitted about 625 teragrams of carbon diox-de equivalent.8 That is about as much carbon dioxide as 141 million cars release each year.9 Farm emissions more than double when their electricity usage is included. ...

The Enforcers Matter

Thing is, the USDA's chartered purpose is to promote agriculture in America. In practice, their purpose has become to shovel as much money as possible, as quickly as possible, into the bank accounts of town-sized factory farms, large food processors, meat packers, seed companies and farm chemical manufacturers.

The USDA is not, to my knowledge, quite as corrupt as the Dept. of the Interior programs charged with collecting oil and gas royalties, of which the New York Times reported that ...

[an] investigation also concluded that several of the officials "frequently consumed alcohol at industry functions, had used cocaine and marijuana, and had sexual relationships with oil and gas company representatives."

The investigation separately found that the program's manager mixed official and personal business, and took money from a technical services firm in exchange for urging oil companies to hire the firm. In sometimes lurid detail, the report accuses him of having intimate relations with two subordinates, one of whom regularly sold him cocaine. ...

Indeed, the judge in the class action suit brought against the DoI for failure to collect royalties on Tribal lands, found the agency kept its books so shoddily that he couldn't even determine how much the plaintiffs were owed. Which is to illustrate the point that the culture and perceived mandate of an agency affects the enforcement of the law as much as Congress' willingness to pass a law in the first place.

Yet as a 2004 report by Senator Harkin's (D-IA) office pointed out, the USDA has stood idly by as agricultural sectors have consolidated to the point where large companies can control prices and market information (pdf), to the detriment of both consumers and on-farm producers. While the four-firm concentration measures of oligopoly market power are higher now than when the USDA's Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration was first chartered, they have failed to take action:

... In the last few years there has been growing concern that USDA's Grain Inspection and Packers and Stockyard Administration (GIPSA) has not actively pursued complaints of anti-competitive actions in the livestock industry. In fiscal year 2003, GIPSA initiated or continued 1,744 investigations for violations of the Packers and Stockyards Act. Of these, only 31 complaints were investigated that pertain to practices that were suspected of being anti-competitive in nature. Only 8 of these investigations were ultimately finished or closed. USDA (GIPSA) has not taken administrative action against any of the alleged anti-competitive practices in the 31 complaints from 2003.

This level of enforcement action by USDA in 2003 is similar to other recent years. In addition, there is serious question whether USDA reports characterize the handling of all producer complaints (which could be simply a telephone call from a producer) as actual investigations, thus overstating the number of investigations acted upon by USDA. ...

The USDA inherited from the Bush adiministration has no interest in doing anything that might restrain the profits of large agricultural interests, who end up reaping almost all the reward from the agricultural subsidies paid out to 'help farmers.'

Helping Our Struggling Farm Chemical Companies

While Peterson insists that agriculture is part of the solution, as is, the fact is that it's only potentially part of the solution. Moreover, government subsidies have been set up in such a way as to ensure that the most environmentally unfriendly practices get an unfair competitive advantage, an advantage that an agricultural offset market run by the USDA will only expand.

Tom Philpott examines one practice likely to get such a boost, chemical no-till, of which he writes in Grist:

... A case in point is a farming practice called "no-till." In no-till systems, farmers plant directly into fields without plowing. One of the main reasons farmers plow is to control weeds. In a practice that has become known among critics as "chemical no-till," farmers idle the the plow and rely on chemical herbicides for weed control. Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" seeds-genetically modified to withstand lashings of Monsanto's herbicide glyphosate-have greatly facilitated chemical no-till in the Midwest: farmers can spray their fields with Roundup as needed, without affecting the crops. According to the Center for Food Safety [PDF], glyphosate use jumped 15-fold between between 1994 (when GMOs were first released) and 2005, generating a windfall in Roundup sales for Monsanto. Monsanto now clears more than $1 billion per year in profits from Roundup alone.

... As a source of carbon sequestration, chemical no-till is a highly questionable practice. In a 2006 peer-reviewed paper [PDF] called "Tillage and soil carbon sequestration-what do we really know?," a group of soil scientists led by John M. Baker of the USDA's Agricultural Research Service took a hard look at conventional no-till. They report: "Long-term, continuous gas exchange measurements have also been unable to detect C gain due to reduced tillage." Translation: No-till doesn't seem to sequester carbon. Their conclusion: "Though there are other good reasons to use conservation tillage, evidence that it promotes C sequestration is not compelling." The report compelled climate expert and frequent Grist contributor Joe Romm to declare that no-till farming "does not save carbon and is not a carbon offset."

Another peer-reviewed study, this one published in the British journal Soil Use and Management in 2006, suggests that conventional no-till leads to increased emissions of nitrous oxide-a greenhouse gas some 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide. "In many soils, the increase in carbon sequestration by adopting no-till systems may be largely negated by associated increases in N2O emission," the authors write. "The promotion of carbon credits for the no-till system before we have better quantification of its net greenhouse gas balance is naive." ...

Will anyone besides the Monsanto Corporation benefit from a subsidy of chemical no-till? Not really. Though that isn't in the USDA's current mandate to care about.

Helping Our Struggling Factory Feedlots

Getting back to agriculture's significant emissions, we get to industrial livestock production, whose greenhouse gas production the EPA won't even be allowed to monitor under the bill:

... It should also be mentioned that enteric fermentation-gases produced from livestock-is the number one source of methane emissions in the U.S.  Combined, manure and enteric fermentation produce about as many GHG emissions as the entire commercial sector's burning of fossil fuel in the United States.  The EPA did not require that enteric fermentation be considered a reporting category in their proposed rule.

The way in which CAFOs pool their manure together is a large part of the problem here.  When stored in pits and lagoons as is typical on factory farms, the manure breaks down anaerobically, in the absence of oxygen, which exacerbates methane emissions.  The EPA has acknowledged that when manures are distributed on pastures as would be typical in a grass-fed animal system, methane production is limited.  Thus, there are proven ways to reduce methane emissions in manure management. ...

As noted in a Center for Food Safety policy letter on factory livestock farming (pdf) a "2006 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) found that the animal agriculture sector contributes 18 percent of GHG emissions." That's worldwide and much of it is due to concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) that generate vast lakes of manure.

What does the USDA do about that hazard? As mandated by Congress, with significant impetus from the House Agriculture Committee, they've been subsidizing it, furthering both the practice itself and concentration in the livestock industry. Shreema Mehta writes in the now-defunct NewStandard News:

... CAFOs use EQIP funding to build manure lagoons lined with clay or concrete, said Dianna Power, a resource conservationist with the USDA. The lagoons allow farmers to store excess manure so they do not overspread it on crop fields and risk leakage into rivers and streams. To control the leakage of animal feed into the soil, farmers must also sometimes build filters for the stored piles of feed, which can reach twenty feet high.

In 2006, the government gave confined feeding operations more than $152 million in EQIP funding.

As previously reported by The NewStandard, researchers with the Environmental Integrity Project, a research and advocacy group, have documented over 320 manure spills from livestock-feeding operations in Iowa alone between 1992 and 2002. The resulting pollution killed an estimated 2.6 million fish. ...

As one policy expert quoted in the article explains, the EQIP (Environmental Quality Incentives Program) funding might cover up to 75 percent of the waste containment costs for large livestock operations, a routine cost of doing business that smaller ranching concerns have to cover out of their regular operating revenues.

When the 2008 Farm Bill passed, those subsidies were continued (pdf). Compare the cap of $80,000 over 6 years for the support of organic agricultural practices with the $300,000 per 6 year cap for environmental mitigation projects, or the $450,000 per 6 year cap for anaerobic methane biodigesters.

If $450,000 over 6 years sounds like an amount of money that you would only need to spend on methane digestion if you ran an enormous factory feedlot that had as many as 500,000 pigs on a single 'farm', you'd be right.

And are manure management and anaerobic digesters going to qualify for even more subsidies under ACES? You bet your bippy.

Is This Worse Than No Bill At All?

These sidesteps of EPA authority ensure that any agricultural offsets purchased under the carbon credits market are going to be highly suspect.

USDA is an industry captive agency whose only obvious interest is in functioning as a welfare agency for the likes of Cargill and Monsanto, and their analysis is going to be suspect. EPA's analyses would be, at least for a while, more likely to be objective.

The likelihood that these provisions come out in the Senate or conference is probably minimal, considering how narrow a margin the bill passed by in the House.

So would it be better not to have a bill at all? Maybe.

The EPA could be mandated to continue their rulemaking process and set up the greenhouse gas emissions controls they've already begun. They could evaluate agricultural practices based on how much carbon they actually do sequester, and those credits would probably be more trusted commodities.

On the bad side, a regulatory system set up by the EPA could suffer an immediate and crippling blow the minute a Republican got into office, or as soon as the agriculture industry figured out how to staff the EPA with their former employees, as has been done at the USDA. Also, we'd be sending Obama to the international Copenhagen climate conference empty-handed, with nothing to prove to other nations regarding the US government's firm commitment to curb our outrageous emissions.

Out of all those arguments, I think the international goodwill angle is the most persuasive, though we could have gotten to a good-faith agreement in other ways. And I don't think that this will look serious to other nations when two of our most polluting industrial sectors, coal and industrial agriculture, are delighted by it.

Perhaps they're right, the rest of the world just wants to see something, some small gesture, coming out of our retrograde, denialist, short-sighted Congress. Though I have to think that any other country who was truly impressed by this bill can't be serious about climate change in their own right.

ACES is a bribe to polluters to continue doing what they're good at, so long as they promise to accept lots of money to attempt to fix the problem. It sets up a regulatory framework that could in theory be fixed and strengthened in the future, but that's a vaporware hope, no better than longing for carbon capture & sequestration technology to magically cleanse coal.

I can't speak for the other nations this is supposed to impress, but I'd have been happier with a bill that had limited itself to R&D tax credits for renewable energy research, federal loan guarantees for clean energy equipment manufacturing and the laudable efficiency incentives that did make it in. That could have taken the big step of leveling the playing field between fossil fuels and clean energy, this just seems to retrench existing bad actors who'll be more empowered to botch future efforts to correct our climate problem. I worry that for all the progress that's been made, this bill feeds monsters that will come back to bite at the very worst times.

But wait, what's that you say? My pony plan wasn't on the table? Yeah, I know. And the reason that a good bill wasn't on the table is about the same reason that the implementation of this one is going to suck.

Our government is extremely corrupt and it tries really hard to avoid working on behalf of the ordinary voter or the public interest.

July 02, 2009 09:00 AM

New York - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) urged a federal court Wednesday to reject bogus copyright claims in a ringtone royalty battle that could raise costs for consumers, jeopardize consumer rights, and curtail new technological innovation.

Millions of Americans have bought musical ringtones, often clips from favorite popular songs, for their mobile phones. Mobile phone carriers pay royalties to song owners for the right to sell these snippets to their customers. But as part of a ploy to squeeze more money out of the mobile phone companies, the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP) has told a federal court that each time a phone rings in a public place, the phone user has violated copyright law. Therefore, ASCAP argues, phone carriers must pay additional royalties or face legal liability for contributing to what they claim is cell phone users' copyright infringement. In an amicus brief filed Wednesday, EFF points out that copyright law does not reach public performances "without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage" -- clearly the case with cell phone ringtones. If phone users are not infringing copyright law, then mobile phone service providers are not contributing to any infringement.

"This is an outlandish argument from ASCAP," said EFF Senior Intellectual Property Attorney Fred von Lohmann. "Are the millions of people who have bought ringtones breaking the law if they forget to silence their phones in a restaurant? Under this reasoning from ASCAP, it would be a copyright violation for you to play your car radio with the window down!"

ASCAP has responded by saying that it does not plan to charge mobile phone users, just mobile phone service providers. But if ASCAP prevails, consumers could find themselves targeted by other copyright owners for "public performances." Worse, these wrongheaded legal claims cast a shadow over innovators who are building gadgets that help consumers get the most from their copyright privileges.

"Because it is legal for consumers to play music in public, it's also legal for my mobile phone carrier to sell me a ringtone and a phone to do it," said von Lohmann. "Otherwise it would be illegal to sell all kinds of technologies that help us enjoy our fair use, first sale, and other copyright privileges."

The Center for Democracy and Technology and Public Knowledge also joined the EFF brief.

For the full amicus brief:
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/US_v_ASCAP/US%20v%20ASCAP%20EFF%20ATT%...

For more on this case:
http://www.eff.org/cases/us-v-ascap

Contact:

Rebecca Jeschke
Media Relations Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
press@eff.org

July 02, 2009 07:32 AM

Michelle Malkin ominously warns us to ‘[b]eware the grubby paws‘ of Barney Frank. It seems that the ‘powerful Massachusetts Democrat last week quietly introduced legislation that aims to use $1 billion in dividends paid by the recipients of government aid to provide rental housing opportunities for low-income and homeless families.’

The horror! One-fifth of the meager return taxpayers have received so far from the ongoing bailout of stupid, amoral predators might be spread thinly amongst their most vulnerable victims! Why, for half that sum, we could hire a K Street brain trust to conduct a feasibility study on the merits of forming a working group tasked with determining the benefits of appointing a committee entrusted with selecting a blue-ribbon panel charged with getting to the bottom of why we shouldn’t be doing this sort of thing at all!

Later in the Dow-Jones story Malkin cites, we learn that this modern-day Robin Hood wants to reallocate 4/700ths of the funds we’ve earmarked for well-heeled pyramid schemers to yet more paupers. Should this sort of thing continue, we’ll soon be allowing our impoverished clerks to take Christmas Day off to spend time with their crippled children.

Are there no workhouses, &cetera?

July 02, 2009 06:21 AM

The Congressional Budget Office has put an estimated price tag on the health care reform bill from the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP). The plan includes a public option, and will cost just over $600 billion over ten years:

Democrats on a key Senate Committee outlined a revised and far less costly health care plan Wednesday night that includes a government-run insurance option and an annual fee on employers who do not offer coverage to their workers.

The plan carries a 10-year price tag of slightly over $600 billion, and would lead toward an estimated 97 percent of all Americans having coverage, according to the Congressional Budget Office, Sens. Edward M. Kennedy and Chris Dodd said in a letter to other members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. The AP obtained a copy.

By contrast, an earlier, incomplete proposal carried a price tag of roughly $1 trillion and would have left millions uninsured, CBO analysts said in mid-June.

The most noteworthy part of this is that a 10-year price tag of slightly over $600 billion is slightly less than the $634 billion President Obama set aside for health care spending in the budget:

President Barack Obama's first budget will seek $634 billion over 10 years as a down payment on health care reform, a senior administration official said Wednesday.

The Senate has already passed the budget with the health care spending intact:

The Senate easily passed a $3.55 trillion federal budget late Thursday night to kick off a two-week recess, giving President Obama most of what he wanted in his first spending plan in office.

Senators voted 55-43 for a plan that was championed by the White House and congressional Democrats as key to reviving the nation's economy and panned by Republicans as too expensive to adopt.(...)

The Senate budget closely parallels the proposal put forth by Obama, trimming it only by $12 billion in non-defense discretionary spending

Add it all up, and the Senate has already passed a budget that can pay for the public option. While a few details need to be clarified, the overall structure is now in place.

At this point, the only way that a public plan does not pass into law is if right-wing Democratic ideologues like Joe Lieberman overwhelm The Progressive Bloc(k). You can make sure that doesn't happen by using the Citizen Whip Count tool at FireDogLake.

July 02, 2009 06:03 AM

Take a look at this hilarious bit of Republican erotica from Andy Cobb -- "Love Means Never Having to Say You're Resigning." Governor Mark Sanford truly is the gift that keeps on giving. Open thread below....

July 02, 2009 03:59 AM

Curious to learn more about Iran? Good.

Recently, I was sent 50 links to a bunch of great lectures on Iran, so I’ll share a few here and then send you over to True/Slant for more.

1. Islam and Modern Science:
   

   “Many people feel that that in fact there is no such thing as the Islamic problem of science. They say science is science, whatever it happens to be, and Islam has always encouraged knowledge, al-ilm in Arabic, and therefore we should encourage science and what’s the problem? -there’s no problem. But the problem is there because ever since children began to learn Lavoiser’s Law that water is composed of oxygen and hydrogen, in many Islamic countries they came home that evening and stopped saying their prayers. There is no country in the Islamic World which has not been witness in one way or another, to the impact, in fact, of the study of Western Science upon the ideological system of its youth.”

2. A Perspective on Iran’s Post-Revolution Political Economy:
   

   “The bleakest spot on the Islamic Republic’s 21-year performance record, and a constant threat to its survival, has been the economy. Downgraded by the regime’s founding father as unworthy of revolutionary pursuit, and described in the 1979 Constitution as “not an end in itself, but a means intended only to contribute to the attainment of the ultimate goal,” namely, “a movement toward God,” the post-revolution Iranian economy has remained the regime’s Achilles’ heel. Striving in vain to find an “Islamic model” which could put an end to what the revolutionaries called “crass materialism” and “consumerism,” the national economy has been managed in an ad hoc, improvised, and inconsistent manner. An unstable mixture of capitalism, populism and pragmatism with some ornamental Islamic topping has served as its anchor. As a result, the economy has moved from one crisis to another in an almost uninterrupted course.”

3. The Rise of “The Axis of Oil”—Big Trouble for the United States:
   

   “Linda Stuntz, who participated in a Council of Foreign Relations report last fall on “National Security Consequences of U.S. Oil Dependency,” stunned the Senators when she said that there was consensus among the report’s authors that talking about “energy independence” for the United States was chasing an impossible dream. Stuntz said that it was not clear whether the U.S. could achieve energy independence even with the most “draconian” government interventions. Dr. Flynt Leverett from the New America Foundation echoed Stuntz’s analysis: “…there is no economically plausible scenario for a strategically meaningful reduction in the dependence of the United States and its allies on imported hydrocarbons during the next quarter century.”

If you want to read, watch, or listen to more, swing by True/Slant.

July 02, 2009 03:47 AM

Just heard a rumor that Michael Jackson’s body will lie in state at the Staples Center in downtown Los Angeles, which seems both vainglorious and inadequate.  I mean, if they’re going to go that far, why don’t they just crack the seal on Lenin’s Snow White-style glass sarcophagus in Red Square and lay the King of Pop out alongside the Founding Father of Bolshevism (it is, after all, a two seater — Vlad used to bunk with Stalin — and Jacko’s pallor will make Lenin’s dull waxy build-up look like a healthy, George Hamiltonian tan).  Meanwhile, Karl Malden, one of filmdom’s finest character actors, has not been invited to lie in state at any major metropolitan arena, although the manager of Bullwinkle’s Restaurant & Family Fun Center in Tukwila, WA has offered to let the Academy Award-winner’s corpse cool on the air hockey table, as long as it’s gone by Sunday, because they’re having a birthday party.

Via our friend capconnundrum.

July 02, 2009 03:47 AM

Title: Voices CarryArtist: 'Til Tuesday This tune has always been one of my favorite top 40 songs. This live video from 1985 was shot during the band's first show in NYC and really showcases singer Aimee Mann's amazing voice. Her sound and look was truly unique and refreshing. What's your favorite Top 40 song? What's the worst Top 40 song ever? This song gets my vote for the worst.

July 02, 2009 03:16 AM

Awhile back, Digby wrote she feels the torture debate slipping away.  I'd like to try and put this in context.  This was always going to be tough.  It is a fight worth fighting, but nowhere in the world has the still potent previous ruling order ever rolled over and taken their lumps for the crimes they committed while in power without a massive fight.  While we may make references to Nuremburg, the most important difference there was that the Nuremburg trials were an act of imposing international law on Germany and Japan after conquering them.  This is an attempt to have domestic law enforcement mechanisms go after the leaders of the previous government for their official policy.  In the US, I don't believe such a thing has been done.  Worldwide, it isn't so common either.

Watergate is not an apt comparison either.  Nixon's motivies were clearly about personal advancement.  He wasn't ordering buildings firebombed and journalists murdered to "protect" America, he was cheating in the competitive game of politics.  Further, he acted guilty and had been stupid enough to tape himself.  The war crimes of the Bush Administration exist in a different realm, because they mostly lack a personal benefit motive on the part of the players involved.  They are still all over television brazenly defending what they did and attacking Obama for not continuing all of it.  It is still possible for them to claim all this was done to defend the nation, for the greater good and so on.  Nixon's claims of this sort were not credible.  For whatever reason, time and again personal failings bring down the scandal avalanche in a way that other illegality does not.  No doubt part of this is the pernicious US domestic news media, but not all of it.  People just seem to viscerally loathe bright line personal corruption in a way that makes, say, $90,000 in a freezer a much bigger deal than 90,000 (or 900,000) dead innocent Iraqi civilians.  It's a serious challenge for the long term viability of democracy.
None of this is "as it should be" in any ideal sense.  I'm just trying to describe how things sit.  The nice theoretical accountability mechanisms in the US Constitution are fine, but actually bringing down very powerful people on the basis of ethical principles, even with bright lines like "the rule of law" has always been very difficult.  The United States is over 200 years old, and has only successfully impeached a single-digit number of officials, and forced only 1 President to resign.  Even Jefferson Davis didn't spend very much time in prison.  This has never worked as designed.

Looking around the world, some have pointed to the recent conviction of former Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori.  It's clearly exceptional in recent world history.  He was chased from office to the point of Peru's Congress rejecting his (faxed) resignation so they could remove him from office themselves (a fate Nixon should have shared).  Despite all the human rights abuses, the precipitate cause of his downfall was a key underling of his being caught on camera bribing members of congress.  His domestic support had utterly (and rapidly) collapsed in a way Bush's never did.  Even so, his case is a hopeful exception to the norm, perhaps there are lessons there which might be applied elsewhere.  

In Bosnia and Herzegovina, a domestic court has been established for prosecuting war crimes that took place during the civil war.  As this OSCE report from 2005 notes though:

Moreover, monitoring has revealed the courts' reluctance to conduct effective prosecutions against defendants who held positions of power during the war and remain influential. Narrow interpretations of the facts and a lack of willingness to conscientiously explore the full circumstances have resulted in a number of
notable not guilty verdicts. Although 2004 saw several guilty verdicts and the imposition of lengthy prison sentences, a significant majority of these convicted defendants were low-ranking military personnel. OSCE monitoring also indicates that cases are processed less effectively and robustly where the defendants are
members of the majority local community and where the prosecution witnesses are from the minority.
(ii)

During the past decade, both France and Italy have wrestled with potential criminality of top officials.  Both managed to obtain legal immunity.  Chirac's supposedly ended when he left office, but he has not been charged as yet.  Berlusconi, incredibly, is back as Prime Minister of Italy and has passed a second immunity bill for himself.  

Consider Northern Ireland.  British troops killed 13 people in the Bloody Sunday massacre (yes, the one U2 sings about), and as of today, no one has been prosecuted, and only the second inquiry into the event has yet to release their report.  This is about events that took place in a liberal western democracy in 1972.  Similarly, no one has been prosecuted for ordering the "Shoot to kill" policy that was reputedly followed by RUC and SAS forces in Northern Ireland.  These weren't "war crimes" per se, but they were murders by state officials acting in an official capacity.  

The past couple years have seen the governments of Canada and Australia apologize to their indiginous populations for crimes committed by the european dominant governments toward them.  It is highly unlikely either country (or the US) will ever prosecute anyone for the various atrocities perpetrated on the aboriginals.  Most of the perpetrators are dead anyway.

The US Senate just got around to apologizing for slavery.  Need I go on?  

Simply, nation-states are generally crummy at prosecuting themselves for systemic widespread criminality.  In fact, this as all the more reason to need a powerful and active International Criminal Court.  Self-enforcement is clearly not working.

No, if liberals prevail, and senior members of the Bush administration are investigated and prosecuted for war crimes by US authorities, that will be a remarkable feat of progress.  It will be historic and noteworthy.  Not doing so will just be the status quo, and not just in the US..  It will not spell the abject failure of the Obama Presidency, except perhaps its failure to succeed beyond the ken of dozens of other world governments put in similar situations after periods of madness.  

But keep pressing.  Lots of seemingly unwinnable fights were in fact won, for the betterment of all.  Slavery was legal and normal almost everywhere not so long ago, until ethical people started to realize it was wrong, and a great evil.  How difficult that must have seemed to the first people who began to organize against it.  A break through would be splendid, but despair isn't the right reaction to failure on this front.  After all, Henry Kissinger is still a free man, it's not even the first time in living memory that senior officials in an administration committed outright war crimes and didn't face any consequences for it.  Hopefully, this time it will change.

July 02, 2009 02:38 AM

Amid fresh revelations that Sanford crossed a physical line with more women than his previously acknowledged Argentine affair, Republicans in South Carolina are letting the embattled Governor know publicly (and privately) that he should get with the program and scram.

From The State:

On Wednesday afternoon, Senate President Pro Tempore Glenn McConnell became the latest — and one of the most significant — members of the S.C. legislature to say the governor should consider stepping down after admitting to an affair. [...]

Ten Republican state senators have asked the governor to step down, while others say they are leaning in that direction. The Associated Press is reporting that 14 Republican state senators are supporting a resignation, which is a majority of the 27 GOP members.

Yes, but did they hear Sanford’s King David defense?

It. Is. Over.

July 02, 2009 02:16 AM

As you know, Blue America is targeting Blanche Lincoln because she has said she will not support a public option when it comes to the health-care debate. As Jane Hamsher says: But in the fourth year of their terms, every Senator becomes a Representative for two years. Blanche Lincoln is running for re-election in 2010. If she's ever going to be persuadable, now is the time. I agree with Jane completely. All Democratic politicians should be backing the public option if they want to see any kind of reform in the health-care industry. We have a way we think can persuade Lincoln: You can donate to Blue America's Campaign For Health Care Choice, here. It's getting harder every day, but it's not over. Blanche Lincoln is on the health sub-committee of the Senate Finance Committee and she's running for re-election in 2010. Let's see if her constituents think she should be handing out government goodies to these health industry fat cats and getting nothing in return while they struggle with health care premiums and growing unemployment. We aren't standing still while the fat cats get fatter. So here's the thing. We've produced three different commercials with the help of BNF's to run in Lincoln's state of Arkansas and we need your help. We've already raised over $18,000 so far and that's awesome, but what we want you to do next is it to vote for the ad that you think we should run first and you'll be letting us know by adding one, two, or three cents at the end of your donation on our Blue America's Campaign For Health Care page. Here's how it will go. #1 Blue America Health Care Campaign - Blanche Lincoln: "I Thought We Had Insurance" Add one cent to your contribution if you want to vote for this spot. #2 Blue America Health Care Campaign - Blanche Lincoln: "Bonuses" Add two cents to your contribution if you want to vote for this spot. #3 Blue America Health Care Campaign - Blanche Lincoln: "Bailout" Add three cents to your contribution if you want to vote for this spot. That's it, so a donation for #1 would look something like $20.01 Howie Klein explains: Help us get the word out about Senator Lincoln by donating whatever you can afford to the spot (or spots) you think will persuade her voters to give her a call. The spot that collects the most money by Friday at noon will win. And if we persuade her to commit to the quality public plan, so will all Americans. Everyone knows that if we don't have at least a vibrant public option, then health-care reform will be nothing more than health insurance companies giving us empty talking points about cutting costs and they will ultimately bamboozle their way into making just as much money by gaming the legislation and finding as many loopholes as they can. With a public option, we'll at least have a choice about the direction we want our health care system to go and remember, it's a huge start. America has been trying to reform health care since Harry Truman. Digby has an incredible post up that chronicles the history of this debate. As you can see, it's been an almost impossible task. But right now there is a real chance for the first time in 65 years to enact universal health care, however imperfect the specifics of it may be. I'm sure whatever they pass will be inadequate, just as medicare and Social Security were inadequate when they were originally passed. It seems to be the American way. But if our political and business elites have finally come to the consensus that America should join the first world and create a system that guarantees coverage to everyone, then I think we have to take the leap while we can. History shows that these chances don't come along every day. In fact, they come along about every couple of decades and we very rarely can even take an incremental step. We need to get universal health care on the books. Quinnipiac just did another poll which said that almost 70% of Americans want the government to create a health care alternative: Most Americans Support Public H

July 02, 2009 02:15 AM

Listen, I thought they should have done a revote in Minnesota, and I said as much on this blog. But nearly every single court decision went Al Franken’s way, and that’s just how it went down. Norm Coleman lost.

And when I watch the following inanity, I genuinely wonder if the folks at Fox News simply don’t care anymore about being anything but a mouthpiece for the RNC.

By the way, I count more than twice as many notable Republican politicians who were former celebrities than Dems. Actors include Arnold Schwarzenegger, Fred Thompson, Ronald Reagan and Sonny Bono. Sports stars include Tom Osborne, Steve Largent, Jack Kemp and Jim Bunning. Can you name anybody on the Dem side except for Bill Bradley, John Glenn and now Al Franken? I can’t think of anybody else who was genuinely well known other than those folks, but feel free to add others in the comments section.

But hey, whatever. It’s Fox.

July 02, 2009 02:00 AM

From Coalition of the Obvious, via Avedon, this useful "compare and contrast" on national health care systems. It especially means something to me because a few years back, after my unemployment ran out and I was working an hourly job, I developed pneumonia and couldn't afford to pay for a chest x-ray. I'm glad I'm still alive to tell the tale:

During my time in Venezuela, I developed a cough that went on for three weeks and progressively worsened. Finally, after I had become incredibly congested and developed a fever, I decided to attend a Barrio Adentro clinic. The closest one available was a Barrio Adentro II Centro de Diagonostico Integral (CDI) and I headed in without my medical records or calling to make an appointment. Immediately, I was ushered into a small room where Carmen, a friendly Cuban doctor, began questioning me about my symptoms. She listened to my lungs and walked me over to another examination room where, again without waiting, I had x-rays taken.

Afterwards, the technician walked me to a chair and apologized profusely that I had to wait for the x-rays to be developed, promising that it would take no more than five minutes. Sure enough, five minutes later he returned with both x-rays developed. Carmen studied the x-rays and informed me that I had pneumonia, showing me the telltale shadows. She sent me away with my x-rays, three medications to treat my pneumonia, congestion, and fever, and made me promise to come back if my conditioned failed to improve or worsened within three days.

I walked out of the clinic with a diagnosis and treatment within twenty-five minutes of entering, without paying a dime. There was no wait, no paperwork, and no questions about my ability to pay, my nationality, or whether, as a foreigner, I was entitled to free comprehensive health care. There was no monetary value connected with my physical well-being; the care I received was not contingent upon my ability to pay. I was treated with dignity, respect, and compassion, my illness was cured and I was able to continue with my journey in Venezuela.

This past year, a family friend was not so lucky. At the age of 56, she was going back to school and was uninsured. She came down with what she thought was a severe case of the flu, and as her condition worsened she decided not to see a doctor because of the cost. She died at home in bed, losing her life to a system that did not respect her basic human right to survive.

Her death is not an isolated incident. Over 18,000 United States residents die every year because of their lack of prohibitively expensive health insurance. The United States has the distinct honor of being the “only wealthy industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage”.(8)

Instead, we have commodified the public health and well being of those live in the US, leaving them on their own to obtain insurance. Those whose jobs do not provide insurance, can’t get enough hours to qualify for health care coverage through their workplace, are unemployed, or have “previously existing conditions” that exclude them from coverage are forced to choose between the potentially fatal decision of refusing medical care and accumulating medical bills that trap them in an inescapable cycle of debt. And sometimes, that decision is made for them. Doctors often ask that dreaded question; “do you have insurance?” before scheduling critical tests, procedures, or treatments. When the answer is no, treatments that were deemed necessary before are suddenly canceled as the ability to pay becomes more important than the patient’s health.(9)

It is estimated that there are over fifty million United States residents currently living without health insurance, a number that will skyrocket as unemployment rates increase and people lose their work-based health care coverage in this time of international financial crisis.(10)

Already this year, 7.5 million people have lost work-related coverage. Budget cuts for the state of Washington this year will remove over forty thousand people from Washington Basic Health, a subsidized program which already has a waiting list of seventeen thousand people.(11)

As I returned to the US from Venezuela, I was faced with the realization that as a society, the United States places a monetary value on life. That we make life and death judgments based on an individual’s ability to pay. And that someone with the same condition I had recently recovered from had died because, according to our system, her life wasn’t insured.

July 02, 2009 01:00 AM

There have been some good pieces out in the last few days by Dean Baker and Bob Kuttner on the politics of a modern version of the 1930s Pecora Commission on what happened to cause the Great Depression. The original Pecora Commission was an essential reason why FDR was able to be so successful in enacting sweeping New Deal programs to regulate the banks and stock speculators that had caused the crash. As Dean and Bob allude to, the modern version might not be so effective, but that's all up to Speaker Pelosi, Senator Reid, and (indirectly) the Obama administration. What I'm guessing that Dean and Bob are reacting to is the same rumors that I'm hearing: that Brooksley Born may be the only real progressive on financial issues appointed to the commission.

That would be a tragedy. A strong commission with subpoena powers and a serious mandate from Congress could really dig into the dirty deeds that Wall St. traders purposed that caused this crash. The education of the media and the public that could come with such an investigation would be invaluable. If instead you appoint a commission where a majority of members want to obscure what happened, and in fact want to protect the Wall St. system we have now, you both lose any chance of engaging the public and you make the people angry at both government and the bankers all the more suspicious.

I have said to my friends in the White House over and over again what to me is a plain and obvious truth: another year of economic pain, and a majority of the country is going to be spittin' mad. The only question is whether they are mad at the bankers and de-regulators who caused this mess, or mad at the Obama administration for not doing enough to solve it.

President Obama told Wall Street CEOs awhile back that he was the only thing that stood between them and pitchforks. As a person who has been involved in national politics for a very long time now, I am absolutely certain about one thing regarding next year's election: if Democrats protect Wall Street from the populist "pitchforks", they will be skewered by the pitchforks themselves.  

July 02, 2009 12:29 AM

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player! clMediaLoader.loadEmbed("88577047c","video","dp=2009/07&mid=8857&controller=video&model=flv&movieLength=84.903&mediatitle=Media+Matters+collects+the+best+of+Fox+pundits%27+reactions+to+Franken%27s+victory&embedkey=&nodelink=http://crooksandliars.com/node/&lup=1246477367&ar=0.75",400,336); DOWNLOADS: (1224) PLAYS: (10123) Media Matters has put together a nice pastiche of all the Fox talkers and other assorted right-wing pundits writhing in agony and rolling on the ground holding their heads at the very thought of Senator Al Franken assuming office. It's really something to behold. Besides the Fox crew, headed up by Brian Kilmeade and Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity waxing wroth over Franken's victory, you also had Limbaugh calling him "a genuine lunatic" (no doubt for having penned Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot). Jim Quinn chimed in that he thought the election was stolen. Mike Barnicle on Morning Joe thought it was "kind of a surprise" that Franken "behaved like a responsible adult". And Bill O'Reilly -- who has, em, a bit of a history with Franken -- has been on vacation all week, so we haven't heard yet from the Hot-Tempered One. We can hardly wait.

July 02, 2009 12:00 AM

John King shows what you don't want to do with fireworks with some exploding dummies.

July 02, 2009 12:00 AM

Robert Kenner warns that inexpensive food will cost Americans more money in health care.

July 02, 2009 12:00 AM

Barack Obama is an accomplished chef of Pakistani cuisine and reads the great Urdu poets -- now he needs to fix the economy.

July 02, 2009 12:00 AM

Mark Sanford continues to read aloud from his Hello Kitty diary about his love affair with an Argentine woman.

July 02, 2009 12:00 AM

NBC remembers Karl Malden by connecting him to Brian Williams, and Matt Lauer tours the empty rooms of Neverland Ranch.

July 02, 2009 12:00 AM

President Obama on Tuesday marked the historic withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq's cities by noting, "The Iraqi people are rightly treating this day as a cause for celebration." Alas, for former Vice President Dick Cheney, not so much. Cheney, who four years ago declared the insurgency in its "last throes," on Monday warned of new attacks. Of course, back in December, he praised President Bush for signing the very status of forces agreement that mandated the American pullback this week.

In an interview with the Washington Times, Cheney offered the latest line of attack in his never-ending campaign to claim that President Obama had made the nation less safe. Regarding this week's milestone required by the SOFA signed by George W. Bush and Prime Minister Maliki, Cheney declared himself "concerned" by General Odierno's statements regarding the redeployment:

"What he says concerns me: That there is still a continuing problem. One might speculate that insurgents are waiting as soon as they get an opportunity to launch more attacks. I hope the Iraqis can deal with it. At some point they have to stand on their own, but I would not want to see the U.S. waste all the tremendous sacrifice that has gotten us to this point."

If Cheney was gripped by such fears, he certainly wasn't voicing them when President Bush inked the agreement last year. On December 14, 2008, Bush in his press conference with Maliki announcing the pact specifically addressed this week's benchmark:

"First of all, we're here at the Iraqi -- at the request of the Iraqi government. It's an elected government. There are certain benchmarks that will be met -- such as troops out of the cities by June of '09. And then there's a benchmark at the end of the agreement.

As to the pace of meeting those agreements, that will depend of course upon the Iraqi government, the recommendations of the Iraqi military, and the close coordination between General Odierno and our military."

Just one week later, Vice President Cheney lauded that same agreement as just one of many accomplishments of the Bush administration in its Iraq war:

"I think the fact that we were able to go in as effectively as we did and take down the Saddam regime, that we were able to kill his sons, capture him, bring him to trial, that we had three national elections, that the Iraqis wrote a constitution that's bearing fruit today, that they've got a government that we just signed a historic agreement with, a status of forces agreement -- all of those things happened, including the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi -- all of those things happened up through the end of '06."

Of course, what also happened in 2006 was the dramatic escalation of the Iraqi insurgency and the descent of the country into civil war. Sadly, in May 2005, Vice President Cheney looked into his crystal ball and, as usual, got it all wrong:

"I think we may well have some kind of presence there over a period of time. The level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline. I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."

For their part, 73% of Americans favor the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Baghdad and others Iraqi cities. That support is bipartisan, with 74% of Republicans backing the pullout. Unsurprisingly, Dick Cheney is not among them.

Apparently, his insurgency against Barack Obama is far from being in its last throes.

(This piece also appears at Perrspectives.)

July 01, 2009 11:00 PM

I’m looking to add 3 bloggers to the roster, and the following is a list of some qualifications I’d be looking for and expectations I’d have:

• You must understand the basics of blogging (linking to other sites, embedding pictures and video, etc.), and having a blog is preferred but not absolutely necessary.
• Good grammar and punctuation skills are a must.
• You can be affiliated with any political party or none at all. However, realize that this is a site that hews closer to the middle, so if you believe that the government should take over all means of production or perhaps you think the US should be converted into a religious state, well, you may not want to apply.
• You should be willing to commit to a minimum of 5 posts per week.
• If you’re engaged in multiple social media platforms (Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Digg, etc.) and are willing to use them to promote your posts, that would be a big plus.
• Be able to interact with the commenters on your posts and keep the conversation on track.
• Stay true to the spirit of the site and always make sure you keep your arguments sharp and your language clean.
• Opportunities for compensation may develop as we get closer to election season, but for right now these spots are unpaid.

So, if you’re interested drop me at line at justin at donklephant dot com and let’s talk.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

July 01, 2009 10:50 PM

This is tremendous. As the largest employer in the country, their agreement will make a real difference to the congressional fight over healthcare reform. Again, an incremental step in the process, but it's a good sign:

WASHINGTON — Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest private employer, joined hands with a major labor union Tuesday to endorse the idea of requiring large companies to provide health insurance to their workers, a move that gives a boost to President Obama as he is pushing for health legislation on Capitol Hill.

“Not every business can make the same contribution, but everyone must make some contribution,” Wal-Mart’s chief executive, Michael T. Duke, wrote in a letter to White House and Congressional officials, adding that he favored “an employer mandate which is fair and broad in its coverage.”

The letter was issued jointly with Andrew W. Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, which represents two million workers, many of them in the health care industry, and John D. Podesta, who ran Mr. Obama’s transition to the presidency and leads the Center for American Progress, a Democratic policy organization here.

But Wal-Mart’s embrace of the employer mandate may come at a price. In its letter, the company says that if Congress imposes a requirement that employers offer insurance, it must also offer a guarantee to business that health care costs will in fact be contained, perhaps through a so-called trigger mechanism that would impose reductions if certain spending targets were not met.

“We’re for an employer mandate, but we believe that it has to be accompanied by these measures that are really going to deliver on the savings,” said Leslie A. Dach, Wal-Mart’s top lobbyist, who met with Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, on Tuesday afternoon to discuss the proposal. “If any business is going to be asked to take on an employer mandate, to face changes in the tax laws, there should be some sense that the promise of the bill to reduce health costs will actually occur.”

The employer mandate is central to Mr. Obama’s plan for expanding health coverage to the nation’s 46 million uninsured, but many companies, including Wal-Mart, have long resisted the idea. But as health legislation moves through Congress, representatives of industry are becoming increasingly convinced that they must join forces with the administration to have a seat at the negotiating table.

The trade group representing pharmaceutical companies recently promised to cut the cost of prescription drugs by $80 billion over 10 years, and Democratic officials said hospitals were close to reaching a similar agreement on cost-cutting with the Obama administration. Mr. Emanuel said Tuesday afternoon that chief executives of other companies — he did not specify which — had also expressed interest in embracing an employer mandate.

“Everybody is now trying to get their seat on the train,” Mr. Emanuel said.

July 01, 2009 10:00 PM

Today we’re bringing you a fresh new wingnut, Joan Swirsky.  But although she was heretofore unknown to us, Joan is a woman of no little distinction and accomplishment.  A nurse and “certified psychotherapist,” she’s the author of several books (including Beauty and the Beam: Your Complete Guide to Cosmetic Laser Surgery, and “Mommy, I Want to Kill Myself!”), and has written science and feature articles for The New York Times Long Island section.  Nowadays, she contributes articles to wingnut websites such as Canada Free Press, NewsMax and RenewAmerica.  So, judging by the trajectory of her career, we can once again see the wisdom in Dr. King’s words, “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward batshit crazy.”

“Domestic terrorists” gear up for July 4th tea parties

On April 15, over a million people — who had already smelled the contaminated coffee of the Obama regime’s galloping socialism-cum-communism-cum totalitarianism — attended thousands of Tea Parties across the country

You know, if someone served me a cup of coffee doctored with socialism, communism, totalitarianism and three helpings of cum, I’d switch to tea too. Or at least ask for some Cremora.

Since then, the Tea Party movement has grown exponentially, with hundreds more taking place on a regular basis and attended by Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, et al — all increasingly horrified at Obama’s breakneck efforts to destroy free-market capitalism, inflict decades of debt on future generations, spit on the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, employ a Hitler-like force of ACORN brown-shirts (read what Dr. Paul L. Williams has to say about them here) to manipulate the census and intimidate critics, compromise our military and intelligence services, and ultimately bring about a caliphate of repressive Muslim (Sharia) “law” to the United States of America.

Wow, that’s quite a sentence.  I don’t have time to get through the whole thing now, but I’m planning to throw that sentence in my beach bag and finish it over the summer.

Sure enough, a day before the Tax Day demonstrations — which Obama’s Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the “president” knew nothing about — Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano issued a fatwa…

Oh, so we’re under Sharia “law” already?  Damn, that Caliph Obama is sneaky.  Well, at least Joan can make rude gestures from under her burqa and Grand Vizier Clinton will never know.

…that declared the extraordinarily peaceful Tea Party attendees de factor “domestic terrorists” — including our military!

That’s why we keep losing wars — our military’s too peaceful!

As radio host Dr. Laurie Roth has written: “That offensive and lying list ended up targeting two-thirds of the country, certainly those who love their freedom, Constitution, and God.”

I might take issue with the timeliness of an article on last April’s Teabaggings, but choosing to demonize the DHS report on right wing extremists after two high profile killings by right wing extremists shows that Joan has her finger firmly on the pulse of America’s medical school cadavers.  Anyway, like her fellow journalist, John L. Perry, Joan also believes the secret to award-winning writing is lists of Obama’s crimes against white, Judeo-Christian humanity, in this case ranging from with the weirdly ungrammatical (”Genuflects like an obsequies toady to an Arab potentate”) to the vaguely hematological (”Proves daily that appeasement to America’s enemies runs thick in his Leftist blood”).  Seventeen charges in all, but Joan is showwoman enough to leave the rubes wanting more, for “[a]s readers of my articles have read before, this is the short list!”

The majority of Americans — including the Obama constituency of Blacks, Hispanics, gays, feminists, and liberal pundits, et al. — are now having Buyer’s Remorse!

Oh thank goodness!  From the symptoms, I thought it was something serious, like Drunkard’s Itch, or Scrivener’s Palsy.

But for most people, when they consider what this alien hybrid of a Manchurian Candidate and Trojan Horse has done in five short months to bankrupt our country and everyone in it, it clear that this “president” is the worst thing that has ever happened to the land of the free and the home of the brave.

As anyone who’s read Better Living Through Bad Movies knows, s.z. and I have watched a lot — a lot — of post-apocalyptic movies, and I have to say, as post-apocalypses go, this is a trifle disappointing.  Where’s the barbaric splendor?  Where’s the creatively mutated, fur-clad survivors?  The futuristic domed city states?  The hot cyborg assassinatrixes who are mankind’s last, best hope against an influx of genocidal aliens?  Are you saying we get a minority ownership position in the automobile manufacturing industry and a switch to digital TV, and that’s it?  What kind of crappy apocalypse is this?

Or maybe it’s just that America is only mostly dead, because according to Joan, “citizens have been hard at work in heroic efforts to save America from the catastrophe known as Obama.”  These efforts spawn another list, including local wingnuts pushing “state sovereignty legislation through to reclaim States Rights under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments,” which I suspect will have the same transformative effect upon our system of government as those abstinence pledges have had upon America’s youth.  Additionally, you won’t be surprised to learn that:

A Grand Jury effort is underway to force Obama to open up the birth, college and passport records he has spent a million bucks to keep sealed and secret.

Numerous lawsuits are pending in numerous courts demanding that Obama make his life‚”transparent” for all to see, all of them convinced that he cannot pass Constitutional muster for the office he holds.

If the court orders Obama to “make his life,’transparent’ for all to see,” he’ll likely be forced to greet dignitaries and heads of state at the door of the White House clad only in a sheath of Saran Wrap.  While this represents a significant departure from protocol, it could, as Marabel Morgan explained in The Total Woman, add desperately needed sizzle to our foreign policy, and help our erstwhile allies fall back in love with us.

Speaking of which, today is our wedding anniversary, so Mary and I are off to hike the Appalachian Trail.  Catch ya later.

July 01, 2009 09:52 PM

Arnold Schwarzenegger's ineptitude has led California into complete ruin. David Dayen had the latest updates from last night.

d-day: Late Night With The Legislature, End Of The World As We Know It Edition

It has been truly depressing to watch the Twitter feeds of John Myers and Scott Lay tonight, as the mood shifted from guardedly hopeful to despairing. The Senate keeps voting on things and not coming up with any solutions. They tried to pass the stop-gap solution again, and came up short of the votes needed. They passed the majority-vote budget with some fee increases, and the Governor vetoed them. Let's all please remember that. With a stroke of the pen, the Governor could have ended this.

If SB 64 and SB 80 (the stop-gap) don't pass by midnight (and actually, in an hour or so, because it takes a couple hours to prepare the necessary paperwork), the state will forfeit $3 billion in cuts to the 2008-09 budget year, which they will have to find in the following year, and a total of around $7 billion in total costs, when you add in the costs of additional borrowing, etc... read on

Keep reading if you want to get depressed. This is a great state and in Arnold's hands, it's going down the tubes and fast.

July 01, 2009 09:00 PM

July012009From Huffington PostBy Nicholas Graham---Reporter Steve Ryan Slaps Drunk Prankster In The Face For Ruining Broadcast (VIDEO)We sympathize with (but do not condone!) reporter Steve Ryan's reaction after this drunk prankster repeatedly harassed him during his live Las Vegas Strip broadcast about Michael Jackson's death. Ryan tries to continue his live report, and initially reacts with

July 01, 2009 08:49 PM

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player! clMediaLoader.loadEmbed("8853e4839","video","dp=2009/07&mid=8853&controller=video&model=flv&movieLength=178.413&mediatitle=Beck+says+%27cap+and+traitor%27+talk+he+used+the+day+before+is+%27over+the+top%27&embedkey=&nodelink=http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/cap-and-traitors-does-glenn-beck-eve&lup=1246430163&ar=0.75",400,336); DOWNLOADS: (823) PLAYS: (1800) Yesterday on his Fox News show, Glenn Beck was conversing with Sen. Jim DeMint, and I guess he decided to get all respectable or something, because he uttered the following: Beck: I will tell you that I -- we discussed this on the radio program earlier today, that, um, a lot of people are calling this, where was it? In the Washington Examiner today. That they -- that people are saying that "Cap and Trade" is "Cap and Traitor". They're actually -- people are starting to view people -- both Republicans and Democrat -- as traitors to the country. Which I think is over the top. That's a very specific definition. Funny thing, because just 24 hours before, on the same program, Beck was running a reward poster on his show naming the eight Republicans who voted for the bill "Cap and Traitors." His guest, Kevin Mooney of the (you guessed it!) Washington Examiner, called them "traitors" too. Guess that wasn't "over the top" then. Because Glenn Beck went through a time warp or was abducted by aliens or something and everything he said the day before was now actually said by a whole other, different Glenn Beck. Something like that. You can't make this stuff up. It's like watching a bad old science fiction movie, I tell ya.

July 01, 2009 08:00 PM

This week the United States moved ever closer to completing its daring humanitarian mission in Iraq: to slowly and grudgingly leave the country, after paying local residents not to kill them, after spending a very long time killing those residents by any means possible, after failing to recruit those residents to work for them, after invading their country and destroying its infrastructure. And

July 01, 2009 07:57 PM

I am growing increasingly excited about the emerging Progressive Block strategy. In short, the Progressive Block is where a critical mass of House progressives threaten to join with Republicans in voting against Democratic legislation unless specific, progressive provisions are included in that legislation. It delayed the Democratic leadership for a few weeks on the Afghanistan-IMF supplemental appropriations bill, and has led Speaker Nancy Pelosi to declare that health care reform without a public option will not pass the House.

I am really pumped about this. In the extended entry, I give six reasons why you should be excited, and willing to help out, too.
Here is why the Progressive Block strategy is one of the most exciting new developments for progressives in 2009:

1. It is a new strategy based upon conditions that only recently have appeared
The Progressive Block strategy has only become possible in the last six months. That is is even possible is a sign of real political progress in America. As mcjoan summarized on Sunday, in order for the Progressive Block strategy to work, you need all of the following conditions to me met, and that only happened in 2009:

1. A Democrat in the White House, and Democratic majorities in both branches of Congress. (Achieved in November 2008) Lacking this condition, the working conservative majority, as expressed by Matt Stoller and Paul Rosenberg, will take over again.

2. A piece or pieces of legislation that the Democratic leadership in Congress and the White House both consider absolute necessities to pass, either politically or structurally. (Good examples include health care and the Afghanistan-IMF supplemental.). Unless you are threatening something that the leadership highly values, they won't care about what progressives do.

3. A clear, easily understood demand from the progressive grassroots that can be included in the must-pass legislation. The public option is a good example of this, whereas the percentage of emission allowances sold at auction in a cap and trade bill is not. Lacking such a clear line, the idea will be much more difficult to sell both to members of Congress and to progressive activists who will supply the pressure to help hold the Progressive Block in line.

4. A Republican caucus that will reflexively vote almost unanimously against any must-pass Democratic legislation. It is increasingly obvious that this is the case for health care.

5. Enough Democrats in Congress who, unless the demand is met, are willing to vote against the must-pass legislation so that they form a majority when combined with Republicans. This obviously requires lots of coordination and pressure with the progressive grassroots. It is also why this strategy is called the Progressive Block, rather than the Progressive Bloc.

6. The final condition, which mcjoan did not mention, is a Democratic leadership, in either the White House or Congress, that is able to get conservative and centrist Democrats to fall in line with the progressive demand. As ineffective, or unwilling, as the White House and the Democratic Congressional leadership often appear to make right-wing Democrats fall in line, they have previously demonstrated an ability to do so on the legislative efforts they value most highly. Examples include the stimulus, the budget, and even the second $350 billion in bailout funds from the Senate back in January. When they really want the votes, they can get them.

In the specific case of health care, it also helps that the reconciliation process is still available, circumventing the filibuster.

2. It narrows our target range
Rather than needing to pressure 218 members of the House to hold a hard line, the Progressive Block strategy only requires 40-50 members of the House to hold a hard line. This allows for more narrowly targeted and concentrated activism. This will allow our activism to have more of an overall impact.

3. It gives us a more receptive audience
In this strategy, we are primarily calling and emailing more progressive members of Congress. This is a big step up from the often futile fight to convince Blue Dogs and conservodems to do the right thing. These members of Congress are our ideological cohorts, and might just listen to us.

4. It has already been proven effective by the Blue Dogs
Ever since Democrats retook Congress in 2007, the Blue Dogs have proven that this strategy works. By consistently threatening to throw their support with Republicans unless their demands are met, the Blue Dogs have won concessions on Iraq, FISA, the stimulus, EFCA, and much more. Further, rather than animosity, it has gotten them nothing but praise and coddling from the Democratic leadership.

5. It doesn't require outside approval
I am so tired of haring excuses from the Democratic leadership, futilely trying to encourage conservodems to do the right thing, waiting for advocacy groups to finally become more aggressive, and pretending that bipartisanship is getting us anywhere. Perhaps the best part about this strategy is that it doesn't require the approval of the Democratic leadership, the White House, the media, or the progressive advocacy infrastructure. Given current political conditions, it only requires the approval of the Progressive Block.

Now, moderate and corporate Dems can stop lecturing progressives about the vagaries of "political reality." This is because, through the Progressive Block, we are creating political reality, rather than merely suffering its effects.

6. It is being driven by new progressive forces
In addition to Representatives Raul Grijalva and Lynn Woolsey, who chair the Congressional Progressive Caucus, some of the principle architects of this strategy include Darcy Burner, Jane Hamsher, and Matt Stoller (who even suggested the idea last June). It didn't come from the Democratic leadership, and it didn't come from cautious advocacy groups. And none of it would be possible without the grassroots activists who make blogs possible through their donations, commentary, and readership. I love that. It was about time that the new and / or more aggressive progressive members of Congress, operatives, organizations and grassroots came upon a workable strategy of our own.

We are no longer just pawns and supplements in the legislative process. We are no longer just a bunch of lefties howling into the wilderness. We really are coming into our own. And I honestly believe that if enough activsts buy into this strategy and help build the Progressive Block, that we are going to get a public health insurance option as a result.

July 01, 2009 07:24 PM

July012009From a friendBy talent network news---A close friend sent us this info… so it MAY be incorrect. But we doubt it. This is concerning the 4th of July holiday weekend in Pennsylvania that is upon us and DUI Checkpoints. Be on the look out for Penn-Dot trucks parked along the road or appearing behind you pacing you, it could be a Trooper driving the truck, it is called "Operation Yellow

July 01, 2009 07:06 PM

It is curious that this AP article left out one giant aspect of the UBS scandal -- the role former GOP Senator Phil Gramm may have played in their illegal activity.

MIAMI – Swiss bank UBS AG "systematically and deliberately" violated U.S. law by dispatching private bankers to recruit wealthy Americans interested in evading taxes and must be forced to reveal the identities of 52,000 of those clients, the Justice Department said in a court filing Tuesday.

The filing, which comes amid several published reports that the case may be near settlement, urges U.S. District Judge Alan S. Gold to hold UBS accountable for conducting years of illegal business on U.S. soil — business that earned the bank more than $100 million in fees but cost the U.S. hundreds of millions of dollars in unpaid taxes.

"It is time for UBS to face the consequences that it has brought upon itself," said Justice Department tax attorney Stuart Gibson in the 55-page filing. "The United States has proven its case for enforcement."

As Jon Perr wrote earlier this year, Gramm was instrumental in handcuffing the IRS while he was in the Senate, and may have paved the way for UBS to commit their crimes once he became their Vice Chairman in 2002.

July 01, 2009 07:00 PM

The resignation hum is growing in South Carolina as Gov. Mark Sanford tries to weather the storm of his own making. AP Photo by Steve Helber 19 That's the number of Republican state legislators in South Carolina who have gone on the record to call for Gov. Mark Sanford to step aside in the wake of his disappearance and a series of admissions of dalliances outside of his marriage. In addition to the 19 members of the state legislature calling for his ouster, six newspapers -- the Greenville News, the Rock Hill Herald, the Aiken Standard, the Spartanburg Herald-Journal, the Orangeburg Times and Democrat and the Charlotte Observer -- have also opined that Sanford's time leading the state is up. Even Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C) seems to have turned the corner on Sanford, telling Fox & Friends this morning that "a lot of us are talking to him behind

July 01, 2009 07:00 PM

July012009From YouTubeBy Dos Equis Beer---We are pronouncing the Dos Equis Commercial's the Most Interesting Campaign in the WorldWe love thes spost and by searching youtube there are a bunch more to come.We don't often praise commercial's but when we do we praise Dos Equis.The Original video that started it allVideo - Dos Equis: The Most Interesting Man in the World (2009)Video - Dos Equis: The

July 01, 2009 06:50 PM

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player! clMediaLoader.loadEmbed("8847673be","video","dp=2009/07&mid=8847&controller=video&model=flv&movieLength=399.943&mediatitle=Hardball%3A+Vanity+Fair%27s+Todd+Purdum+Discusses+His+Recent+Article+on+Sarah+Palin&embedkey=&nodelink=http://crooksandliars.com/heather/hardball-vanity-fairs-todd-purdum-discusse&lup=1246421483&ar=0.75",400,336); DOWNLOADS: (800) PLAYS: (4867) Vanity Fair's Todd Purdum joined Chuck Todd, filling in for Chris Matthews on Hardball, to discuss his recent article on Sarah Palin.

July 01, 2009 06:00 PM

The latest installment of Mouthpiece Theater -- a day late due to Post digital video problems but NEVER a dollar short -- for your viewing pleasure. Bananas Note: Please upgrade your Flash plug-in to view our enhanced content. var thisObj = "flashcontentmt-063009_1v";var so = new SWFObject("http://media10.washingtonpost.com/wp/swf/OmniPlayer.swf", thisObj, "400", "225", "8", "#ffffff");so.addParam("allowScriptAccess", "always");so.addParam("swfliveconnect", true);so.addParam("allowFullscreen", true);so.addVariable("thisObj", thisObj);so.addVariable("bcID","mt-063009_1v");so.addVariable("playads", true);so.addVariable("autoStart", false);so.addVariable("adsrv","");so.write("flashcontentmt-063009_1v");

July 01, 2009 06:00 PM

“I am not unaware of the controversies swirling around this dinner, swirling around the speed — or lack thereof — that we’re moving on issues that are of great importance to you and, quite frankly, to me and to the president and to millions of Americans…. More importantly , I want thank you for being a critical — critical — voice for keeping the nation focused on the unfinished business of true equality for all of our people; and I know and this administration knows that we have so much more to do. I promise you, I promise you, with your help we’ll get there in this administration.”
(6/25/09, LGBT Leadership Council fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee)

Joe Biden said he had specifically requested to speak at the LGBT Leadership Council fundraiser and that his wife, Jill, is also interested in voicing her opinion on the issue. To a crowd of 180 people who paid $1,000 - $30,400 per plate to hear him speak, Biden gave a heart-felt message that the Administration is committed to making equality for gays and lesbians a priority during this term. Even though many were pleased with Biden’s message, there were hordes of protestors outside who were not pleased with the 265 gays and lesbians discharged from the military since Obama’s inauguration, which they say is a failure to follow through with campaign promises.

Read what Biden had to say about the Recovery Act & Violence Against Women here.

July 01, 2009 05:40 PM

Not-so-sMarty Peretz is displeased with Obama’s stance on the Iranian protests:

Let’s face it. The American president has not exactly been on the wrong side…. But he has certainly not been on the right side. Not with his mincing and parsimoniously petty escalations of do-nothing rhetoric.

Because as any neocon will tell you, there are two sides to every conflict; one is purely good and the other unspeakably evil — there are no shades of gray. Then, in Geddy Lee shrillo voce, neocons will insist that if you choose not to decide/ You still have made a choice. Thus by the neocons’ reckoning, Obama, who has refused to involve himself much with the conflict lest he jeopardize the protesters he actually sympathizes with, is somehow objectively pro-Ahmadinejad.

One piece I commend to you is Fouad Ajami’s op-ed in the June 22 Wall Street Journal, “Obama’s Personal Tutorial: The president has to choose between the regime and the people in the streets.”

And that is really the choice.

Yeah, yeah. Standard neocon boilerplate: the macho tone, faux idealism, barely-masked cynicism, the overflowing mendacity. Then, in his concluding, sell-a-subscription paragraph, he says something interesting:

If you don’t you’ll have to wait until the rich little essays on the Iranian revolt go on-line. They are all informative, really each and every one of them. Let me especially commend one. It is by Nader Mousavizadeh, a former student, a good friend and past assistant editor of this magazine. Oh, yes, he is also a senior fellow at the Institute of Strategic Studies in London. Nader really knows what he is talking about, unlike many of those whose attitudes are drawn from their always cool and detached temperaments. I’ve learned much from his disciplined yet morally engaged mind, from this piece perhaps more than any other.

What a blurb! Somewhere, a jealous Jamie Kirchik just sobbed into his pillow. Extra credit to Marty for the next-to-last sentence, a bitter sneer at, he imagines, Obama’s and Brent Scowcroft’s expense. But just who is this Nader guy Peretz likes so much? A glance at his essay reveals sympathetic biographical details; also, a clever — by which I mean, devious — neoconservative take on Obama’s “loss of nerve.” The essay’s not nasty enough for Commentary and it’s too smart for The Weekly Standard; but Peretz’s rag is just right. Anyway… Institute of Strategic Studies… where have I seen that name? Ahhh, the time crapsule! Yep:

A FEARFUL ACCOUNTING The International Institute for Strategic Studies has released a comprehensive report detailing the stockpile of weapons of mass destruction currently available to the Iraqi government, and projecting how long it would take Iraq to develop on other weapons of mass destruction. This report is an eye-opener for anyone who still doubts that Saddam Hussein is a threat.

posted by Pejman at 9/09/2002 11:37:00 AM

Oh. Those guys. (Incidentally, Pejman’s site mysteriously vanished from blogger after the “Time Crapsule” post; IISS’s article, meanwhile, has been robots.txted for who knows how long.)

Before blaming Obama for an “emboldened” Iranian regime, Mousavizadeh concedes “[t]hat there are few lessons to be learned from the cheerleaders of the Iraq war… goes without saying.”

YA RLY.

July 01, 2009 05:12 PM

Defying the wishes of the national Democratic Party leadership, today comes news that both Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Representative Joe Sestak (D-PA) will mount primary challenges to Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and Senator Arlen Specter, respectively. Good for both Sestak and Maloney. If the leadership can't control their own Senate caucus enough to pass progressive legislation, then they shouldn't be able to prevent progressive primary challenges, either.

Although neither Sestak nor Maloney are making their official campaign launches at this time, in the extended entry I discuss polling, voting records, and other important information that will help you make sense of these campaigns.

Voting records
DW-Nominate places both primary challengers to the left of the incumbent Senators. Here are the most recent comparisons, from 2007-2008 (-1.000 is the most liberal possible, and 1.000 is the most conservative possible, although no one really ever scores beyond 0.750 in either direction):

Gillibrand 0.233 vs. Maloney 0.442 (Difference: 0.209)
Specter 0.091 vs. Sestak -0.287 (Difference: 0.378)

So, Maloney has a more progressive record (she is actually a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, though she did vote for the Iraq war), but the gap between Specter and Sestak is much greater.

Polling
In New York, Gillibrand and Maloney are already tied:

Quinnipiac (6/21): Maloney 27%, Gillibrand 23%, Tasini 4%
Schoen (5/31): Maloney 34%, Gillibrand 32%
Marist (4/29): Gillibrand 36%, Maloney 31%

Normally, is would be extremely bad news for an incumbent. However, Gillibrand and Maloney have equal name identification, so this really is a dead heat. One advantage Maloney (who represents parts of Manhattan and Queens) might have is that 60% of the 2008 New York primary electorate came from New York City (50%) and Long Island (10%), theoretically providing her with a larger geographic base than Gillibrand (who is from the Albany and Hudson Valley region). Then again, Long Island votes more like Upstate than like New York City, meaning there is no advantage in either direction.

In Pennsylvania, Specter currently holds a roughly 20% lead on Sestak. The Pollster.com trendline shows Specter ahead 40.6%--23.7%, and the four most recent polls show an average of Specter 47.8%--25.0% Sestak. However, as I discussed in more detail last week, Sestak is already ahead among Democrats who know both candidates. Further, Sestak's strongest demographic groups are actually the less Democratic, less-liberal sections of the party, meaning that Specter is in the awkward position of having to hold down a liberal base while being challenges from the left.

Money (as of March 31st)
Specter: $6,735,915
Sestak: $3,343,701
Gillibrand: $2,202,825
Maloney: $1,339,081

Primaries
Both primaries are "closed," in that only registered Democrats can vote.

The Pennsylvania primary takes place on May 18th, 2010
The New York primary takes place in early September, 2010

July 01, 2009 05:01 PM

An unlikely diplomat, President Richard Nixon saw his presidency defined by his foreign policy accomplishments. (STF/AFP/Getty Images) Today begins the first of three weeks of analysis and debate over the three nominees -- Richard Nixon, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Tip O'Neill -- for inclusion in the Fix Political Hall of Fame. We will make a case for and a case against each man in the next 21 days and at the end of that process, we'll turn it over to Fixistas for a vote. The man with the most votes enters the HOF. The others have to, as Doris Kearns Goodwin says, wait 'till next year (or, in this case, next month). Nixon is first up in this shortened holiday week -- a slight that the former president almost certainly would have noticed and groused about were he still alive. Perseverance Personified: If part of the American ethos is

July 01, 2009 05:00 PM

California Democrat Francine Busby lost a heated 2006 race against Republican Brian Bilbray that was plagued by voting irregularities and a hasty swearing in of Bilbray by then Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert.

Fast forward to last Friday night, and a Busby fundraiser for her 2010 run that ended in what appears to be a gross miscarriage of justice and innocent people being assaulted with pepper spray and physically abused -- all based on a bogus complaint from a bigot in the neighborhood:

ENCINITAS — Francine Busby says she will demand an explanation from the Sheriff's Department about deputies breaking up a fundraising party held for her in Cardiff and arresting the host.

The party was Friday night in the 1300 block of Rubenstein Avenue, the home of Shari Barman, a Busby supporter.

It ended with Barman, 60, being arrested and jailed on suspicion of battery on a peace officer, and resisting, delaying and obstructing a peace officer.

Pam Morgan, 62, a Rancho Santa Fe resident and one of the guests, also was arrested and taken to the Encinitas Sheriff's Station, where she was cited for resisting, delaying and obstructing a peace officer.

Here's where things get interesting. Apparently, the hosts of the fundraiser are a lesbian couple and they just happen to have one nasty, homophobic neighbor:

During Busby's speech, Barman said in a statement yesterday, a man on the property behind her house shouted “disparaging remarks” about Busby and gay people. Barman lives in the house with her partner, Jane Stratton, 55.

“It was a quiet home reception, disrupted by a vulgar person shouting obscenities from behind the bushes,” Busby said. Read on...

This situation was clearly mishandled by the officers involved and I hope Francine and her friends get a formal and very public apology and that all charges in the matter are dropped. C&L helped raise money for her in 2006, how about we do it again for 2010? Please visit Francine Busby's website and show her some love and support!

July 01, 2009 05:00 PM

At 3:45pm EST, I'll be on MSNBC to talk about, "Franken in the Senate - how does that change things for the Dems?"

What are your thoughts on that?

UPDATE: Here's the clip. Not my best performance, also Matt Baucus may disagree. Anyway, critique away!!

July 01, 2009 04:51 PM

While I was away for almost two weeks, the ACLU and many of my blogger pals took to their keyboards and wrote about the many brutal deaths that occurred at the hands of people engaging in torture for the US. The torture issue is horrifying and the longer we get away from the Bush years, the more information the ACLU is able to gather. These documents are, in a word, vile.

The ACLU writes:

Tortured to Death

Today, several prominent bloggers are writing about detainees who died in U.S. custody, using documents released through the ACLU’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. We’re not talking suicide, or death by "natural causes." No, this is death as a result of torture and abuse while in custody. This effort comes on the eve of the release — we hope — of the CIA Inspector General’s report on waterboarding. (You might’ve heard last Friday that the release was delayed.)

At Salon, Glenn Greenwald writes:

The interrogation and detention regime implemented by the U.S. resulted in the deaths of over 100 detainees in U.S. custody — at least. While some of those deaths were the result of "rogue" interrogators and agents, many were caused by the methods authorized at the highest levels of the Bush White House, including extreme stress positions, hypothermia, sleep deprivation and others. Aside from the fact that they cause immense pain, that’s one reason we’ve always considered those tactics to be "torture" when used by others — because they inflict serious harm, and can even kill people. Those arguing against investigations and prosecutions — that we Look to the Future, not the Past — are thus literally advocating that numerous people get away with murder.

Marcy Wheeler focuses on the case of detainee 04-309:

Now I’m no doctor–and I definitely can’t make sense of the cardiac findings. But it sounds like "stress positions," "sleep deprivation," "walling," and "water dousing" are all leading candidates to have caused the death of 04-309.

Drational at Daily Kos zeroes in on one detainee, known as Habibullah, and the circumstances of his death.

Habibullah was being interrogated by the military. Upon autopsy he was clothed only in an adult diaper. Because he was taken from his cell to the Bagram medical facility "dead on arrival" it is likely he was wearing a diaper when he was found "unresponsive, restrained in his cell" (hanging shackled from the ceiling). This is consistent with the nudity and use of diapering during "sleep deprivation" approved by Rumsfeld and described as part of the protocols for CIA interrogation during one technique: sleep deprivation- in which the detainee is shackled standing or sitting for up to 7 1/2 days straight.

mcjoan writes: Accountability for Torture, Accountability for the Dead

Back on May 9, I wrote about the part of the torture debate that has been lost in the politics of Cheney and his effectiveness campaign, and the narrowing of the debate to waterboarding and whether it's really torture: approximately 100 detainnes have died during U.S. interrogations. Some we know were tortured to death.

And as Greg Sargent reports:
CIA Again Postpones Release Of Torture Report That Could Undercut Cheney

The report is called the “Holy Grail” by some Dem staffers because it contains a whole chapter describing the “effectiveness” of torture, which reportedly concludes that there’s no proof that info gained from torture ever foiled any terror plots. It’s also expected to cast new and serious doubts on the legality of the torture program — which means its release could fuel calls for a real probe.

But you’re gonna have to wait to see it. Sorry.

Hullabaloo writes:

Here's hoping I'm wrong about that and they let the people see what has been done in their names. We deserve to know and the tortured dead deserve some justice. And if we want to just deal in pragmatic concerns, if anyone thinks that refusing to hold people accountable for what happened and showing the world that we can be trusted to civilized at least after the fact doesn't make us less safe, they are out of their minds. This is how countries become pariah states.

The United States went crazy after 9/11 and tortured many, many people, at least a hundred of them to death. It happened. How do we live with that?

July 01, 2009 04:00 PM

As the great Dolemite would say, “What the shit is this?”

I can’t think of one other country in the entire history of the world where right-wing pundits go on TV and pine for a devastating nuclear attack on their own country just so they can say they were right all along. Not even Iranian government officials, crazy as they are, sit around saying, “Y’know, I hope the infidels bomb the hell out of us just so we can expose the Reformists as a bunch of wimps.”

July 01, 2009 03:11 PM

Donklephant: Wal-Mart backs employer health care insurance mandate

pandagon: Between Arizona and Oklahoma, your right to purchase whatever sh*tty insurance you want while cheating on your wife with someone who looks disturbingly like Rahm Emmanuel will remain unviolated by Barack Obama.

The Political Carnival: Is Michelle Bachman insane or just a pathological liar?

Southern Poverty Law Center: Mississippi pol said to be Governor Barbour's ally speaks to an infamous racist group

MoJo Blog: Although house prices are still declining, they're declining at a slower rate than before.  Hooray!

HOLY CRAP: Crazy For God...This Week in God...Social conservatives fall from grace...OY!...Satan's Synagogue...God's plan for Sanford...Sarah Palin's letters from God...Fake History...Porn “Prophet”...Under God...Dear Wiley Drake...Twisted Father/Daughter Purity Balls...Ralph Reed founds "Not Your Daddy's Christian Coalition"...Reality and its rivals...PBS's new ban on religious programming

July 01, 2009 03:00 PM

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player! clMediaLoader.loadEmbed("8850fdf3a","video","dp=2009/07&mid=8850&controller=video&model=flv&movieLength=364.173&mediatitle=Michael+Scheuer+wishes+bin+Laden+would+attack+America+again&embedkey=&nodelink=http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/michael-scheuer-fox-americas-only-ho&lup=1246426189&ar=0.75",400,336); DOWNLOADS: (919) PLAYS: (3635) Good God. They really are wishing and hoping for a terrorist attack. Michael Scheuer, on Glenn Beck's show last night: Scheuer: The only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States. Because it's going to take a grass-roots, bottom-up pressure. Because these politicians prize their office, prize the praise of the media and the Europeans. It's an absurd situation again. Only Osama can execute an attack which will force Americans to demand that their government protect them effectively, consistently, and with as much violence as necessary. Beck: Which is why, I was thinking this weekend, if I were him, that would be the last thing I would do right now. I guess the wingnuts have given up the pretense of decency and normalcy. Now they're rooting for another terrorist attack, so that we stoopid Americans will finally WAKE UP! to the nature of the evil that conspires against us ... Actually, we're becoming quite awake indeed. And it isn't bin Laden who scares us right now. More like Glenn Beck and his guests.

July 01, 2009 01:45 PM

Like John, I’m rather enjoying the public spat going on between Steve Schmidt and Emperor Palpatine Bill Kristol. Here’s the good stuff:

William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard and at times an informal adviser to Sen. John McCain, touched off the latest back-and-forth Tuesday morning with a post on his magazine’s blog criticizing the Todd Purdum-authored Palin story and pointing a finger at Steve Schmidt, McCain’s campaign manager.

Kristol cited a passage in Purdum’s piece in which “some top aides” were said to worry about the Alaska governor’s “mental state” and the prospect that the Alaska governor may be suffering from post-partum depression following the birth of her son Trig. “In fact, one aide who raised this possibility in the course of trashing Palin’s mental state to others in the McCain-Palin campaign was Steve Schmidt,” Kristol wrote.

Asked about the accusation, Schmidt fired back in an e-mail: “I’m sure John McCain would be president today if only Bill Kristol had been in charge of the campaign.”

“After all, his management of [former Vice President] Dan Quayle’s public image as his chief of staff is still something that takes your breath away,” Schmidt continued.

It’s tough to know whom to root for in this fight, but if I had to choose, I gotta say I sympathize with Schmidt. Oh sure, he’s a sleazy GOP political operative who’s clearly trying to cover his ass for his own failings. But at the same time, Schmidt has actually had to, you know, do stuff in his career. He help Ah-nold get reelected in California. He was apparently the Bushies’ point man for getting Alito and Roberts confirmed. Of course, these aren’t admirable achievements, but they are achievements.

Meanwhile, what the hell has Bill Kristol ever done? Mostly he’s sat on his ass in the Weekly Standard office and advocated invading other countries. Christ, he even backed sending America’s armed forces to take down the damned Somali pirates — as though the Army doesn’t have enough wars to fight already.

The bottom line is this: imagine you’re Steve Schmidt. Imagine that you’ve worked your ass off to make John McCain into a semi-legitimate candidate for the presidency. And then imagine that this twerp from the Weekly Standard comes along and convinces McCain to pick as his running mate a crazy, narcissistic wingnut who is well known for stabbing her allies in the back and whose sole qualification for the vice presidency has been eating a moose. How the hell would you feel?

July 01, 2009 01:39 PM

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player! clMediaLoader.loadEmbed("884693918","video","dp=2009/06&mid=8846&controller=video&model=flv&movieLength=352.203&mediatitle=Al+Franken%3A+I%27m+Ready+to+Work+for+All+Minnesotans+in+the+U.S.+Senate&embedkey=&nodelink=http://crooksandliars.com/heather/al-franken-im-ready-work-all-minnesotans-u&lup=1246403048&ar=0.75",400,336); DOWNLOADS: (785) PLAYS: (1523) Al Franken's press conference following Norm Coleman's concession. I think Al's going to be one of the good guys. Who knows what Coleman's motivation was for conceding so quickly after the Minnesota Supreme Court finally made its ruling. A governor's run in the horizon perhaps? I'm just glad he finally did it. Welcome to the Senate Al.

July 01, 2009 12:30 PM

Sen.-elect Al Franken. Photo by Eric Miller of Reuters Senator-elect Al Franken's (D) victory over former senator Norm Coleman (R) in the Minnesota Senate race was among the closest (a 312 vote margin) and longest (it ended 238 days after election day) contests in modern political history. How did Franken manage to wind up on top? In a race this close there are any numbers of things -- large and small -- that swayed the result. But, in conversations with strategists who were intimately involved in the campaign, the recount and the legal proceedings (whew!) a few key elements emerged. • Legal Eagles: Marc Elias, a Democratic election attorney with Perkins Coie, was on the ground in Minnesota within days of the near-tie on election day. Elias spearheaded a series of legal victories in the early days of the recount that effectively defined the universe of votes that were

July 01, 2009 10:35 AM

Natahsa, who needed sleep this morning, calls this series "Morning No" because reading the news often elicts a response of "oh, no!"

2,000 years of GDP
Looking back through history, check out this captivating chronology of worldwide Gross Domestic Product, by region, over the last 2,000 years.

India was in the lead until 1500, when China took over. Western Europe became the equal of those two powers by 1700, and by the mid-19th century, the British Empire had moved to #1. The United States did not take over until after WWI. Personally, I was particularly interested to find that India was ever in the lead (wouldn't have guessed), and that the Roman Empire was, apparently, almost as industrious as the Chinese Empire 2,000 years ago (always wondered about that).

As cool as these lists are, they also demonstrate that Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) measurements of total GDP are a useless measurement of power. In 1820, India is listed as having a GDP three times as great the United Kingdom, even though the UK ruled almost all of India in 1820.

Mittens!
Looking ahead to 2012, Mitt Romey's approval ratings have moved sharply upward, according to Pew. The only other recent poll on Romney, conducted by CNN, confirms his upward rise.

It is hard to accept that this is because of anything Romney actually did, given that he has been so invisible that the number of people who don't know who he is has actually increased. As such, the world must be shifting under Romney's feet in a way that is proving more beneficial to him than any of his campaigning ever was. Too bad for him that, in order to become President, he will have to start campaigning again.

Is change even possible?
Forgetting about elections for a moment. Ezra Klein has a surprisingly depressing post about how no strategy, and no combination of elected officials, might make it possible to "enact wise legislation solving pressing problems." Given how relatively little change there has been even though there is a wide Democratic trifecta, significantly alternated national demographics, a new media landscape, and vast hatred of corporate power, I am sometimes inclined to think the same way. Discussions of short-term strategy and tactics often imply that we are close to achieving sweeping change, and just need to tweak our messaging and organizational structure a bit. But, as Senator Dick Durbin said after the cramdown defeat, "banks frankly own the place." Throw in our antiquated, unrepresentative Senate framework, and a 50-state structure which, more often than not, props up corporate power through a regulatory race to the bottom, and it really does often feel like we are dealing with an utterly indomitable status quo.

Harry Reid's staff can't lower the bar fast enough
My occasional feelings of futility aren't helped much by the Senate Democratic leadership tripping over itself to say that, even though Al Franken gives Democrats 60 votes in the Senate, and even though the Democratic leadership spent years raising money off trying to reach 60 votes, that 60 votes doesn't really matter much at all:

"It's true," said Manley [Harry Reid's press secretary] when reached by phone. "It is obviously sometimes difficult to say this to your audience [Huffington Post readers]. While this is, of course, good news to the people of Minnesota, President Obama, and the Senate Democratic, Franken's mere presence alone will not mean that the Democrats will be able to jam through our agenda, or make it any less critical for Democrats and Republicans to work together. We have a diverse caucus who represent diverse constituencies. No one's vote is ever automatic. Also... we have two senators that currently aren't voting right now. But then I would go back and say that up until now we have gotten very little to no help from Republicans who say no against everything and are prepared to bet on this president to fail."

Fine. Whatever. Keep spitting up whatever excuses you want. I'm sick of pretending that electing a bunch of more Democrats, and pleading with them to do the right thing, is actually going to change much at all. And I'm equally sick of the common left-wing response of threatening to vote for a third-party. Yeah, that has proven sooooo effective. The leadership isn't leading, and the longstanding alternatives just don't work.

Fortunately, there is a new strategy emerging independent of the Obama administration, independent of the Democratic congressional leadership, independent even of electoral politics and the many lame, staid, milquetoast progressive advocacy organizations. As I will discuss later today, and in the first episode of 300 Seconds, The Progressive Block is the new path. McJoan gave a good rundown of the strategy on Sunday, and Firedoglake has been absolutely instrumental in pulling it together.

July 01, 2009 06:53 AM

[click here for larger] Open Thread below...

July 01, 2009 03:30 AM

This song is just absolute power pop perfection. The Records never captured the charm/power/hook balance that they did on 1978's "Starry Eyes" but with a song like this, who needs others? Here's a live version that doesn't sound as good but it way more fun to look at.

July 01, 2009 03:00 AM

Invent a time machine and go back to June 2005. Make bets with people that in four years’ time we’ll have a black Democratic president with the middle name “Hussein.” Then up the ante by predicting that the Democrats will have 60 seats in the Senate. Then top if off by betting that one of those seats will belong to Al Franken.

I mean, four years ago, I would have been too ashamed to post such a prediction anywhere, even if I were anonymously trolling over at Red State. Times do indeed change.

(Of course, now that the Democrats have all this power, they should probably do something positive with it. Because as we’ve seen over the past four years, American opinion can change extraordinarily quickly. And there’s no way I’m going to be able to deal with President Jeb Bush and Senator Bill O’Reilly in 2012 if I don’t have a public health care plan to choose from. Just sayin’.)

July 01, 2009 02:05 AM

I used to be an executive recruiter and I can tell you: the worse a recession is, the more demanding the prospective employers become. I remember trying to fill high-level software sales positions after the dot com collapse for hiring managers who didn't want "any of those dot com people." (Apparently they showed too great an affinity for risk-taking.) And yet, all the experienced candidates worked for them, so they ended up hiring people who didn't know what they were doing.

So if you're a good, talented employee and you still have trouble getting a job, please don't take it personally. The people making the hiring decisions are often a little nuts, making off-the-wall demands based on their own crazy logic:

With unemployment at 9.4% and rising, it’s a buyer’s market for employers that are hiring. But many employers are bypassing the jobless to target those still working, reasoning that these survivors are the top performers.

“If they’re employed in today’s economy, they have to be first string,” says Ryan Ross, a partner with Kaye/Bassman International Corp., an executive recruiting firm in Dallas. Mr. Ross says more clients recently have indicated that they would prefer to fill positions with “passive candidates” who are working elsewhere and not actively seeking a job.

See, that's just sales speak. It may indicate that they're first string - or it may indicate that their brother-in-law is the department head, or that the person is really, really good at kissing butt.

The whole "passive candidate" thing is something recruiters like to push because that way, we get to bill a lot more hours. After all, it takes a lot longer than just searching the Monster resume file!

The bias extends from front-line workers to senior managers. Charlie Wilgus, managing partner of executive search for Lucas Group, based in Atlanta, says a manufacturing client looking for a division president recently refused to consider a former divisional president at Newell Rubbermaid Inc. whose department had been eliminated. The client doesn’t want candidates who have been laid off, Mr. Wilgus says.

Bobby Fitzgerald prefers to hire the already employed even though he gets two dozen or more unsolicited résumés each day at his White Chocolate Grill.

Employers’ preference for the employed adds another hurdle for those who have been laid off. Job seekers frequently are competing with dozens of other applicants for the few available positions.

Bobby Fitzgerald, a partner in five restaurants in three states, says these days he gets two dozen or more unsolicited résumés each day at one of his Phoenix restaurants, the White Chocolate Grill. But Mr. Fitzgerald says his top candidates, for jobs ranging from servers to management, usually are people who are employed elsewhere. He currently has 50 openings across his five restaurants and has told recruiters to bring in only people who are working.

Yes, the "unemployed" stigma is another huge hurdle. No matter how carefully you'd explain that a candidate was really top-notch, and that the circumstances surrounding their unemployment had nothing to do with them, employers just didn't want to hear it. (Oh, and they didn't want anyone who was older. We ignored that - and if they pushed, told them we didn't use illegal practices.)

I've tried to talk to these people. I'd say, "Look, if you hire some superstar away from another company, what you've hired is someone who's really in demand and will always be ready to leave you for a better offer. It's better to hire a good solid performer who will be loyal because you gave him a break." (Occasionally they would listen.)

The other annoying thing that happens during a recession is that employers start demanding all sorts of unrelated skill sets in one person (figuring they'll get them to do two jobs for the price of one). I'd advise you against taking a job like that even if it's offered - no matter how bad the economy is, it's not worth the heart attack you'll probably get.

Now, as a recruiter, I would never advise a candidate to do anything unethical or misleading. But as a human being, I can tell you: Remove any dates on your resume that indicate your age. Don't list every job you ever had, it only makes you look old. And don't put down "consultant" as your present employment (unless you work for a known consulting company) because most people will assume that means unemployed.

But if you're doing any part-time consulting for anyone, see if they'll agree to say you're working full-time, and list that job title instead. Do what you can to make it look like you're already employed.

It's a jungle out there, guys.

July 01, 2009 02:00 AM

Right on cue, Rush Limbaugh attacks Al Franken's victory in Minnesota.

LIMBAUGH: Look at this. From Iran's press television, the state-run media in Iran: Ahmadinejad gains votes in recount, just like in our country! It had -- just like in our country. Norm Coleman wins in Minnesota in a recount, and they keep having recounts, and Al Franken wins. So they had the recount in Iran, and shazzam! Ahmadinejad gained votes!

Hmmm, what to say, what to say. Are we all living in Iran now?

July 01, 2009 01:00 AM

June302009From the Elves Attic.---this a re-post from The Elves Attic.Dan Milano is finally getting another shot at destroying Western Civilization with his Character Warren The Ape.I loved the Greg The Bunny Show... especially the IFC version, though they were all pretty fucking cool. I discovered the show one thanksgiving day, during a marathon, that blew me away so much that I wrote Dan a

July 01, 2009 12:49 AM

I'm beginning to feel that we have a real problem in talking about health care. Sometime in the last couple weeks, I read a comment about how what we were arguing about had little to do with health care and everything to do with financing.

I didn't remark on it at the time, but was reminded of it again today in an excellent diary at DailyKos, where Something the Dog Said put perspective on how necessary it is to have a public health insurance option:

... [A]ccording to the AMA 94% of all insurance markets in the United States are highly concentrated

... Between 2000 and 2007 the top ten publically traded insurance companies saw profits increase 428%! Let that sink in, in a little over seven years they saw a 428% increase in profit, all the while passing on double digit increases in premiums to their customers!

... There is also a need for new legislation limiting the size of health care companies ...

I was with them up to that point, but the size of clinics and hospitals isn't the problem and talking about insurance companies as if they were your GP plays right into the hands of the 'we have the best health care in the world' crowd.

Because your doctor or physicians' assistant or nurse provides health care. Your dentist or psychiatrist provides health care. If you're like me and one of these fine medical professionals has cured something that ailed you, the term health care probably calls up some warm and fuzzy thoughts towards them.

But United Healthcare provides medical financing. As with the rest of the finance industry, health care financing is driven by unrestrained greed, unsustainable profits, and a sickening disregard for the public good.

Medical expense financing isn't health care any more than car insurance is a ride to work, and helping its purveyors hide behind our goodwill towards doctors is like confusing Geico with Ford Motors. So call the public option health insurance reform, or medical finance reform, but please (I say, with a sternly wagging finger pointed selfwards,) don't call it health care reform.

PS: Also. Help the folks at Firedoglake to keep up the whip for the public option.

July 01, 2009 12:00 AM

Could it be true? Is the sky falling? Did Tony Scalia really just side with the liberals in a major case? (Legal explanation here.)

WASHINGTON — In a rebuke of the Bush administration, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that a federal bank regulator erred in quashing efforts by New York state to combat the kind of predatory mortgage lending that triggered the nation's financial crisis.

The 5-4 ruling by the high court was unusual. Justice Antonin Scalia, arguably the most conservative jurist, wrote the majority's opinion and was joined by the court's four liberal judges.

The five justices held that contrary to what the Bush administration had argued, states can enforce their own laws on matters such as discrimination and predatory lending, even if that crosses into areas under federal regulation.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the four dissenters, argued that laws dating back to the nation's founding prevent states from meddling in federal bank regulation. He was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts and justices Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito.

The ruling angered many in the financial sector, who fear it'll lead to a patchwork of state laws that'll make it harder for banks and other financial firms to take a national approach to the marketplace.

Poor babies. My heart just bleeds for them. Why, it might make it even harder to throw 84-year-old widows out onto the street!

"We are worried about the effect that this ruling could have on the markets," said Rich Whiting, general counsel for the Financial Services Roundtable, a trade group representing the nation's 100 largest financial firms, in a statement. The decision "hinders the ability of financial services firms from conducting business in the United States. Even worse, it will cause confusion for consumers, especially those who move from state to state."

Oh, the markets! The sky is falling! Quick, throw the banks some money to help! Oh wait, we tried that already...

Stephen Ryan, a partner at McDermott Will & Emery, said the decision "will have a significant, negative impact on the ability of a national bank to offer a financial product uniformly throughout the country."

In a statement, Ryan, who's brought suits against state enforcement, predicted "a crazy quilt of conflicting legal instructions" and a "confusing situation of shared enforcement responsibilities for financial services."

Ha ha ha! Mr. Ryan, have you ever read the small print on an adjustable rate mortgage?

But wait, apparently it's not as bad as the banks claim:

Some of the industry's allies said yesterday's decision is hardly disastrous for banks, given that state officials will not have the power to demand documents or compel executives to submit to questioning without a court order.

"Obviously there's going to be some additional burden on the big banks," said Seth Galanter, of counsel at the law firm of Morrison & Foerster, who filed a brief on behalf of former comptrollers of the currency. "But civil litigation has always been available to private parties. This just adds state attorneys general to the list of groups that can sue."

July 01, 2009 12:00 AM

The problem with getting naked and showering with men is that if one gets the flu, you all get the flu.

July 01, 2009 12:00 AM

Stephen can't talk to Jon because he's going through a tunnel and trapped in a mineshaft.

July 01, 2009 12:00 AM

Instead of relying heavily on regulators, Justin Fox suggests simple, dumb rules to watch over the financial markets.

July 01, 2009 12:00 AM

Kristen Schaal believes that if women want to set themselves back by wearing a burka, they can at least be comfortable.

July 01, 2009 12:00 AM

Samantha Bee explains that the Democrats' supermajority isn't enough to get anything done in the Senate -- they need a super duper majority.

July 01, 2009 12:00 AM

CIA analyst Michael Scheuer nonchalantly proposes the needless slaughter of Americans to further his national security plan on "Glenn Beck."

July 01, 2009 12:00 AM

Update:You can RSVP for Seattle here.

I've been out of town for a wedding since late last week, sorry it's been quiet on my front. Will have a bunch of thoughts the rest of this week on multiple fronts.

Wanted to tell all here that I'll be headed out to Oregon, Washington, and Montana in late July to talk about The Progressive Revolution, financial system reform, and lots of other stuff. Plus, we'll get to see Glacier National Park, which my wife and I are pumped about.

The first event is in Portland on Sunday, July 19th. Adam and our friends at the Oregon Bus Project have gotten a kick out of booking us at the Bipartisan Cafe, which in 26 cities we've been to has to be the most hilariously ironic name. I'm looking forward to it. Details here.

We'll also be in Seattle on Tuesday, July 21st to hang out with Goldy and the good people at Drinking Liberally. Details here.

We'll also be heading to Missoula, MT, planning still in the works on that.

Hope to see some OpenLefties out there.

June 30, 2009 11:30 PM

When the world’s largest retailer backs something like this, it’s hard to ignore. Especially since they’ve had such a spotty record when it came to covering their 2 million employees in the past.

From The Hill:

With Wal-Mart’s endorsement of a legal requirement that employers provide health benefits to their workers, the nation’s largest employer has broken from the business community. [...]

Moreover, Wal-Mart declared its support for the employer mandate in a joint letter to Obama with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the liberal Center for American Progress, which is run by John Podesta, a close associate of the White House.

“We are entering a critical time during which all of us who will be asked to pay for health care reform will have to make a choice on whether to support the legislation,” says the letter, signed by Wal-Mart President and CEO Mike Duke, SEIU President Andy Stern and Podesta. “This choice will require employers to consider the trade off of agreeing to a coverage mandate and additional taxes versus the promise of reduced health care cost increases.”

Now, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is diametrically opposed to the mandate and actually attacked Wal-Mart as a result of this move…

“Some businesses make the decision to use the government as a weapon against their competition,” James Gelfand, the Chamber’s senior manager for health policy, said in a statement. “We do not agree with this method — the government is a blunt instrument and taxes have extreme unintended consequences, negatively affecting the economy as a whole. We also recognize that momentum is moving against an employer mandate. The business community will be stepping up our advocacy as necessary, too.”

First off, “weapon?” Really? Good lord…

Also, note the phrase, “taxes have extreme unintended consequences, negatively affecting the economy as a whole.”

I’m all for robust debate, but making such dire, blanket statements like that will not help the Chamber’s credibility with anybody but the die-hard conservatives/libertarians that think taxation is some evil plot to rob them of their freedoms.

In other words, they better strike a different tone or they may find their voice ignored in the coming months as businesses follow the lead of the most successful retailer in history.

June 30, 2009 11:11 PM

June302009From College Humor.comBy CH Staff--- A fantastic take on the HBO's hit show Entourage. College Humor as always pounds the nail on the head.Every Week on EntourageSo many twists and turns you'll forget they've been using the same formula for five seasons.A College Humor Original

June 30, 2009 11:00 PM

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player! clMediaLoader.loadEmbed("8843b9a31","video","dp=2009/06&mid=8843&controller=video&model=flv&movieLength=179.063&mediatitle=Nicolle+Wallace%2C+Mark+McKinnon+talk+about+Sarah+Palin&embedkey=&nodelink=http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/can-we-finally-draw-curtain-sarah-pa&lup=1246388861&ar=0.75",400,336); DOWNLOADS: (1113) PLAYS: (4182) Both Mark McKinnon and Nicolle Wallace, recently the McCain-Palin campaign's media gurus, were both on MSNBC this morning to talk ostensibly about serious subjects but eventually came around to the matter of Todd Purdum's Vanity Fair piece on Sarah Palin, in which they both figure prominently as objects of the diva's ire. Both do their best to speak glowingly of Palin -- McKinnon says he actually only coached her for two hours -- and Wallaces talks up Palin's future prospects. But really, one only need read the piece to see the writing that's been on the wall for some time for Palin: She is road kill in the rear-view mirror of the Republican Party's Beltway movers and shakers. It also raises some salient larger points: Whatever her political future, the emergence of Sarah Palin raises questions that will not soon go away. What does it say about the nature of modern American politics that a public official who often seems proud of what she does not know is not only accepted but applauded? What does her prominence say about the importance of having (or lacking) a record of achievement in public life? Why did so many skilled veterans of the Republican Party—long regarded as the more adroit team in presidential politics—keep loyally working for her election even after they privately realized she was casual about the truth and totally unfit for the vice-presidency? Perhaps most painful, how could John McCain, one of the cagiest survivors in contemporary politics—with a fine appreciation of life’s injustices and absurdities, a love for the sweep of history, and an overdeveloped sense of his own integrity and honor—ever have picked a person whose utter shortage of qualification for her proposed job all but disqualified him for his? The issue, it seems, comes down to the initial lack of vetting: There is virtually nothing about Palin’s performance in the fall campaign that should have come as a surprise to John McCain. Had he really attempted to learn something about her before the fateful day of August 29, 2008, when he announced that she was his choice for running mate, he would easily have discerned all the traits that he belatedly came to know. Palin's career as a mainstream Republican is probably at a dead end, because her name is now synonymous with Wacky Loser. However, that doesn't mean her career is dead, by any means. There's a big bunch of Teabaggers out there primed and ready to party with a charismatic leader, and Evita Palin fits the bill.

June 30, 2009 11:00 PM

This isn't much of a surprise after today’s ruling, but the fact that he won’t prolong this any further is certainly welcome news.

From Minnesota Independent…

The former senator called Al Franken this afternoon to congratulate him on his victory nearly eight months after election day. The concession came shortly after the Minnesota Supreme Court issued a ruling naming Franken the winner in the protracted contest.

“I’m really at peace,” Coleman told reporters at a press conference at his St. Paul home. “I’ve had a lot of time to process this election, think about the past and look to the future. So I really have a sense of peace for where things are at.”

Coleman vowed to work with Franken as he becomes Minnesota’s junior senator. He insisted that the fact that Franken will become the 60th Democratic senator — giving President Obama a filibuster-proof majority — played no role in his decision-making process. “Whatever I can do now to be a unifying force that’s what I’m going to do,” he said.

And note that last paragraph…now Obama has a filibuster-proof majority.

But will he use it?

Discuss.

June 30, 2009 10:25 PM

I should come as no surprise that many Democrats pray for Sarah Palin to be the candidate in 2012, but many smart GOPers realize how much damage she could do to the brand.

That’s why we’re seeing pieces like this latest rather lengthy Vanity Fair exposé.

Read the rest over at True/Slant.

June 30, 2009 10:06 PM

Is Sanford completely off his rocker? I understand about love, but why is he giving passionate interviews with the AP? And does he think he'll save his marriage by telling them that his lover is his "soul mate?" South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford called his Argentine mistress his "soul mate" Tuesday, but said that he would try to fall back in love with his wife. Sanford also admitted Tuesday that he saw Maria Belen Chapur more times than previously disclosed, and that he had "crossed lines" with a handful of women other than his mistress in the past -- but never had sex with them. In a lengthy and emotional interview with The Associated Press in his Statehouse office Tuesday, the governor described five meetings with Maria Belen Chapur over the past year, including two romantic, multi-night stays with her in New York before they met there again intending to break up. He said he met her two other times -- their first meeting in 2001 at an open-air dance spot in Uruguay and a coffee date in New York in 2004 during the Republican National Convention. He said neither time was romantic. It was the first disclosure of any liaisons with Chapur in the United States and contradicted a public confession last week during which Sanford admitted to a total of five encounters over their eight-year relationship...read on He's lied so many times already about this that it's hard to keep up. Did anyone really believe he saw her only three times in eight years? And now he admits to reaching out to other women too. Sanford also said he had "let his guard down" with some physical contact with women other than Chapur and his wife, but "didn't cross the sex line." He wouldn't go into detail. Sanford said the casual encounters happened outside the U.S. while he was married but before he met Chapur. Did Sanford tell the AP what the Bible says about "letting his guard down?" What does that even mean? It means that he's a player and has been for a long time. Will his wife think he should be given a second chance after reading and hearing about all of this? Sanford is a mess and can't stop talking about "Maria." Isn't there a show on the BBC about Maria? 'How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria?' I think there's a reality show in this somewhere. Does Sanford really want to stay married? It certainly sounds like he'd rather have the media send love notes to Maria, his true soul mate than make up with his wife.

June 30, 2009 10:00 PM

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player! clMediaLoader.loadEmbed("88450f1f2","video","dp=2009/06&mid=8845&controller=video&model=flv&movieLength=231.959&mediatitle=Norm+Coleman+concedes+Senate+race+to+Franken&embedkey=&nodelink=http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/norm-coleman-concedes&lup=1246396695&ar=0.75",400,336); DOWNLOADS: (853) PLAYS: (1721) So now Norm Coleman has conceded: Republican Norm Coleman has conceded to Democrat Al Franken in Minnesota's contested Senate race, ending a nearly eight-month recount and court fight. Coleman announced his decision at a news conference in St. Paul, hours after a unanimous Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Franken, a former "Saturday Night Live" comedian and liberal commentator, should be certified the winner. "The Supreme Court has made its decision and I will abide by the results," Coleman told reporters outside his St. Paul home. This means the hissy fit is truly and finally over. Except, of course, for the one Bill O'Reilly is going to throw.

June 30, 2009 09:02 PM

Brian Beutler thinks the chances of health care reform going through the reconciliation process are "remote:"

Lingering in the background of the health care debate in Congress has been the possibility that Democrats won't be able to get as much as they want from Republicans through the normal legislative process and will be forced to advance reform (or elements of reform) through the reconciliation process, which can't be filibustered. That may be a remote possibility, but it significantly changes the political dynamic on the Hill--in absence of this alternative route, meeting the expected 60 vote threshold in the Senate would become, to a greater extent than it already is, the guiding force behind the process.

I have to disagree with this characterization of the chances of health care reform going through the reconciliation process. While the cautious Democratic leadership and Obama administration are clearly hesitant to appear willing to use such a process, the political dynamic over health care reform is different than it is on other fights. Specifically, rather than the standard process of a "gang" of center-right Democrats and Republicans weakening a bill at their want, and then having progressives in both chambers vote for whatever the center-right gang decides, on health care reform the emergence of a Progressive Block has all but forced health care reform to go through the reconciliation process.

Keep in mind what Speaker Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly said about the chance of health care reform that lacks a public option passing through the House--there is none:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told the Huffington Post Thursday that a health care overhaul that did not include a public option wouldn't make it through the House because it "wouldn't have the votes."(...)

Asked by HuffPost if she would allow a reform package without a public option out of the House, she responded: "It's not a question of allow. It wouldn't have the votes."

And this is because the significant majority of the 77 members Progressive Caucus with full voting rights in the House have said they will not vote for health care that lacks a public option.

At the same time, Kent Conrad has said there are not 60 votes in the Senate for a public option. I don't doubt him when he says this, given that at least two Democrats, Mary Landrieu and Kay Hagan, are opposed.

Given that there is simply no way the Obama administration could stomach a failure to pass health care legislation ala the Clinton administration before it, this pretty much guarantees that at least some important parts of health care reform will be passed through the reconciliation process.

As such, it is time to keep pushing Senators to make it clear where they stand on health care. Keep emailing your Senators asking for specifics on where they stand on the public option. You will be joining over 20,000 others who have done so. Keep asking them until they make their stances clear, and until we have at least 50 Senators for the public option.

June 30, 2009 08:57 PM

Nearly 9 months after the election, there appears to be some light at the end of the tunnel for Minnesota.

From the AP:

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) - The Minnesota Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered that Democrat Al Franken be certified as the winner of the state’s long-running Senate race.

The high court rejected a legal challenge from Republican Norm Coleman, whose options for regaining the Senate seat are dwindling.

Justices said Franken is entitled to the election certificate he needs to assume office. With Franken and the usual backing of two independents, Democrats will have a big enough majority to overcome Republican filibusters.

However…

Coleman hasn’t ruled out seeking federal court intervention.

Ugh.

Norm…seriously…it’s time to pack it up. It was close, but you lost and every recount has shown that. Not only that, I think nearly every single court decision has gone against you. Minnesota needs a Senator and it’s pretty clear that you won’t be it. Move on already.

More as it develops…

June 30, 2009 08:32 PM

BOMBSHELL!!!!!

Matt Drudge creates the news so you don’t have to…

As the summer begins, White House watchers have spotted a new look by President Obama: The Evil Eye!

Staffers have joked about the menacing glance, which comes when the president meets with world leaders who are not aligned with his progressive view.

White House photographers have captured the “evil eye” in recent weeks, during sessions with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Colombia’s Alvaro Uribev.

I love the smell of partisan hackery in the afternoon…

June 30, 2009 08:25 PM

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player! clMediaLoader.loadEmbed("884402cd3","video","dp=2009/06&mid=8844&controller=video&model=flv&movieLength=149.249&mediatitle=Franken+wins+recount+legal+battle+with+Minnesota+supreme+court&embedkey=&nodelink=http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/franken-wins-minnesota-high-court-ru&lup=1246390472&ar=0.75",400,336); DOWNLOADS: (949) PLAYS: (2395) Finally, it looks like the longest hissy fit in Republican history is finally drawing to a close, eight months after the election: ST. PAUL, Minn. - The Minnesota Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered that Democrat Al Franken be certified as the winner of the state's long-running Senate race, paving the way for a resolution in the seven-month fight over the seat. The high court rejected a legal challenge from Republican Norm Coleman, whose options for regaining the Senate seat are dwindling. Justices said Franken is entitled to the election certificate he needs to assume office. With Franken and the usual backing of two independents, Democrats will have a big enough majority to overcome Republican filibusters. However, there's a final hitch: Coleman's campaign didn't immediately return a call for comment. Nor did Gov. Tim Pawlenty, whose signature is required on the election certificate Franken needs to be seated. Pawlenty, a Republican, has said he would sign the certificate if ordered to do so by the court. The court's ruling stopped short of explicitly ordering the governor to sign the document, saying only that Franken was "entitled" to it. You may recall that when Pawlenty was on TV earlier this week, he indicated he'd sign the certificate -- but used very lawyerly language in doing so: ... I'm going to follow the direction of the court, John. We expect that ruling any day now. I also expect them to give guidance and direction as to the certificate of election. I'm prepared to sign it as soon as they give the green light. ... Well, a federal court could stay or put a limit on or stop the effect of the state court ruling. If they chose, if they do that, I would certainly follow their direction. But if that doesn't happen promptly or drags out for any period of time, then we need to move ahead with signing this, particularly if I'm ordered to do that by the state court. Now, it would be a mighty thin straw to grasp, but Pawlenty could say that since he wasn't ordered to sign it, he doesn't have to (and then point to any appeal filed by Coleman as a further excuse). Normally, I'd guess that sanity would prevail and Pawlenty wouldn't attempt it. But given the behavior of Minnesota's GOP throughout this fiasco, anything seems possible.

June 30, 2009 08:00 PM

Assuming Al Franken supports the public option (we will need to press him to make sure), his victory today is a huge boost to health care reform. Here is why:

1. A public health insurance option in the Senate will have to go through the Senate HELP committee. Details of the plan were leaked today.

2. The Senate HELP committee is current composed of 12 Democrats and 10 Republicans. All 10 Republicans are opposed to the public option. Further, Democrat Kay Hagan of North Carolina is apparently opposed. This makes the committee an 11-11 stalemate on the public option.

3. According to BooMan, one of Franken's committee assignments will be the HELP committee.

4. Thus, if Al Franken is in favor of the public option, he breaks the tie on the HELP committee and allows a public option plan to move to the Senate floor.

Franken's win means that a public option is closer than ever. Keep pushing your Senators to state their position on a public health insurance option. We really are close, now.

June 30, 2009 07:50 PM

Updated, 4:05 p.m. ET: Former senator Norm Coleman conceded to Democrat Al Franken, ending the Minnesota Senate race that has drawn on since November and clearing the way for Franken to become the 60th Democrat in the Senate. "The Supreme Court has made its decision and I will abide by the results," Coleman told reporters at an afternoon press conference outside his home in St. Paul. Original Post The unanimous decision by the Minnesota Supreme Court today affirming a lower court's decision that Democrat Al Franken had won the state's Senate race is almost certainly the end of what has been a long and winding road. The Court's decision, which was released just after 2 p.m., was long anticipated by both sides and in the days leading up to the ruling conventional wisdom among Republicans was that there was little appetite for former senator Norm Coleman to keep up his

June 30, 2009 07:49 PM

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player! clMediaLoader.loadEmbed("8840c6319","video","dp=2009/06&mid=8840&controller=video&model=flv&movieLength=248.352&mediatitle=Popcorn+time%3A+Beck+calls+out+the+GOP%27s+%27Cap+and+Traitors%27&embedkey=&nodelink=http://crooksandliars.com/node/&lup=1246344310&ar=0.75",400,336); DOWNLOADS: (975) PLAYS: (2146) OK, pop some popcorn and pull up a chair. Glenn Beck is calling out the dogs … on Republicans. He ran a special segment last night urging his audience descend en masse upon the “Cap and Traitors” – Republican House members who actually voted for the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill last Friday – all eight of them. With him to seal the deal was the Washington Examiner's Kevin Mooney, who besides being in need of a new suit was also in need of a logic text: Beck: Now, there are eight Republicans who voted for cap and trade. ... Look at this map that we put up. It looks like all of the votes -- there it is -- it looks like all of these votes -- and we're going to have some showers -- uh -- all of the votes really came, half of the votes, more than half -- from those areas. The West Coast and from the liberal Northeast. Mooney: Well, Glenn, you're put your finger on it. Uh, the votes, whether they're Democrat or Republican, in favor of this bill, out of the coastal areas, the elite areas of this country, they're areas of the country where the energy prices are already high. Democrats and Republicans voted against this bill in other parts of the country where they already are using other fossil fuels and have lower energy prices. Beck: Isn't it interesting that those are the areas that are collapsing the fastest? Mooney and Beck, not to put too fine a point on it, are full of crap. Just by way of example, look at my own home state of Washington, whose delegation voted strongly for the bill, and is included on their list of "coastal states" whose energy prices are supposedly too high. In reality -- somewhere far distant from these guys' residence on Planet Wingnuttia -- Washington's energy prices are among some of the lowest in the nation (for instance, our electricity costs are far below the national average, since we get so much of it from hydroelectric sources. Likewise for Oregon, another "elite coastal" state. Meanwhile, some of the nation's highest electricity costs can also be found in Florida and Texas -- some of the "non-elite" states on Beck's graphic. And Glenn? Our economy here in Washington is far from collapsing. The housing bubble didn't overinflate as much here as elsewhere -- including, say Florida and Texas. And we have Microsoft and Boeing. So we're hurting, yes -- but we'll be fine. No thanks to the right-wing ideologues like yourself who wrecked the national economy. Phony methodology aside, it is in any event always fun to see the right savage its own -- because nearly all of the eight Republicans who voted for the bill came from vulnerable districts. Dave Reichert, from Washington's 8th District, just barely survived two tough challenges from Darcy Burner, and did so in part by selling himself as friendly to environmentalists. And indeed, he comes from a district that has never elected a Democrat, but whose growing technology-worker base is a rapidly changing demographic politically -- and particularly big on environmental issues. So we're happy to see them get hell from the Glenn Beck wing of their party. It just reminds the large mass of swing voters in the 8th District and others like it, once again, why it's stupid to vote even for a "moderate" Republican -- because they will always be overwhelmed by the pseudo-populist Wingnuttians who dominate the GOP at all levels. Especially the pundit one.

June 30, 2009 07:00 PM

The Minnesota Supreme Court has unanimously declared Al Franken the winner in the Minnesota Senate campaign, and Governor Tim Pawlenty has confirmed he will sign the certification papers:

After an unprecedented eight months of legal wrangling and pouring over hundreds upon hundreds of contested ballots, the Minnesota Supreme Court has paved the way for Democrat Al Franken to fill long-vacant Senate seat, CBS station WCCO-TV reports.

Minn. Gov. Tim Pawlenty has indicated he will sign Franken's election certificate, CBS News reported. The timing of the signing was not yet clear.

Now, let's see if Senator Al Franken will support a public option!

June 30, 2009 06:31 PM

Poor Don Surber. Apparently he’s locked himself in his shack, barricading the door with various auto parts he found lying around his living room. He’s sitting in a corner clutching a .22 in one hand and three bottles of Tylenol in the other. “Obama will have to pry the Tylenol from my cold dead hands,” Surber keeps muttering to himself while pointing his rifle at the front door. Surber is certain that the FBI, the CIA, the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, CNN, La Raza and The Poca, West Virginia Department of Park and Recreation are all amassed just outside his door, heavily-armed and waiting for the signal to burst through the door, guns ablaze, in order to take away his Tylenol.

Part of the reason why we keep returning to the deep well of the blog postings of this Pliny of Poca — other than to ridicule his personal appearance through the magic of Photoshop — is just that there are only a handful of wingnut bloggers who manage to maintain that perfect balance of laziness, stupidity and insanity that Surber does. In any given post, there are general only slightly fewer errors than there are vowels.

Take the “Obama is going to take my Tylenol” post that has Surber stockpiling Tylenol and guarding this stash with the .22 that he usually employs to shoot frogs in the crick behind his house when they get too noisy. Almost everything about it is just, well, wrong.

President Obama’s administration is weighing restrictions on buying Tylenol, Excedrin and other over-the-counter medications. More over-regulation by the government. If a prescription is required to get a Tylenol, that will up the cost of health care.

Just like Don, we’re only a few keystrokes away from the FDA document detailing the proposals under consideration. Unlike Don, we’re not too busy eating moonpies and swilling RC Cola to retrieve and read the document.

Now, lookie here, here’s a fascinating little tidbit in the report. The proposals that the Advisory Panel is considering were developed by the FDA’s Acetaminophen Hepatotoxicity Working Group in a report they released on February 26, 2008. And who was President then? Not Obama. So this really isn’t a reason to take a jab at Obama. Strrrrrike One!

And is one of the proposals under consideration requiring a prescription for Tylenol or taking it off the market? Nope. Strrrrrrrrike Two!!

There are about 200 acetaminophen-related deaths each year, Fox News reported.

Does the Fox News story that Surber links report that? Not so much. It doesn’t say anything at all about acetaminophen-related deaths. Strrrrrrike Three!!!

Okay, let’s have a heart and use the Beep Ball rules used for the visually impaired. That way Surber can have one more strike before he’s out.

Are there 200 acetaminophen-related deaths per year? Let’s roll the film of the FDA report in question:

Summarizing data from five different surveillance systems, there were an estimated 56,000 emergency room visits, 26,000 hospitalizations, and 458 deaths related to acetaminophen-associated overdoses per year during the 1990-1998 period.

Batter out.

I think it’s safe to say, yet again, that this will be another year in which the Pulitzer committee will take a pass on Surber.

June 30, 2009 06:27 PM

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player! clMediaLoader.loadEmbed("8839319a1","video","dp=2009/06&mid=8839&controller=video&model=flv&movieLength=306.507&mediatitle=Peggy+Noonan%3A+The+Luckiest+Thing+Long+Term+That+Could+Happen+to+Obama+is+He+Gets+a+Republican+Congress&embedkey=&nodelink=http://crooksandliars.com/heather/peggy-noonan-luckiest-thing-long-term-coul&lup=1246342513&ar=0.75",400,336); DOWNLOADS: (649) PLAYS: (1547) Part two of the Peggy and Kathleen show on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. This time the topic is health care. After some straight talk from Paul Krugman about the importance of including a public option to control costs and the fact that there is no real competition in the health care markets now, we get another "Oh my goodness" moment from Peggy Noonan. Noonan seems to think she knows what most "normal humans" think and forget all those mushy details those darned economists like Krugman tend to bring up. Let's just talk about taxes. Doing her best to channel a little bit of Sarah Palin here: Noonan: Oh my goodness. Well let...you know how I feel from my column this week. I think things have become a little bit scattered. Um...Paul...if you just limit this conversation to taxes alone, you have some sense that people, normal humans in America, might be getting a little bit nervous about health care and energy care and all of this stuff. America has a huge deficit. We've never seen anything like it before. Spending is very big. A Warren Buffet, who people tend to trust on economic matters says look, this energy thing the House just passed is a big tax. Health care, the Congressional Budget Office says is probably $1.8 trillion over the next ten years... Krugman: No...it's not... Noonan: Well, without gettin' into the weeds, you gotta' assume it's going to cost money. We've got California going under. We've got New York with I think a $20 billion deficit. They're going to be raising taxes. Income taxes are going to be going on up. At a certain point, you've got to realize, people are going to say "Whoa...this is no good. You've got to stop this." (crosstalk) Yes. The only scattered thing here is Peggy's brain. Would anyone else be very happy if this woman stopped explaining her views on the air like she was talking to a bunch of two year olds? Par for the course, Parker later chimes in with Peggy's "things are moving way too fast" meme, prefacing it with saying she doesn't want to argue with an economist... and then arguing with an economist. I'll stick with Paul Krugman as to whose advice I'd care to listen to, thank you very much Kathleen. Noonan follows up with one of the more ridiculous statements heard on all of the Sunday shows I managed to catch this week. Obama will be oh so lucky if the Republicans get back control of the Congress in 2010, because we all know how well that worked out for Bill Clinton. Noonan: He may be overplaying his hand and if he is, it will be unlucky for the Democrats in 2010. Although I happen to think the luckiest thing long term that could happen to Obama is, he gets a Republican Congress, and he'll be saved like Clinton was in 1994. That would be a good thing for Obama, and he's a lucky guy and he may get lucky. But they'd better watch out for overplaying their hand! Um...Peggy...he doesn't have a Democratic Congress now if you're worried about checks and balances. He's got a bunch of corporate DINO's that are as bad or worse for him than just having the Republicans in charge would be in the Senate. He's got a pile of DINO Blue Dogs in the House who they are constantly giving cover to in order to keep them in their seats. And if you think having a Republican Congress "saved" Bill Clinton in 1994, I want to know what the hell you're smokin'. Heaven forbid a little thing like impeachment hearings was bad for President Clinton. And having him working with Republicans sure as hell wasn't good f

June 30, 2009 06:00 PM

Updated, 3:05 p.m. ET: Sanford's very candid interview with the AP has the potential to derail what looked to be the increasing likelihood that he would hold on to his job. The most problematic admission by Sanford in the interview is that he had strayed with other women but had not had sex with them. Add that startling revelation to a number of odd quotes Sanford gave regarding his affair -- that his mistress "is his soul mate, but he will try to fall back in love with his wife" among others -- and you can see how Sanford has managed to pour fuel on a fire that appeared to be nearly out. Not good. In the aftermath of the interview, during which Sanford admitted meeting with his mistress on several occasions in New York, state attorney general Henry McMaster called for an investigation into the governor's trips. Original Post

June 30, 2009 05:59 PM

The past year has revealed a comprehensive philosophy of government championed by conservatives and moderates when they oppose major progressive economic reforms. I call it "crime and reward." The philosophy is summed up as follows:

The flaw in progressive legislative proposals is that they don't give enough money to the corporations that caused the problem(s) which overall legislative effort is supposedly trying to solve.

It applies in all major cases. Check it out:

1. The way to lower health care costs is to give companies that have increased health care costs even more money: As Olympia Snowe and many others have articulated, the problem with a public option is that it lowers the cost of health insurance rather than increasing the amount of money private health insurers generate in revenue. While one would think that the purpose of health care reform legislation is to lower the price of health insurance, it appears that for many the purpose is actually to make sure that the companies ratcheting up health care costs receive even more money from the process (ie, through mandates to buy their over-priced insurance and no lower priced, public option).

2. The way to fix climate change is to give the companies that are the main cause of climate change even more money: As Collin Peterson and Claire McCaskill have articulated, the problem with climate change legislation is that it doesn't give enough money to the energy and agricultural conglomerates that are primarily responsible for global warming.

3. The way to fix the financial crisis is to give the financial institutions that caused the financial crisis even more money: This one is pretty straightforward and has been covered extensively. From the Wall Street bailout program itself, to making sure that Congress doesn't pass laws restricting executive bonuses out fear that financial institutions won't take our money, the government's solution to fixing the financial crisis is to give the people and companies that caused the financial crisis even more money. The progressive alternative, temporary nationalization, should be opposed because it wouldn't make enough money for shareholders.

On the three major areas of public policy that were addressed by the federal government over the last twelve months--health care, climate change, financial crisis--the "moderate" solution has consistently been to give hundreds of billions of dollars to the corporations that caused climate change, the financial crisis, and skyrocketing health care costs. It is a crime and reward ideology. When powerful private sector companies cause major national and global problems, the "moderate" solution is to give those who caused the problem hundreds of billions of dollars.

Crime and reward. Through a conservative-moderate alliance, it is the system of government under which we live, even in the era of the Democratic trifecta.

June 30, 2009 05:52 PM

So we'll see. It's quite a mess we've created over there, and this is only the first step on the long road back to anything approaching normal: BAGHDAD, June 30 -- This is no longer America's war. Iraqis danced in the streets and set off fireworks Monday in impromptu celebrations of a pivotal moment in their nation's troubled history: Six years and three months after the March 2003 invasion, the United States on Tuesday is withdrawing its remaining combat troops from Iraq's cities and turning over security to Iraqi police and soldiers. While more than 130,000 U.S. troops remain in the country, patrols by heavily armed soldiers in hulking vehicles as of Wednesday will largely disappear from Baghdad, Mosul and Iraq's other urban centers. "The Army of the U.S. is out of my country," said Ibrahim Algurabi, 34, a dual U.S.-Iraqi citizen now living in Arizona who attended a concert of celebration in Baghdad's Zawra Park. "People are ready for this change. There are a lot of opportunities to rebuild our country, to forget the past and think about the future." On Monday, as the withdrawal deadline loomed, four U.S. troops were killed in the Iraqi capital, the military announced Tuesday. No details about the deaths were provided. Another soldier was killed Sunday in a separate attack. Some American troops have expressed concern about becoming more exposed after the withdrawal, because Iraqis will have unprecedented authority over U.S. military operations. U.S. commanders have said they were bracing for an uptick of attacks from extremist groups during the transition period, which occur almost daily, and will rely heavily on Iraq's security forces for protection in the months ahead. The withdrawal has also created enormous fear and uncertainty among many Iraqis, who believe that the U.S. military pullback will open the door for insurgents to increase their attacks. On Monday, some normally congested streets were virtually deserted after dark, as Iraqis appeared to heed warnings of impending attacks by insurgents. But city streets were also largely empty of Humvees and U.S. troops. Those Iraqis who ventured out were in the mood to party, celebrating a moment that the Iraqi government has said represents its return to full sovereignty.

June 30, 2009 05:22 PM

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is the subject of a lengthy profile in the August issue of Vanity Fair. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta) 9,823 That's the number of words in Todd Purdum's opus on Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in the August issue of Vanity Fair. The piece is a massive examination of the enigma that is Palin, her political future and the 2012 presidential race. Writes Purdum succinctly: "Palin is at once the sexiest and the riskiest brand in the Republican Party." Purdum's story is not -- at all -- favorable to the Alaska governor. It derides her "utter shortage of qualification" to be vice president, her "deep ignorance about most aspects of foreign and domestic policy" and calls her public life "an unholy amalgam of Desperate Housewives and Northern Exposure. It details the lack of a relationship that Palin had with the staff she was given by John McCain

June 30, 2009 04:52 PM

June302009From Three Rivers Regatta.netBy talent network news---It’s the Golden Triangle’s greatest summertime show and Pittsburgh’s Official 4th of July Celebration...the 32nd annual EQT Pittsburgh Three Rivers Regatta electrifies the city beginning Friday, July 3 through Sunday, July 5.Be here as the tri-state comes alive in one fast, fun-filled and FREE festival of spectacular air, land and

June 30, 2009 04:14 PM

June292009From Sources News of the World, The Huffington Post, Mail Online,The Sun UKBy talent network news.com---A ton of news on Michael Jackson hitting the internet. None of it flattering. Who knows what is true or false but much if it has great sources and what seem to be people in the know reporting.The stories are hot linked for you to read in full. Just click on the story.Reports: Debbie

June 30, 2009 04:12 PM

I do like Chris Cillizza's The FIX column for the WaPo on most days and he's been very helpful via e-mails, but what was up with his man-crush on Lindsey Graham after watching him on MTP? Graham is a constant figure on the talk-show circuit and has been for a long time, so I really find it surprising that Chris would almost call him " A New Republican Leader?" Dispirited Republicans looking for national leaders amid a wash of scandals that have dominated national news over the last fortnight got a bit of good news on Sunday with an inspired performance on "Meet the Press" by South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham (R). Graham, who spent the 2008 election cycle as Sen. John McCain's loyal sidekick, appeared alongside former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, the GOP frontrunner in advance of 2012, and managed to stand out. Why? Because unlike other Republicans who seem to be so fixated on scoring political points on President Obama, Graham was willing to point out where his own party had strayed while also making a reasonable argument for GOP ideals...read on All he's every been is a yes man for John McCain ever since I can remember who seems jacked up on Red Bull most days when he's in front of the cameras. I'd like Chris to answer the question I posed on Sunday: Why was he on NBC at all when he clearly is compromised when talking about Gov. Mark Sanford -- because he's Godfather to several of his kids? Maybe that was the reason Chris thought that he seemed a bit more humble than usual? Huckleberry was really close to Sanford and had to be torn up inside over Sanford's affair, but it really didn't stop him from taking shots at President Obama even when he tried to compliment him. d-day writes: This is pretty unbelievable. Somehow, calling Obama a dissembler and a thug is tempered by saying that he appears to not be sleeping around. And it's notable for Graham to point out that he voted against one article of impeachment, despite being a HOUSE MANAGER for the impeachment trial and perhaps as visible as any politician in that entire episode. Graham has been questioning the patriotism and the judgment of any Democrat in his path for well over a decade. And using the words "Karl Rove politics" or "Tom DeLay politics" hardly changes the fact that Graham's record was more conservative than DeLay when he was in the House. Graham's words about "bipartisanship" are nonsense and never match his actions.

June 30, 2009 04:00 PM

The main goal of health care reform is to lower the cost of health insurance. Apropos, Olympia Snowe thinks that the problem with a public health insurance option is that a public option would... wait for it... lower the cost of health insurance:

In an Associated Press interview in Portland, Snowe said it would be unfair to include a government-run health insurance option that would take effect immediately.

"If you establish a public option at the forefront that goes head-to-head and competes with the private health insurance market ... the public option will have significant price advantages," she said.

Well, duh. That is the whole point. You can't lower the price of health insurance unless you start offering lower-priced health insurance. It's a tautology.

So, naturally, during the fight to lower the price of health insurance, so-called moderate Senators think that the problem with the public option is that it would... lower the price of health insurance. While it may be news to so-called moderate Senators, protecting the crappy products of large corporations is not their job description.

It is pretty amazing that many moderates and industry figures are actually arguing that the problem with including a public option in health care reform legislation is that a public option would lower the cost of health insurance. Clearly, they have a different view of the purpose of health care reform than most Americans.

June 30, 2009 03:29 PM

Prairie Weather: How much faith do you have in your judicial system?

AfterDowningStreet: Cheney's top torture lawyers now work for Obama

SCOTUSblog: What Ricci says about the Supreme Court's views of Judge Sotomayor... and about Alito

Bitter Lawyer: Michael Jackson's Top Ten Legal Representations

Welcome Back to Pottersville: What have we learned from Stonewall?

Hill's Country: Rushpublicans and their excuses

June 30, 2009 03:00 PM

I wrote a short piece last week in which I tried to remind Congress that we need to have hearings on the financial meltdown for obvious reasons: Just a reminder. I know we've asked for a Truth Commission on torture over and over again, but what about the financial catastrophe the world just experienced? When will hearings be held to uncover the facts that led us and the world to financial ruin? I know we have many basic facts of what happened, but when will an actual hearing take place? If nothing is officially uncovered then how can we stop another one from taking place? Bill Scher of CFAF heard a little birdy and it sounds quite promising on that front now: Word is circulating in Washington that members for the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission will be named this week. The commission is supposed to resemble the 1930s Pecora commission that dug into the culprits behind the Great Depression and laid the groundwork for major bank reform. But that will only be true if the commission is run by aggressive seekers of truth, independent of the financial industry, willing to use their subpoena power, knowledgeable enough to have warned us of impeding crisis in the first place despite market cheerleading from the political and media establishments. -- Speculation from Reuters last week on who might be named was not terribly encouraging, though most of the names floated clearly were coming from conservative circles, as Republican leaders will pick four of the 10 members. Cut...OK, here's where we come in. Updated: No members of Congress can be on the commission, but I think an Alan Grayson or Henry Waxman type would be good choices for the commission. . We do need a panel of brilliant minds that has real progressive representation, but what we also need are people that have an appreciation for the "dramatic." That is, they should know how to ask questions with their allotted time in such a way that it will be highly informative and entertaining at the same time. These are the moments that can really educate Americans, but the commission needs members that understand how to use their valuable time---not to pontificate---but to educate and uncover. And it needs to be riveting while getting to the truth of this mess. Please ask Speaker Pelosi and Harry Reid to make sure they put together a great panel. Nancy was almost scheduled to do a live chat on C&L last week, but because of my family issues, we are rescheduling. However, I think if we let her know how strongly we feel about the new Pecora Commission and ensuring that progressives are solidly represented, she'll come through. Here's her contact info. Harry Reid is another story. Here's Reid's office info, so please let him know too. Please tell us who you would like to be on the Commission and I'll pass it on. Mike Lux likes economists Rob Johnson and Simon Johnson. A helping hand from Paul Krugman would be nice too. Scher continues... RoberKuttnerer explained in the Huffington Post: Among the names leaked is just one person with the stature, expertise, and resolve to run a tough investigation (if she were chair)Brooksleyey Born ... ...On the Republican side, with one exception, the leaked names could be an alumni society of the people whose policies helped cause the collapse. The absolute howler in the list is former senator JakGarnrn of Utah, a tireless proponent of financial deregulation. Among other travestiesGarnrn sponsored thGarnrn-St. Germain Act of 1982, the law that allowed savings and loan associations to become speculators' playgrounds, and led directly to the S&L collapse. Another proposed Republican is Bill Thomas, former chair of the House Ways and Means, a legislator who never met a financial special interest he didn't like; and former Republican Senator and presidential candidate Fred Thompson... ...The only other Democrat on Reuters' leaked list is former Florida senator and governor Bob Graham, a self-identified New Democrat who served on both the Senate

June 30, 2009 01:45 PM

We connect the dots, you deduce the conspiracy:

June 8: David Letterman tells a joke about the Palin family, forcing conservatives to divert precious blogging resources away from Obama-bashing to defend the plucky Alaskans. A trial run of the diversionary tactics the MSM will soon use to help squash Iranian freedom?

June 13: Protests against the Iranian elections begin.

June 16: Obama refuses to credit America for Iranian uprising, proving once again that it is all about him.

June 24: South Carolina governor Mark Sanford admits to Argentinian affair, kicking off major MSM operations against Iran’s Green Revolution.

June 26: Michael Jackson dies. Liberal media blitzkrieg is now in full swing as unending wave of Jacko chyrons effectively trample the corpse of Neda into the dust.

June 28: Death of infomercial pitchman Billy Mays. Nascent Iranian democracy successfully nipped in the bud by media thugs.

June 30, 2009 01:19 PM