First Veto

CNN has a breaking alert banner that says Bush will use his first veto on any bill to stop the DPW port management deal.

That sure shows us where Bush's priorities lie.

Update: Via Drudge:

Bush called reports at about 2.30 aboard Air Force One to issue a very strong defense of port deal... MORE... He said he would veto any legislation to hold up deal and warned the United States was sending 'mixed signals' by going after a company from the Middle East when nothing was said when a British company was in charge... Lawmakers, he said, must 'step up and explain why a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard.' Bush was very forceful when he delivered the statement... 'I don't view it as a political fight,' Bush said.... MORE... MORE...

Technorati Tags: Homeland Security, Bush, Crony Capitalism

Crony Capitalism and Homeland Security

Beyond the obvious concerns of outsourcing port security to a foreign company, it now turns out that the company was chosen because of administration ties:

The Dubai firm that won Bush administration backing to run six U.S. ports has at least two ties to the White House.

One is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose agency heads the federal panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale of an English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World - giving it control of Manhattan's cruise ship terminal and Newark's container port.

Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush's cabinet.

The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World's European and Latin American operations and was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.

At what point can we say "enough is enough"?



Technorati Tags: Homeland Security, Bush, Crony Capitalism

Thought for the Day

"The absence of flaw in beauty is itself a flaw."

--Havelock Ellis

Orrin Hatch (Liar-UT)

How trustworthy of a Senator are you when you will lie to your supporters face:

Nobody denies that [Saddam Hussein] was supporting al-Qaeda…Well, I shouldn’t say nobody. Nobody with brains.

However, everybody with intelligence knows that Hussein was not supporting al-Qaeda




Technorati Tags: Orrin Hatch, Think Progress

Criminalizing Abortion

The first abortion case to be taken by the new Supreme Court: Late term abortions.

Will the Alito/Roberts team begin the process of criminalizing abortion?

I am willing to say yes.

Hopefully I will be proven wrong.



Technorati Tags: Alito, Roberts, Supreme Court, Abortion Rights

Calling Out O'Reilly

New York Times Columnist Nick Kristof called out Bill O'Reilly for the criticism he has been lobbing at Kristof over his writing about Darfur, Sudan. Kristof's response was that O'Reilly needs to go there, and see for himself what Darfur is like, before telling his listeners that Kristof doesn't know.

O'Reilly's cowardly response: "I do three hours of daily news analysis on TV and radio. There's no way I can go to Africa."

In response Kristof started some fund raising to ensure that O'Reilly could go to Africa and still do his show remotely. Kristof has pledges of $727,568 if O'Reilly goes.

I am willing to bet that O'Reilly is too cowardly to take Kristof up on his challenge.



Technorati Tags: Kristof, O'Reilly, Darfur

The Secrecy Presidency

Bush orders unclassified information classified:

Under existing guidelines, government documents are supposed to be declassified after 25 years unless there is a particular reason to keep them secret.

Some historians say the program is removing material that can do no conceivable harm to national security and note that some of the documents have been published by the government, the Times said.

Critics say it is part of a marked trend toward greater secrecy under the Bush administration, which has increased the pace of classifying documents, slowed declassification and discouraged the release of some material under the Freedom of Information Act, the paper said.

What purpose would classifying these documents have?

Of course, the conspiracy theorist in me, says that Bush is trying to rewrite history. He is trying to have information that would be favorable to Clinton, and other Presidents hidden away, so that when people say "Clinton did it too", then much of the information would no longer be available that would prove otherwise.

Hmmm.



Technorati Tags: Bush Secrecy

The Hateful Right

Via Atrios we are pointed to this post by Matt Stoller at MyDD:

I'm not trying to prove this Republican, Nick Danger, wrong. He is self-evidently lying when he says that 'virtually everyone hired by media companies is a partisan Democrat'. I am trying to say that these people mean what they say. They hate reporters, blindly. You as reporters can't do a good enough job to satisfy them, because they are after obediance and not truth. They hate you. They hate what you stand for. They will rejoice in your downfall. They will lie to you because you don't matter to them. You have no legitimacy.

I'm not making this up. Just read Redstate. And you should start to figure out a better way to defend yourself from their dripping hatred, because the 'I'm neutral' line sure isn't working.

He is exactly right. Conservatives today, absolutely do hate journalists, because a journalist occasionally has to report the truth. Unlike columnists, or Rush Limbaugh, or any other media personality the Right loves.

That the reporters continue to try and pacify the Right with their "Balanced" reporting, in which both sides of every issue, regardless of how far out one side is, or allowing people like Ann Coulter, or Michelle Malkin appear on television out of some bizarre need to present "the other side".

The criticism that comes from the left keeps getting portrayed as "bloggers trying to replace reporting". No, bloggers are trying to encourage good reporting. Why that is so hard for reporters to grasp is beyond me.





Technorati Tags: Atrios, MyDD.com, Liberal Media, Right Wing Bias

DPW Would Control US Military Shipments

We could go on and on about what is wrong with the Bush administrations plan to allow DPW to take over US Port operations, but I really don't think that the debate needs to go any further than whether or not we allow a foreign operator to manage U.S. Military shipments





Technorati Tags: Port Security, Think Progress, Military Shipments

Digby, Stoller and Buetler

Digby offers his 2¢ on the debate that was going on between Matt Stoller of MyDD.com, and William Buetler of Hotline Blogometer and the Washington Examiner:

It's not "left" and "right" or "liberal," "moderate," or "conservative" that animates the grassroots. We argue some amongst ourselves on policy, of course, but that's not the rap on the establishment. It's the desire that our representatives wake up and recognise that we are in a new political era in which these designations take second place to "Democrat." That's the environment we are in whether we like it or not --- a country sharply divided by party, not ideology.

The Democratic party did everything it could to alleviate the culture war and the partisanship in the 90's by electing southern moderates to the white house and helping the Republicans pass a lot of legislation born of major compromise of Democratic principles. Nothing was good enough. The culture war raged, not on the basis of policy --- there was much in Bill Clinton's policies for a Republican to love. It was based purely on the tribal instincts of the culture warriors who insisted that liberals not only be marginalized (fair enough in politics) but that they be annihilated. They gave no quarter unless public opinion absolutely forced them to.

The grassroots believe that after all that, after moving to the right, after offering to compromise, after allowing our "red state Democrats" to run with the other side who then treated them with nothing but bad faith, now is the time for politicans to make a choice. Submit to them or stand with the resistence.

This pretty much encompasses my entire dissatisfaction with the Washington Democratic establishment. At what point do they wake up and realize that no matter how much they compromise and try to work with Republicans, they are not interested in coexistence with Democrats. They want total control of the government. Lieberman is a friend of Republicans for only as long as he is willing to spout Republican talking points, and backstab other Democrats.


Once Democrats wake up from their slumber, and recognize this, is when they will gain significant support from people all over the country.



Technorati Tags: digby, Matt Stoller, William Buetler

Port Security and UAE

I am not going to claim I know enough about the issues surrounding the Bush Administrations selection of Dubai Ports World, based in Dubai, UAE, to manage US ports. However, I do find it telling that the Bush administration would choose a foreign company. However, as is par for the Bush course, there is plenty of secrecy and a refusal on the part of the administration to be forthcoming.




Technorati Tags: Port Security

Republicans as Opposition

Glenn Greenwald has a good post up on the Domestic Spying Scandal.

The short version is that Republicans in Congress are the ones who are standing up to Karl Rove. Not the Democrats.

What is missing from this whole equation is any real effort on the part of Democrats to push all of this forward. Imagine where things would be -- how bad things would be for the White House -- if Democrats hadn't decided early on that this is an issue they should run away and hide from, rather than pursue with relentless aggression. Anyone who speaks with even the most liberal advocacy groups, supposedly left-wing pundits, Democratics consultants, etc. will tell you that they all still think this is a scandal which Democrats should just let go. That, of course, is the type of fear-driven, principle-less advice that has led Democrats to three straight defeats.

Clearly, the Administration knows better, and Congressional Republicans do not seem nearly as inclined to give the White House a free pass on breaking the law. Hopefully, Democrats will start to recognize the highly destructive, potentially fatal weapon which has fallen into their lap.

At somepoint I would have hoped that Congressional Democrats would have decided that their role as minority party would become old. However, they seem to be in a race with Bill Frist and Dennis Hastert to see who can say yes to the White House the fastest.

Thankfully there are still a few old school Republicans in Congress who haven't fallen for the whole Bush Cult thing, and are willing to stand up for what is right.



Technorati Tags: Domestic Spying, Glenn Grennwald

Thought for the Day

"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth."

--Umberto Eco

Now That's commitment

In an effort to reassure Americans that President Bush isn't interested in spying on Americans, for spying's sake, Bush created a group to oversee the spying program to ensure it doesn't infringe on American's Constitutional guarantees:

For Americans troubled by the prospect of federal agents eavesdropping on their phone conversations or combing through their Internet records, there is good news: A little-known board exists in the White House whose purpose is to ensure that privacy and civil liberties are protected in the fight against terrorism.

Thank goodness George Bush is so concerned about protecting our civil liberties. He went so far as to create a procedure to ensure that our rights are protected.

Someday, it might actually meet.

Initially proposed by the bipartisan commission that investigated the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board was created by the intelligence overhaul that President Bush signed into law in December 2004.

More than a year later, it exists only on paper.

Foot-dragging, debate over its budget and powers, and concern over the qualifications of some of its members — one was treasurer of Bush's first campaign for Texas governor — has kept the board from doing a single day of work.

Ah, I see. This board appears to be a political favor.




Technorati Tags: Domestic Spying

Olympics

Atrios makes a point that has kind of bothered me about the Olympics coverage for the past few years. Despite have multiple channels NBC's coverage of the Olympics is atrocious. Over the years the coverage of the actual events has declined, even as their ability to broadcast such events as increased.

At the same time, it appears that the hostility towards the Winter Olympics has increased as well. From various bloggers, to Bill Maher and Bryant Gumbel comparing the Winter Olympics to an RNC convention. Why is it? Is it because America cannot field a strong team in events which Americans don't participate in? Is it, as Bryant Gumbel says, because people don't like to see a bunch of white people competing against more white people? What is it?

Some of it is this pseudo-intellectual rejection of sport as a pursuit for the less intelligent among us. Some of it is the way sports figures are elevated to the status of role model, just for being an athelete. And even more of it is a bias against sports that Americans don't excel at.

People train for years to reach the top of their chosen discipline, and a bunch of people who don't sit around and tell them they don't participate in a "real sport" because, frankly, they don't understand what is involved in training for, and being successful at that event.

Let me make a suggestion to anyone who feels that Winter Sports aren't a "real sport".

Try it, and tell me how easy it is.



Technorati Tags: Olympics, NBC, Torino

The Relevance of Deborah Howell

There have been a number of posts around the blogosphere about Deborah Howell's screed against Dana Milbank, in addition to mine below.

See: firedoglake, Crooks and Liars, and MyDD for some examples.

After reading these, and their respective authors take on this column, it has become obvious that Deborah Howell does not see herself as the Washington Post's Ombudsman, but as a Washington Post Columnist. By continuing to attack her for abdicating her role as Ombudsman and picking apart the content of her column the risk going forward is that she ends up becoming a legitimate voice in the conversation. Her column was, under the guise of the Ombudsman, a broadside against liberal bloggers, and the fight she ignited with her repeating of the Republican lie that Democrats were recipients of Abramoff's largess, and compounded by her less than tepid pseudo-correction, and the WashingtonPost.com's idiotic response to being called out. You can see from some of the responses from the right just how Howell's comments played. Pretty much exactly as I would have predicted. "Liberal Media personality gets smackdown".

So, how should we regard Howell, and her columns, and her role as WaPo's Ombudsman?

It is clear that barring a few personalities, the entire editorial preference for the paper is to become increasingly conservative in its slant. The paper itself is sliding into the Authoritarian Cultism that Glenn Greenwald wrote about last week. The only thing that can be taken away from Howell's latest column, is the "taking out to the woodshed" that Milbank supposedly suffered, was probably a not so subtle reminder that the paper wants to become a conservative mouthpiece.




Technorati Tags: Dana Milbank, Deborah Howell, Washington Post

Why Pat Robertson Should be Ignored

Pat Robertson is like a double-edged sword. He manages to piss off both sides with this ramblings. His over the top comments get people on the left worked up, because he is the most visible face of the religious right, and many members of the religious right get all fretful as his insane pronouncements get more and more over-the-top.

However, what gets lost in this fretting and outrage, is that Pat Robertson makes this pronouncements to get attention. He does this to get people all up in arms, and then those that continue to support his brand of Christian Fundamentalism send him more money.

The question that needs to be asked, when debating whether or not to respond to the latest idiocy out of his mouth is, should we be ignoring Robertson into irrelevance, or continuing to give him relevance in order to give some of the religious right heartburn?

I personally would prefer it if he went away.




Technorati Tags: Pat Robertson, Religious Right

Thought for the Day

"Advertising may be described as the science of arresting the human intelligence long enough to get money from it."

--Unknown

What Where the 10 Biggest Presidential Blunders?

You can read it here

I'll give you one guess, as to who is not on this list.




Technorati Tags: CNN, Media Whores

Are Republicans off Limits ...

... for Dana Milbank's columns and appearances on Countdown?

Apparently so.

Dana Milbank can be controversial with readers. The Post reporter has his fans -- and I can be one of them -- but I think his appearance on MSNBC last week was a mistake in judgment.

If you hadn't seen that show on MSNBC, there is a picture of his outfit accompanying Deborah Howell's column.

Howell details a list of Republican figures that Milbank has targeted in his appearances on Countdown, and what is Howell's position on that:

He does sometimes cross the line into commentary -- in an Oct. 12 column, he counted how many times President Bush blinked during a television interview, and in a Nov. 3 column he frequently referred to Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's rumpled clothes and personal awkwardness. Both columns seemed like put-downs. On Jan. 27, he wrote that President Bush gave a "Bourbonic performance" at a news conference.

But I loved his Feb. 1 column about watching Supreme Court justices decide whether to clap, sit or stand during the State of the Union address. And writing about a Jan. 25 hearing on lobbying reform, he followed quotations of senators with mentions of how much money they had received from lobbyists in recent years. Cleverly done.

These two paragraphs are quite telling.

Criticizing the awful speech that Bush gave: too much
Criticizing how the Supreme Court Justices behaved, or lobbying reform: Ok


I suppose that when Milbank's articles are critical of Democrats, it is good journalism, but when it is critical of Republicans, or even worse George Bush, it is opinion?


Technorati Tags: Deborah Howell, Dana Milbank, Washington Post

Thought for the Day

"Your true value depends entirely on what you are compared with."

--Bob Wells

Bloggers as Boogymen

Matt Stoller does a pretty good take down on the latest attack on liberal bloggers by the media.

This time, liberal bloggers are evil because they don't support Lieberman, or Cuellar, or whomever the Washington establishment Democrats support or whatever the point was.

I really have two things to add to this.

To those who are bound and determined to not listen to bloggers, or more importantly the rest of the Democratic party supporters, screw you.

The other thing, has to do with the amount of time liberal bloggers have been spending on hack journalism such as this. Most readers of blogs are smart enough to know just how much the media is desparately trying to stem the rise of blogs, because they cannot control the narrative. By spending time responding to thier attacks, we liberal bloggers are allowing them that measure of control.



Technorati Tags: Blogging, Liberals

Congress is Ripe for the Picking

Just a hint to those in the DNC:

Few adults in the United States are satisfied with the performance of the House of Representatives and the Senate, according to a poll by Harris Interactive. Only 25 per cent of respondents have a positive opinion of the current Congress, unchanged since January.

With the 2006 elections just around the corner, and with the American public having such an overwhelming negative view of Congress, this is the perfect opportunity to make change the campaign theme for 2006.

Polling Data

How would you rate the job the Congress is doing—excellent, pretty good, only fair, or poor?

	Feb. 2006	Jan. 2006
Positive	25%	25%
Negative	71%	72%

Thanks to Raw Story for the link.


Technorati Tags: Congress, 2006, Congressional Elections, 2006 Elections

It's A Long Way Down

From the top:

When Tom DeLay was the most powerful man in the House of Representatives, Congress and the president devoted $500 million over 10 years for an oil and gas project lawmakers expected to go to a firm in DeLay's hometown.

But just a month after the embattled former House majority leader announced he would not try to keep his leadership job, the Bush administration cut funding for the project from its 2007 budget, and announced in the fine print of its 1,220-page fiscal blueprint that it would seek legislation to kill the program outright.

Poor DeLay. He is learning who his real friends are.



Technorati Tags: Tom DeLay

The Bush Legacy

Forevermore this is how the Bush Presidency will be defined:



Sad, isn't it.



From Josh via Atrios


Technorati Tags: Whittington, Cheney, Bush, Bush Legacy

Pissing in the Consumers Face

That is what the RIAA is doing:

Why should you be allowed to make backups of CDs you've purchased when you can replace them? And why should CD backups be legal when users can already decided to purchase from (DRM-laden) services that do allow the limited copying of lossy music files? Here, again, we see the way in which the RIAA et al. would like to see contract law take over the domain of fair use. "Leave it up to DRM, you big dummies!"

The position of the RIAA, and by extension the recording companies that fund the RIAA, if you purchase a CD, you are permitted to listen to that CD only in an approved device. If you want to listen to the music on a CD you purchased at work, and in your car, your options are a) take the CD out of your cars CD player, and take it into the office and play it in an additional CD player, or b) purchase more than one copy of the CD.

The RIAA is trying to salvage their failed business model, by punishing the consumer. I purchased a CD, so that I can have a copy at home, and on my MP3 player with me at all times.

If the RIAA gets its wish, then I will be inviolation of the DMCA for wanting to listen to the music their member companies have made available for me to purchase.

And people wonder why illegal music downloading continues even today.

Thanks to Lean Left for this link.



Technorati Tags: RIAA

Thought for the Day

"The enemy is anybody who's going to get you killed, no matter which side he's on."

--Joseph Heller

Ahh, Nostalgia

Via Gizmodo, you too can relive the days of Pac-Man and Inky, Blinky, Pinky, and Clyde with this pendant:


I know Valentines day has past, but I am sure the 80's geek in all of us longs for one of these.




Technorati Tags: Pac-Man, 80's

I Used to be Like Richard Cohen

Believing that algebra was worthless knowledge. I mean, how would I ever use this meaningless stuff.

2x+4=A?

What's the point!

The only difference between me, and Richard Cohen?


I believed that when I was 12.



Via Pharyngula.




Technorati Tags: Algebra, Richard Cohen

Supporting the Troops, Republican Style

Via Atrios we find that George Bush's support for the troops, doesn't extend to their paychecks:

Today, Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) led a 10-Senator effort to increase the pay for servicemembers. The President’s budget specifies a 2.2% increase – the smallest pay raise for our military since 1994.

Fortunately a Senator who really does care about our troops welfare fired back:

“Our troops are sacrificing so much, in every corner of the world. Shortchanging them and the families who love them is a lousy way to say thanks,” said Kerry, who authored the letter.

“Our military deserves leadership that matches their service and patriotism. Getting our troops the pay raise they deserve is the very least we can do to show how much we value everything they do for us. I’m going to fight for a fair military pay raise until it becomes a reality, and I thank my colleagues who have joined me in doing so,” added Kerry.

How disgusting it is that our leaders, who are the first to accuse someone of undermining our soldiers in the field, are the first to deny them fair compensation.

It's not like soldiers get paid all that much to start with.



Technorati Tags: Bush, Kerry, Military Pay

Ethics for Thee, but not for Me

So says Arlen Specter:

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter on Thursday denied any connection between special projects he gained for his state and a Washington lobbyist whose wife works in Specter's office. But his office also said it was sending the matter to the Senate ethics committee.

"To satisfy all conceivable concern, we are voluntarily forwarding this case" to the ethics committee, according to a statement from the Republican senator's chief of staff.

USA Today reported that Specter had helped secure nearly $50 million in federal funds over four years for groups that had hired the lobbyist husband of one of his aides.

In dismissing any connection, Specter told reporters in a telephone interview, "That would be a blatant conflict of interest, inappropriate, and I don't think that happened."

So, let me make sure I understand everything.

An aide to Arlen Specter is married to a lobbyist, who lobby's for various groups that have received almost $50 million dollars in federal earmarks that Specter trumped in press releases that he successfully arranged.

And this is all above board?



Technorati Tags: Arlen Specter, Ethics

The Doctor Discount Store

George Bush must think there is one, because what else would prompt this:

President Bush argued Thursday that the United States needs a health care system in which patients pay more directly for their care, because that will turn them into comparison shoppers whose interest in a good deal will drive costs down.

Bush said the current system, in which employers and insurance companies are the most involved in paying health care bills, makes individuals less engaged in the cost of the procedures they get.

Yeah, right. Let me just go down to Wal-Mart and find the low cost leader in cancer treatment.

When you or a family member are sick, and in need of a doctor, what is the first thing that you think of? Gee, I wonder if the doctor I am going to is the cheapest in town? If you need to go to a hospital for an emergency, do you ask the ambulance driver if the hospital he is driving you to price matches the competition?

Bush is also pushing these Health Savings Accounts as an alternative to medical insurance. This is another one of those lame ideas that have come and gone. Basically you put your (pre-tax) money into a sort of savings account, which according to current tax law, you have to use up be the end of the calendar year, or you lose it. On top of that, you replace your current health insurance plan with a higher cost catastrophic health plan, which covers your medical costs when you reach some really high deductible, out of your Health Savings Account.

None of this is designed to help people get medical insurance, and the comparison shopping idea is just ludicrous on its face.

When you are in the financial position that George Bush is in, then the cost of healthcare or health insurance is not such a big deal. When you are in the financial position that most Americans are, the thought of having to pay large medical bills directly out of your pocket, rather than paying into an insurance plan, is a big deal.

If Bush was really concerned about Americans having adequate health insurance coverage, he should be out stumping for a national, single-payer health insurance plan. One that ensures a basic level of medical coverage for ALL Americans.


Update: From commenter Paul, I may have gotten the details on HSA'a wrong. Apparently they are similar to a 401k plan, in that you don't have to use it or lose it at the end of the calendar year. I see this as only a good deal if you are already well off. For the sake of discussion, if you have no major medical issues as a young person, and continue to contribute to your HSA (and based on 401k contribution rates, I don't see enough people participating in this plan), you should have a significant sum of cash when you get older. However, and this is the case whether young or older, once the money runs out what's left?

What incentive is there for young workers to basically plan for their healthcare needs when they get older?

This plan sets up a situation in which most people (again based on 401k participation rates, this should hold true), have no health coverage, at the same time does nothing to increase the numbers of Americans who are insured.

A net loss, in my book.

Technorati Tags: Health Insurance, Health Savings Accounts

Taking Religion Back

Jim Wallis says it is time for liberal Christians to take their religion back from the Religious Right:

Jim Wallis - who has been consulted by US presidents as well as Tony Blair and Gordon Brown - yesterday urged liberal Christians to move the agenda from the right's focus of sexual morality to a less partisan approach.

The 57-year-old, of Washington DC, is a long-term campaigner for social justice and fighting poverty.

"We need a moral discourse in public life, and it is wrong for the left to leave it to the political right to define the issues," he said. "The left lacks respect and is too often disdainful and condescending in listening to people of faith.

"Religion does not have a monopoly of morality - the issue is not whether a person has a personal faith but whether they have a moral compass."

Beyond the usual tactic the left has used, of stating the Jesus would have been a Democrat, it is long past time for the moralizers on the right, who preach hatred against gays, to be countered by real arguments of why liberalism is right for Christians.

Rather than run away from religion, as the left is want to do, the left should embrace those tenants of Christianity that fit with liberal ideology. Tolerance being a big one, and redirect the narrative that the right has dictated for years. However, and this is a big fear of mine, is that it will turn into blatant pandering to Christians, which will backfire.



Technorati Tags: Jim Wallis, Religion

"Most people ignore most poetry / because / most poetry ignores most people."

--Adrian Mitchell

Formula One Blogging

I haven't written too much lately about motorsports, because that really is not the focus of this blog. However, with the approach of the 2006 Formula One season, I have been keeping my eye on the various sites that cater to that crowd.

For the 2006 season, the size of the engine was reduced from V10s to V8s, and despite the reduction in engine size, the manufacturers have actually been able to increase the RPM's, and the horsepower of the engines.

Max Mosley, the FIA President has come up with a new plan, which I happen to like, which goes away from regulating the size/horsepower of the engines the teams run to limiting the amount of fuel a team can use in a race:

"All kinds of engines will be allowed to use," Mosley told Gazzetta dello Sport. "But each car will have the same amount of fuel that it may use. So the engine rule is based on the consumption of the engine. The winner of the race is the one that uses his fuel to the maximum."

This is going back to the past of Formula One, in which the winner of the race wasn't necessarily always the fastest car on the track.

It sets up the speed versus fuel consumption trade off in a very dramatic fashion. Is it better to have a car that can run 200 miles per hour yet require two fuel stops to go a race distance, or a car that maxes out at 150 miles per hour, yet can complete the race distance with zero fuel stops? Currently the entire pit stop can take between 20 and 30 seconds from the moment the driver enters the pit lane, until he reenters the race. With lap times in the 1 minute 20 second range, that is a one quarter lap advantage per pit stop a car that doesn't have to stop can gain.

Add to that the additional weight a car with a bigger engine has to carry through the turns with braking and acceleration, the smaller more fuel efficient car can easily be in a position to win, despite the lower top speed.

This is a regulation change that I really like, and would like to see implemented.



Technorati Tags: Formula One, F1, Max Mosley

Priorities Folks, Priorities

Brit Hume knows for sure where America's priorities lie, when it comes to Dick Cheney shooting a 78 year old man in the face:

The Hume interview contained a pair of TiVo-worthy moments that left me wondering "Did I really hear that?" and reaching for the replay button.

TiVo Moment #1: After Cheney walked Hume through the specifics of the shooting, including a cataloguing of Whittington's injuries ("He was struck in the right side of his face, his neck and his upper torso on the right side of his body"), Hume inexplicably followed up with this jaw dropper: "And I take it you missed the bird?"

The VP has just painted a verbal picture of blasting his friend in the face and Brit is wondering about... the bird?!

That's right, you lilly-livered liberals.

If Harry Whittington hadn't gotten in the way, that damned bird would be dead.




Technorati Tags: Cheney, Cheney Hunting, Cheney Shooting

The Supreme Executive

Cheney thinks it is inherent in the power of the President and Vice-President to determine when something can be declassified?

Vice President Dick Cheney says he has the power to declassify government secrets, raising the possibility that he authorized his former chief of staff to pass along sensitive prewar data on Iraq to reporters.

Cheney coupled his statement in a TV interview Wednesday with an endorsement of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, his ex-aide. Libby is under indictment on charges of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI about disclosing the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame.

[...]

"I have certainly advocated declassification. I have participated in declassification decisions," Cheney said. Asked for details, he said, "I don't want to get into that. There's an executive order that specifies who has classification authority, and obviously it focuses first and foremost on the president, but also includes the vice president."

I wonder who wrote this executive order?



Technorati Tags: Valerie Plame, Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney

Daou to Rightwing Bloggers

Prove the media is liberal:

A Challenge to Rightwing Bloggers Who Blame the Media for the Cheney Mess: Prove it. One of the great absurdities of our time is the persistent notion that the traditional media skews left. Reporters buy into it, Democratic strategists and leaders buy into it, and rank and file rightwingers live by it. As I've written previously, the right controls all branches of government, talk radio is dominated by rightwing voices, there's a cable channel devoted to the rightwing perspective (and two others racing to do the same), there's a herd of rightwing pundits spewing anti-left venom across editorial pages, radio, television, the internet, etc., Bush's press conferences are cloying jokefests, and "neutral" journalists echo deep-seated pro-GOP myths.

It is, as usual, a very good post. In it Daou lists out proof that the media has a rightwing bias. The list is plenty long, and each point is backed up with sources.

I would like to see rightwing bloggers step up and put their money where their mouth is.

I'm willing to bet they can't or won't.





Technorati Tags: Liberal Media, Peter Daou, Media Bias

Cheney Accepts Blame

As well he should. Afterall, he pulled the trigger.

The interesting thing is that Cheney confirmed, which others have noted elsewhere was removed from MSNBC.com, was that Cheney was drinking beer that day:

The Vice President also revealed that he had a beer at a picnic held earlier in the day at the ranch, at least four to five hours before the shooting.

One other note, is that eventhough Cheney accepts blame for the incident, he does not feel he mishandled the reporting of the incident.

Thus living up to the Bush Administration motto: Don't Admit Mistakes



Technorati Tags: Cheney, Cheney Hunting, Cheney Shooting

DeLay Lashes Out

Via The Carpetbagger we learn that Tom DeLay is feeling a bit of heat in the lead up to the Republican primary on March 7:

In Texas' 22nd District, former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R) routinely faces token opposition in Republican primaries. The challengers are never taken seriously; DeLay never deigns to even pretend they exist; and local Republican voters always dispatch the primary opposition at the polls easily.

But this year's different. DeLay's constituents may be conservative, but they are getting sick of him and his ethical scandals. Moreover, DeLay has a real primary opponent, Tom Campbell, whose campaign is generating serious attention.

That DeLay is feeling a challenge in his own party primary is obviously cause for concern inside his campaign.

Could this be the end of the reign of DeLay?

Let's hope so.

You can help DeLay's Democratic challenger, Nick Lampson, here



Technorati Tags: Tom DeLay, Nick Lampson, Tx-22, Texas

Thought for the Day

"There are many who dare not kill themselves for fear of what the neighbors will say."

--Cyril Connolly

This Ought to Be Interesting

Cheney to break silence:

Vice President Dick Cheney planned to break his silence Wednesday in his first televised interview about the Texas hunting accident in which he shot a 78-year-old lawyer.

Cheney was to appear on Fox News Channel at 6 p.m. EST, the network and the White House announced. He hasn't spoken publicly about the accident Saturday that hospitalized Harry Whittington of Austin.

Only I can't stand watching Fox News.




Technorati Tags: Cheney, Cheney Hunting, Cheney Shooting

Known by the Friends you Keep

This installment comes from Henry Cuellar:

U.S. Congressman Henry Cuellar -- a so-called Democrat from Laredo, Texas -- wants to give $100 million dollars to the Minutemen, the racist, gun-toting vigilante group.

Last October, Representative Cuellar sponsored a bill called the "Border Law Enforcement Act of 2005" that would essentially deputize members of the Minutemen militia by giving them new titles, badges and guns.

There is a saying in Spanish,"dime con quien andas y te dire quien eres," which basically means that you can tell a lot about a person by the company that they keep. Representative Cuellar sponsored the "Border Law Enforcement Act" with none other than the "Grand Dragon" of the anti-immigrant legislators - Rep. Tom Tancredo, Republican from Colorado. Cuellar's bill is also part of the draconian House-passed immigration reform bill HR 4437, which, among other wrong headed ideas, would further militarize the US/Mexico border, build a Berlin-style wall all along the border, and criminalize millions of immigrants and good Samaritans.

I am sure that the Minutemen are quite popular in South Texas.

All the more reason to support Ciro Rodiguez

Via Atrios

Technorati Tags: Ciro Rodriguez, Henry Cuellar

Hackett Withdraw Update

It seems that my assumption that Howard Dean was on board with Paul Hackett being pushed out of the Ohio Senate primary was wrong:

MIAMI Democratic party chair Howard Dean says he's not happy that Iraqi war veteran Paul Hackett is dropping out of the race for U-S Senate in Ohio.
Dean told a student audience in Miami that "some skulduggery in Washington" improperly led to Hackett's decision to end his bid. And he said Democrats will have a tough time winning if similar things happen to others.

Hackett was vying with Ohio congressman Sherrod Brown for the Democratic nomination. He said that Hackett was a "great candidate," and that a primary in Ohio wouldn't have hurt the party. Hackett says he's ending his eleven-month political career.

This is good to hear. Because part of Howard Dean's candidacy for President was that he wasn't a Washington Establishment Democrat.

Shakespeare's Sister (who found this link) thinks that perhaps Democrats in Washington should have extended something in return to Hackett, as a kind of "sorry, it's just business" gesture of goodwill.

Well, maybe. Frankly, were it me, I would have been just as offended as Hackett. It may be smart politics, but it doesn't change the fact that this desire to not have a contested primary, is not a good thing. The conventional wisdom in Democratic circles is that a contested primary leave a candidate weakened going into the general election. My position is that it requires a candidate to hone his or her message, and ultimately hear what the voters in their district care about. Post primary, it requires the winning candidate to then reach out to the supporters of the other candidate, further involving the electorate in the process.

How this can be considered a bad thing is beyond me.




Technorati Tags: Howard Dean, Paul Hackett, Sherrod Brown

Known by the Friends you Keep

An appropriate saying.

Who are some of the Bush's friends?

For the second year in a row, President Bush and his wife spent the lovers' holiday formally entertaining about 100 friends and associates at the White House.

Singer Michael Feinstein capped the romantic evening by serenading the crowd, which included new Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, actor Chuck Norris -- wearing black cowboy boots with his tux, of course -- singer Wayne Newton and Sens. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn.

Like with Ciro Rodriguez, this is about removing pro-Bush Democrats from Congress. Help Ned Lamont.


Atrios covers this too.



Technorati Tags: Ned Lamont, Joe Lieberman

Rufus

Best in show at Westminster:

A colored bull terrier called Rufus used his head Tuesday night to become America's top dog.

The tan-and-white mix won Best in Show at the Westminster Kennel Club, beating out six strong contenders and drawing a rousing ovation from the sellout crowd at Madison Square Garden.

Awesome looking dog.

Technorati Tags: Westminster, Dog Blogging

College Hazing

Rush Limbaugh called the Abu Ghraib torture scandal as nothing more than College pranks or hazing. Bush said the US does not torture.

Is this hazing or torture?

I say torture.



Technorati Tags: Abu Ghraib

Asbestos Bill Dead

For now, and hopefully for good:

In a cliffhanger procedural vote, the Senate derailed legislation to create a trust fund for asbestos victims, a victory for Democrats and their trial-lawyer allies who waged a relentless campaign to defeat a bill that took five years to negotiate.

Supporters of the bill, including most Republicans and some Democrats, held out hope for a return to the legislation after it failed, in a 58 to 41 vote, to gain the support of 60 senators needed to overcome a challenge over its potential budgetary impact. "We believe there is overwhelming support for this bill," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), who had switched his vote from a "yes" to a "no" to leave open the option of bringing the bill back to the floor, if and when a yes vote can be mustered.

This fund is being pushed by the companies who are liable for mesothelioma claims. It sets up a trust fund, in which restrictions on who is eligible to receive benefits are tightened significantly, and the fund was to be "revenue neutral". Meaning when the money ran out, so did the payments, regardless of whether all of the eligible claimants were compensated or not, with no regard as to whether the entire amount of the trust fund was fully realized. Which, according to CBO estimates, would have been $7 billion dollars short under current tax law.

That would have left that amount in payments unpaid to claimants, or the shortfall would have to have been made up by the taxpayer, when it is corporations who are responsible for this illness.

Let's hope this bill stays dead.



Technorati Tags: Asbestos Trust Fund

Caving

No, not spelunking, but acquiesing to Bush's demands that no one question his right to spy on Americans:

Congress appeared ready to launch an investigation into the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program last week, but an all-out White House lobbying campaign has dramatically slowed the effort and may kill it, key Republican and Democratic sources said yesterday.

The Senate intelligence committee is scheduled to vote tomorrow on a Democratic-sponsored motion to start an inquiry into the recently revealed program in which the National Security Agency eavesdrops on an undisclosed number of phone calls and e-mails involving U.S. residents without obtaining warrants from a secret court. Two committee Democrats said the panel -- made up of eight Republicans and seven Democrats -- was clearly leaning in favor of the motion last week but now is closely divided and possibly inclined against it.

I'm sorry, but if any Democrat votes against this, they no longer deserve to be called Democrats.

If any Republicans vote against this, than they are no better than any of the Authoritarian Cultists they claim they aren't.



Technorati Tags: Authoritarian Cultists, Domestic Spying

Thwarting Wal-Mart

Mass. says Wal-Mart must carry morning after pill:

A Massachusetts regulatory board voted on Tuesday to require Wal-Mart stores to stock morning-after contraceptives, two weeks after three women in the state sued Wal-Mart for refusing to fill orders for the pills.

If Wal-Mart complies, Massachusetts will become the second state after Illinois to require the world's biggest retailer to carry the Plan B contraceptive, which must be taken within 72 hours after sex to prevent pregnancy.

The Massachusetts Board of Registration in Pharmacy said it had sent Wal-Mart lawyers a letter informing them of its unanimous decision.

Wal-Mart has until Thursday to provide written compliance to the board's ruling and Wal-Mart spokesman Dan Fogleman has said the retailer would abide by any directive from the state pharmacy board.

Good.

Maybe the other 48 states will come to their senses as well.

Technorati Tags: Wal-Mart, Emergency Contraception, Plan B

Scaring the Establishment

Apparently establishment Democrats are starting to get scared of what the Democrats outside of Washington are doing.

From Hotline:

In past Dem primaries, candidates who run afoul of the party's traditional interest groups have suffered (see Martinez v. Solis in '00). Both the AFL-CIO and Change to Win Coalition are working to dethrone Cuellar, who has received little money from labor. Cuellar has the advantage of incumbency and claims his centrist voting record fits a district that voted 53% for Bush. This proxy battle pits the party's liberal, activist wing against the centrist pragmatists. If the left wins this fight, activists will be emboldened in challenging other centrist incumbents -- a worrisome prospect for Dems as they try to win back the House. [JOSH KRAUSHAAR]

First off, the laughable notion that Ciro is some sort of "wild-eyed lefty" is so far off the mark as to not be credible. Let's face it, Texas is not a hotbed of Liberals. This is a contest between a Bush supporter, and a non-Bush supporter. Political ideologies only factor into it, in the sense that both claim to be Democrats.

However, this all points to what I was just writing about. People outside of the establishment, are sick of the same tired candidates that are promoted from within. I don't really care if Cuellar is the incumbent, he is not representative of Democrats, and he should not get support from the Democratic establishment

If that makes them nervous ...


Good.


You can help Ciro Rodriguez or some other Texas Democrat here.

Via Atrios and MyDD




Technorati Tags: Ciro Rodriguez, Henry Cuellar

More of This

Paul Rieckoff on Paul Hackett:

America's Troops and Veterans lost today with the withdrawal of Iraq War Veteran Paul Hackett from his Senate race in Ohio. Hackett claims, and there is plenty of evidence to back this up, that he was pressured to withdraw by the Democratic Party establishment. Regardless of the politics behind-the-scenes, the loss of Paul Hackett's voice in the national dialogue is a loss for our military, for the Troops in harms' way, and for the nation as a whole.

[...]

But this isn't about Paul Hackett. It's about the credibility that he brought to the national conversation on the war in Iraq. The issue is debated on the Senate floor by men and women who have likely never experienced war, let alone this war. It baffles me that we cannot, as a nation, agree that it is a worthwhile endeavor to send at least one person with firsthand experience to debate (and vote on) the future course of our military's engagement in Iraq.

Today, the Veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are a jump-ball. Members of the military past and present were once regarded as the Republican party's most reliable voting block. That is no longer the case, as evidenced by the fact that eight of the nine Iraq War Veterans now running for office are running as Democrats, if only because they are opposed to the status quo. But this isn't an issue to be defined along party lines. As I've said many times before, the Republicans got us into this mess and the Democrats don't have a plan to get us out.

The entire discussion keeps going back to this "electability" thing, which no one can really define.

If the truly "electable" candidates were selected in 2004, then why did Democrats lose?

What is apparent is that the power struggle between the Beltway Insiders and the rest of the Democratic Party is heating up. Hackett's withdraw from the race, is not, in and of itself, a watershed moment. It is the culmination of years of being told what it means to be a Democrat from people who are insulated from what real Democrats out here in America think/want.

Bill Clinton may have been a centrist, or a conservative Democrat, but he knew how to connect, and speak to the American people, and in particular Democrats who came out in large numbers to support him. Dean was doing it, and Kerry started to, but far too late for it to matter, as he had already been defined by the media. Which all points to the need for the DNC to start reacting to the right-wing attacks that basically allowed both Kerry and Dean to get stuck in the media swamp, rather than deliver their message.

Hackett, and many other Democrats, who don't have the support of the Washington establishment are being pushed aside by a group of people, which Dean seems to be falling in line with (I hope not), which are disconnected from what is going on out here. I think that most Democrats across the country, are willing to accept a candidate that is not 100% of their ideological stripe, as long as that candidate stands for Democratic principles, and more importantly, isn't timid. That is what the Washington establishment is. Ken Mehlman tried to make the claim that Americans are going to support an angry Democrat. On the contrary. I believe that people are ready to support a Democrat who is angry, and can direct his or her anger in an appropriate manner.

I just hope these people come to this realization before it is too late.

Technorati Tags: Hackett, OH-Sen

Struck a Nerve, Did They?

After the release of the study by Media Matters that demonstrated political talkshows Conservative bias, Betty Fischer, executive producer of Meet the Press responded:

We'd respectfully request that if Media Matters wants to undertake an unbiased look at Sunday show appearances - they do just that - and include statistics from President Clinton's first term - and avoid comparing apples to oranges. Their study as presented is intellectually dishonest.

Rather than substantially address the study, she cites some facts, for which she did not provide any data to support.

Which, rightfully so, Paul Waldman of Media Matters calls her on, in his response:

You ask why our report did not discuss Clinton's first term, and you say that "perhaps it's because statistics from Clinton's first term do not support their ill-defined 'conclusion.' " Later, you call our study "intellectually dishonest." You seem to be suggesting that we analyzed the data from those years, decided it didn't fit the point we wanted to make, and thus excluded it from our public report. That would have been appallingly dishonest, and it is frankly offensive for you to suggest that we have done so. I have been asked in a number of interviews why there is an imbalance on the Sunday shows, and I am always careful to say that we ascribe no sinister intentions to the producers. It is unfortunate that you apparently couldn't bring yourself to extend us the same courtesy.

Let me be clear: We didn't examine the guests from those years, so we have no idea what doing so would have showed. We decided to go back only as far as the second Clinton term because there were gaps in the Lexis-Nexis data, and we had to stop somewhere. Gathering and analyzing the data for all the nine years was itself an enormous task. Since you seem to have a complete list of guests on Meet the Press available, if you send it to us, we would be happy to analyze the first Clinton term.

Will there be a proper response from NBC over this?

Stay Tuned.


Thanks to Atrios for the link.


Technorati Tags: Media Matters, Meet the Press

Heckuva job ...

... Chertie?

I wonder what Bush's nickname for Chertoff is. However, Bush has given is endorsement of Chertoff as head of DHS:

resident Bush has full confidence in Michael Chertoff and has not considered asking the homeland security secretary to step down after criticism of his performance on Hurricane Katrina, the White House said Tuesday.

"Secretary Chertoff is doing a great job," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said, answering a reporter's question about Chertoff. "The president appreciates his strong leadership. He is someone who is committed to doing everything he can to protect the American people and to continuing to take steps to make sure we are better prepared to respond to the threats that we face."

Though Bush didn't do it directly, in the past, when Bush has given such a ringing endorsement of a member of his administration, that person is gone within a week or so.

Is the countdown clock on Chertoff's job running out?



Technorati Tags: Chertoff, DHS

Playing the Blame Game

I know I said I wasn't going to talk about the Cheney shooting any more, but things seem to be a bit more serious than initially reported.

Harry Whittington suffers a heart attack. A piece of birdshot apparently is lodged in his heart. Not a good sign.

When the shooting was initially reported, the White House spin seemed to be putting the blame on Whittington for not "announcing himself" as he walked up behind the hunting party, after retreiving two birds he shot. When it appeared that story was not working, the White House then started to make jokes about being "peppered", and wearing blaze orange, which is what hunters are supposed to wear out in the field.

When it came to the notification of the media, the White House blamed Katharine Armstrong, the concern for Whittington's condition, the fact that there was no press pool, etc. for the delay. Well, with the heart attack news, it appears that the White House has shifted blame on the delay of informing the media about the shooting again. Back to Cheney, which is where it belonged the entire time:

The Vice President was the press strategist, and Karl Rove was the investigative reporter. Vice President Cheney overruled the advice of several members of the White House staff and insisted on sticking to a plan for releasing information about his hunting accident that resulted in a 20-hour, overnight delay in public confirmation of the startling incident, according to several Republican sources.

"This is either a cover-up story or an incompetence story," said a top Republican who is close to the White House and has rarely been critical of the Administration in the past five years. "Karl was constrained, as was the entire communications operation, because the Vice President had arranged for how this was to come out."

This administration consists of people who cannot accept responsiblity for anything.



Thanks to Holden at First Draft for the link.






Technorati Tags: Cheney, Cheney Hunting, Cheney Shooting

The Lies Start to Fall

Abramoff ties to Rove:

Three former associates of Jack Abramoff say the now-convicted lobbyist frequently told them he had strong ties to the White House through presidential confidant Karl Rove.

The White House said Monday night that Rove remembers meeting Abramoff at a 1990s political meeting and considered the lobbyist a "casual acquaintance" since
President Bush took office in 2001.

Jack Abramoff raised more than $100,000 for the Bush campaign. If it could even be plausible that Bush wasn't that friendly with Abramoff (it's not), it is even more likely that a person who could raise that amount of money would be quite familiar to the architect of the Bush campaign.

Their claims of not knowing Abramoff, are laughable on their face.




Technorati Tags: Rove, Abramoff, Bush

Thought for the Day

"Maybe this world is another planet's hell."

--Aldous Huxley

Sabbath Gasbags

Media Matters has just completed a study, of the participants of the Sunday political roundtable programs (Meet the Press, This Week, Face the Nation, etc.) and their political leanings.

The results are interesting, if not surprising.

• The balance between Democrats/progressives and Republicans/conservatives was roughly equal during Clinton's second term, with a slight edge toward Republicans/conservatives: 52 percent of the ideologically identifiable guests were from the right, and 48 percent were from the left. But in Bush's first term, Republicans/ conservatives held a dramatic advantage, outnumbering Democrats/progressives by 58 percent to 42 percent. In 2005, the figures were an identical 58 percent to 42 percent.
• Counting only elected officials and administration representatives, Democrats had a small advantage during Clinton's second term: 53 percent to 45 percent. In Bush's first term, however, the Republican advantage was 61 percent to 39 percent -- nearly three times as large.
• In both the Clinton and Bush administrations, conservative journalists were far more likely to appear on the Sunday shows than were progressive journalists. In Clinton's second term, 61 percent of the ideologically identifiable journalists were conservative; in Bush's first term, that figure rose to 69 percent.
• In 1997 and 1998, the shows conducted more solo interviews with Democrats/progressives than with Republicans/conservatives. But in every year since, there have been more solo interviews with Republicans/conservatives.
• The most frequent Sunday show guest during this nine-year period is Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who has appeared 124 times. Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE) has been the most frequent guest since 2003.
• In every year examined by the study -- 1997 - 2005 -- more panels tilted right (a greater number of Republicans/conservatives than Democrats/progressives) than tilted left. In some years, there were two, three, or even four times as many righttitled panels as left-tilted panels.
• Congressional opponents of the Iraq war were largely absent from the Sunday shows, particularly during the period just before the war began.

You can get the full report here



Technorati Tags: Media Matters

Paul Hackett Withdraws

I don't know if he did it for the reasons he outlined, but it seems that kos isn't too upset about it.

Frankly, I find it kind of par for the course of the DNC. They take part in the "Fighting Dems" event in Washington, and then the same establishment pushes one of those candidates out. Hackett is a candidate who came within spitting distance of winning in a deep red district in Ohio. It is this ridiculous "electable" thing that keeps good men and women out of politics. I am sick of it. The DNC, and the Democratic establishment in Washington needs to make a decision. Win or lose. It seems losing is the preferred course.

The DNC has been calling me like 5 times per day, presumably to solicit contributions. I just mute the ringer when I see them come up on the caller ID. This kind of crap is why.



Technorati Tags: Paul Hackett, OH-Sen, Ohio, Senate, 2006

One Last Thing

One last thing on the Cheney shooting.

I hadn't realized it, but the VP's office still has not released any statement. No public concern for the welfare of the victim. No lesson on gun and/or hunting safety. Nothing.

The VP really is a callous SOB.




Technorati Tags: Cheney, Cheney Hunting, Cheney Shooting

Will Rall Sue Coulter?

Via E&P:

Columnist Ann Coulter made a provocative remark Friday about "Doonesbury" creator Garry Trudeau and editorial cartoonist Ted Rall. Trudeau is shrugging it off, but Rall is considering a lawsuit.

Coulter reportedly said Friday at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C.: "Iran is soliciting cartoons on the Holocaust. So far, only Ted Rall, Garry Trudeau, and The New York Times have made submissions."

Giving her remark another twist is the fact that the conservative Coulter has the same distributor -- Universal Press Syndicate -- as the liberal Rall and Trudeau.

When asked Monday if he wanted to respond to Coulter's comment, Trudeau told E&P via e-mail: "Nah."

Rall announced on his blog that he would look into taking legal action against Coulter if readers of his blog wanted him to -- and if they pledged the $6,000 needed to draft and file a lawsuit in New York.

"If enough 'yes' votes come in with enough serious pledges, I'll see Ann in court," wrote Rall. "If not, well, chalk up another victory for the Right."

Rall said people were voting roughly 3-1 in favor of suing. And he told E&P Monday that pledges are coming in fast. "If pledges continue to come in at the present rate, I'll have the $6,000 available by tonight," Rall said. "A lot of people are fed up with how Coulter has turned slandering liberals into a cottage industry and want to see her held to account. I'm actually fairly overwhelmed by the response -- more than 300 pledges, many in the $20 to $100 range."

He added: "I'm getting so many e-mail pledges with the same subject line -- 'Sue Coulter' -- that I'm beginning to think her first name is Sue!"

Should Rall sue? If it does anything, it will make racist hate-mongers like Ann Coulter think twice about what she says.

And maybe, just maybe, the media will stop paying attention to her.

Here is the link to Ted's post on the subject.

He is close to the $6,000 needed. Due to the weather, his lawyer was not able to make it into the office today, so we'll have to check back tomorrow to see what, if anything, comes of it.




Technorati Tags: Ted Rall, Ann Coulter

Overkill?

Yes, the pun is intended.

Steve Clemmons was less than enamored with the Cheney shooting story, viewing it as a distraction story. It certainly has (which raises a whole new set of conspiracy theories, "Hey Wittington, take a bullet, so I can distract the media"), so I suppose that Steve does have a point.

With the intial story, I wouldn't have agreed, but now the story has changed to the point where it has become obvious that the White House has taken this and turned it into that type of story. It seems that Cheney didn't have a $7 endorsement stamp on his non-resident hunting permit. Of course Cheney's office finds a way to turn it back on Texas, by saying it was the State's responsibility to know what endorsements are/are not on his permit, but nonetheless, the media seems to be lapping up this latest distraction story.

Barring some new really damaging revelation, it is time for this story to pass.

Technorati Tags: Cheney, Cheney Hunting, Cheney Shooting, Hunting

Re-arranging the Deck Chairs

The captian of the HMS Titanic Secretary of Homeland Security promises to not run into another iceberg fix what went wrong at FEMA:

The changes announced Monday range from creation of a full-time response force of 1,500 new employees to establishing a more reliable system to report on disasters as they unfold.

They are the first steps to overhauling FEMA, which was overwhelmed by the Aug. 29 Gulf Coast storm.

These changes are merely cosmetic. As has been evidenced from the Michael Brown hearings, communications were adequate. It was the managment that was overwhelmed.

As we watched the horror unfold in New Orleans, we heard stories of trucks with ice driving from one city to another, because FEMA couldn't be bothered to secure passage from law enforcement. Brown was worried about meals, etc., etc.

The entire response (or lack thereof) pointed, not to the resources not being available (think of all those mobile homes sitting in a field in Arkansas), but total incompetence of FEMA, and DHS management.

How can we trust the current DHS management to fix anything when we have a natural disaster, for which we had 3 days notice, with the result we saw in south Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi?

Hiring 1,500 new employees whose focus should be on disaster management is just the start. Focusing on communications is not, when it was demonstrated that communications that adequately conveyed the severity of the situation, is not enough. If FEMA didn't have enough authority to do what it needed, get it out from the auspices of DHS, and elevate to a cabinet level position. Protecting the country, and responding to disasters are related, but not the same thing.



Technorati Tags: FEMA, DHS, Chertoff, Brownie, Katrina

Angry Republicans

Recently Ken Mehlman and others have said that voters won't elect an "Angry Democrat". If that is the case, then why would they elect an "Angry Republican"?

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's likely Republican Senate race challenger charged Monday that the New York Democrat's criticism of the Bush administration "aids and abets our enemies" in the battle against terrorism.

John Spencer's comments to reporters came after a fiery speech to the state Conservative Party leadership in which, during a defense of the Patriot Act, he also attacked the administration of former President Bill Clinton.

"I wish we had it before 9-11," said the former mayor of Yonkers. "And, I wish we had an administration in Washington that wasn't an appeasing, liberal, whining administration in the 90's that allowed the terrorists to build up the way they built up."

Lashing out like this is the last refuge of the candidate who doesn't have anything to run on. There is so little for Republicans to be proud of, unless anger is vitriol is something to be proud of, so Republicans candidates are pretty much reduced to labeling Democrats as traitors.

That doesn't bode well for Mr. Spencer's campaign.




Technorati Tags: Hillary Clinton, John Spencer, 2006 Election

What Are They Hiding?

This is something I saw on both Wampum and Think Progress.

According to CBS, the Kenedy County Sheriffs department was barred from interviewing Cheney about the shooting:

CBS News White House correspondent Peter Maer reports Texas authorities are complaining that the Secret Service barred them from speaking to Cheney after the incident. Kenedy County Texas Sheriffs Lt. Juan Guzman said deputies first learned of the shooting when an ambulance was called.

But the Secret Service told a different story, saying agents had informed the local sheriff of the shooting about an hour after it happened and that the vice president had been interviewed about the accident by local authorities on Sunday morning, CBS News White House correspondent Bill Plante reports.

Additionally, the Vice President waited nearly a full day to notify the media about the accident when the White House knew about it that night?

Many have speculated that alcohol may have played a part. If that is the case, it could explain why law enforcement officials were prohibited from interviewing Cheney.

Of course this is speculation. However, the speculation is legitmately being fueled by the lack of cooperation from the administration in provding complete information. If they could just be forthcoming, then all could be resolved. If this was a true accident, then why would the VP's office want to bar the Sherrifs Department from conducting the interview? Despite the reporting of the accidental shooting not being mandated, it was reported, and as it is a public figure such as the VP, obstructing law enforcement from doing its job, should not be the preferred course of action.

The more the White House and the VP's office try to stall, the more it looks like there is more to this story than a hunting accident.





Technorati Tags: Cheney, Cheney Hunting, Cheney Shooting, Hunting, Think Progress, Wampum

Testy Gregory

Courtesy of Atrios we are pointed to this from the Chicago Tribune:

Why was the White House relying on a Texas rancher to get the word of Cheney's hunting accident out over the weekend, asked Gregory, accusing McClellan of "ducking and weaving.''

"“David, hold on… the cameras aren't on right now,'' McClellan replied. "You can do this later.''

"Don't accuse me of trying to pose to the cameras,'' the newsman said, his voice rising somewhat. "Don’t be a jerk to me personally when I’m asking you a serious question.''

"You don't have to yell,'' McClellan said.

"I will yell,'' said Gregory, pointing a finger at McCellan at his dais. "If you want to use that podium to try to take shots at me personally, which I don’t appreciate, then I will raise my voice, because that’s wrong.’’

‘’Calm down, Dave, calm down,'' said McClellan, remaining calm throughout the exchange.

"I'll calm down when I feel like calming down,'' Greogry said. "You answer the question.'

"I have answered the question,'' said McClellan, who had maintained that the vice president's office was in charge of getting the information out and worked with the ranch owner to do that. "I'm sorry you're getting all riled up about.''

"I am riled up,'' Gregory said, "because you’re not answering the question,''

McClellan insisted he understood that reporters deserve an answer.

"I think you have legitimate questions to ask,'' the press secretary said. "The vice president’s office was the one that took the lead to get this information out… I don’t know what else to tell you... That's my answer.''

My goodness, it appears that some people are starting to get fed up with Scott McClellan's non-answer answers.

About time, is all I can add.


Technorati Tags: David Gregory, Gaggle, Scott McClellan, Cheney, Cheney Hunting, Cheney Shooting, Hunting

Thought for the Day

"There are no wise few. Every aristocracy that has ever existed has behaved, in all essential points, exactly like a small mob."

--G. K. Chesterton

Authoritarian Cultists, Part Deux

Glenn Greenwald posts a follow-up to his Authoritarian Cultists post. Mainly it is about the reaction from the right over being identified as Bush cultists.

This is something I have touched on here, and on the subject of how Bush really isn't a Conservative, yet people who insist on defending his policies are more like followers of a cult here.

It is nice to see that finally, this is starting to get wider attention. What we are seeing from Bush supporters is not an ideologically based political philosophy. It is the Cult of Bush. Prior to 9/11 Bush was on track to try and emulate Reagan with his conservative ideals, of getting the Government out of people's lives. Post 9/11 everything went wonky. Bush started advocating a bigger government. More intrusion into people's lives. Now he has moved from overt big-government intrusiveness into covert big-government intrusiveness.

Yet through it all, Republicans in Congress, media personalities, and many right-wing bloggers have bought into the Cult of Bush. If Bush says spying on Americans without the proper legal authority is OK, they say it is OK. If Bush says massive deficits are OK, they stay it is OK. If someone strays from the reservation, they are shunned. Atrios says that once Bush is gone, these people will latch onto another "Daddy figure" when that person comes along. That may be, however, I suspect that secretly, there are many who support Bush being declared leader for life, if he proposed it.

Technorati Tags: Authoritarian Cultists, Cult of Bush, Glenn Greenwald,

Blaming the Victim

Josh has a pretty good explanation of basic hunting safety, and summary of what happened with Cheney shooting a member of his hunting party.

I won't go into the details since Josh does it so well, but having lived a number of years in central Pennsylvania, in the Army, and in Texas, the issue of hunting safety (eventhough I don't hunt myself), is one I am quite familiar with.

First, hunting attire. There is a reason that in many states every hunter is required to wear so many square inches of safety orange. That color does not occur naturally, so by being forced to wear it, a hunter identifies himself. In Texas, I do not believe there is such a requirement.

Second, like Josh says, hunting accidents do happen.

Third, and this is a part of any basic hunting safety, is that you as the shooter, must be aware of what your weapon is pointed at, at all times.

Bird hunting, and in particular, hunting birds that have to be flushed from thier hiding spots, such as quail or pheasant as opposed to duck or other waterfowl, introduce a sort of controlled chaos. Setting aside that this was a "canned hunt", in which the birds that were being hunted were basically conditioned to remain in a certain area (which turns a hunt into a slaughter), all parties participating in the hunt have certain responsibilities. But in the end, the person who pulls the trigger, is the one who has the ultimate responsibility to ensure that they are not going to injure or kill someone.

By all accounts Dick Cheney did not accept that resonsibility.




Technorati Tags: Cheney, Cheney Hunting, Cheney Shooting, Hunting

I Blame Bush for Politicizing CSK Funeral

Courtesy of Think Progress, who chose to suffer through Faux News, so we don't have to, Ron Christie, a former advisor to George Bush, said that Rev. Lowery's remarks as Coretta Scott King's funeral service, "seemingly overshadowed that celebration".

The is so desparate to try and smear anyone who dares to challenge Bush, and his policies, that they will manufacture outrage.

We are seeing that it is the Bush Cultists who are turning into the angry ones. The fear that they have of the potential result of the 2006 elections, is starting to turn into anger.

I wonder how the American people will feel about this fear driven anger that the Republicans have?




Technorati Tags: Coretta Scott King, Lowery, Think Progress, Authoritarian Cultists

Thought for the Day

"There is no passion like that of a functionary for his function."

--Georges Clemenceau

Liberals vs. The Authoritarian Cultists

Glenn Greenwald has a very interesting post about some people and their blind loyalty to George W. Bush.

In short, the traditional lines of Liberal and Conservative are being blurred by Bush loyalists. There is no longer the traditional political definitions of Liberal and Conservative. One's political identity is now defined by loyalty to the Cult of Bush. As Glenn points out some of the biggest Bush sycophants are Michelle Malkin, Jonah Goldberg, John Hindraker and Hugh Hewitt (far from the only ones, but for the purposes of Greenwald's discussion), these four display exactly this type of blind loyalty, and pure unadulterated hatred for those who do not pray to the Altar of George W. Bush.

From Michelle Malkin's defense of internment camps in America, and desire to see new ones, to the orgasmic praise from these individuals for the illegal spying on Americans by the NSA, we are witnessing a new level of support for a cult figure in American history. George Bush can do no wrong. Not only can George W. Bush do no wrong, but to suggest that he might have done wrong, automatically tars one as being "Liberal". The biggest danger to American security after those "Islam-o-fascists".

The ironic thing in this debate, and I should note that I am watching Meet the Press where Sens. Daschle, Roberts, Reps Harman, and Hoekstra are talking about domestic spying right now, is this Free Republic post, located by Glenn, in which some of the very same people who are today defending the right of the President to eavesdrop on Americans outside of FISA, were in 2000 railing against Bill Clinton for using the FISA court legally. But, because today George W. Bush is the one that say "we are spying on you for your own protection", these same people willingly sacrifice the same civil liberties they claimed as inviolate just 6 years earlier.

I can only imagine what the 2006 election season is going to be like. With the President's approval rating hovering at 40% there are going to be a large number of "Liberals" who are Republicans running, in addition to Democrats (some of which who are legitimate liberals). The authoritarian cultists are going to be in full flail mode, attacking Republicans and Democrats alike. All over their lack of sufficient fealty to the Cult of George W. Bush.

What I fear most, is that these people will start acting like a cornered rat. Lashing out violently (and I mean physically, not verbally) against anyone not pure enough in their thoughts.

Making Public Lands Private

The Bush administration wants to finance his bank breaking budget by selling off public lands:

The Bush administration Friday laid out plans to sell off more than $1 billion in public lands over the next decade, including 85,000 acres of national forest land in California.

Most of the proceeds would help pay for rural schools and roads, making up for a federal subsidy that has been eliminated from President Bush's 2007 budget.

Fortunately many in Congress recognize this for what it is.

But Isn't It Ironic ...

... don't you think?:

Lawyers for a death row inmate, including former Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr, sent fake letters from jurors asking California’s governor to spare the man’s life, prosecutors said Friday.

The jurors denied they thought Michael Morales deserved clemency because some of the testimony at his trial may have been fabricated, said Nathan Barankin, spokesman for Attorney General Bill Lockyer.

“We showed each person the declaration on their behalf and they all said they didn’t say that,” Barankin said.

Who was it, what wasted 40 million taxpayer dollars investigating the President of lying, and suborning purjury again?




Thanks to Attaturk for the link.

Thought for the Day

"Of those who say nothing, few are silent."

--Thomas Neill

Lieberman Must Go

From Robert NoFacts:

Two prominent Republican lobbyists, Craig Fuller and H.P. Goldfield, hosted a fund-raising dinner Thursday evening at Goldfield's Washington home for Democratic Sen. Joseph Lieberman, seeking re-election in Connecticut this year.

Fuller was President Ronald Reagan's Cabinet secretary and later Vice President George H.W. Bush's chief of staff. Goldfield, a Reagan White House aide and later assistant secretary of Commerce, was a fund-raiser in the two Bush-Quayle campaigns.

While Lieberman is a major voice for lobbyist reform, three of his dinner's five hosts were registered lobbyists. Fuller represents the National Association of Chain Drug Stores. Goldfield lobbies for Airbus and for energy companies (ConcocoPhillips, Dynegy International and Gulfsands Petroleum). Co-host C. Michael Gilliland, a partner in the Hogan & Hartson law firm, represents a variety of clients.

Genocide?

It certainly appears that Andrew Sullivan is advocating such a solution against Muslims.

I shouldn't be surprised. He does support the party that accepts Ann Coulter.

More Republicans Tied to Abramoff

Finally an article that doesn't try to implicate Democrats, and actually comes off as informative:

Three members of Congress have been linked to efforts by lobbyist Jack Abramoff and a former General Services Administration official to secure leases of government property for Abramoff's clients, according to court filings by federal prosecutors on Friday.

The filings in U.S. District Court do not allege any wrongdoing by the elected officials but list them in documents portraying David Safavian, a former GSA chief of staff, as an active adviser to Abramoff, giving the lobbyists tips on how to use members of Congress to navigate the agency's bureaucracy.

[...]

Two of the elected officials referred to in Friday's filings have been identified in published reports as Reps. Steven LaTourette, R-Ohio, and Don Young, R-Alaska. According to Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper, the two representatives wrote to the GSA in September 2002, urging the agency to give preferential treatment to groups such as Indian tribes when evaluating development proposals for the Old Post Office.

LaTourette maintains he did nothing improper by advocating special opportunities for certain small businesses in areas known as HUBzones, or Historically Underutilized Business zones. His spokeswoman, Deborah Setliff, said that the letter was reviewed by Young's chief of staff and counsel and that it did not advocate any particular business over another.

A spokesman for Young did not return telephone calls.

Friday's filings by prosecutors refer to a third member of Congress, Rep. Shelly Moore Capito, R-W.Va. Her name appears in e-mails that suggest she was trying to help Abramoff secure a GSA lease for land in Silver Spring for a religious school.

As the details of just how expansive this scandal is, come out, I suspect that we may see even more of our Congressional representatives taken down.

The Revealing of a Lie

This time, Bush's "Liberty Tower" thwarted terrorist attack. Go read it for the full detail. But in summary, no one informed the Mayor of L.A. Antonio Villaraigosa or the FBI's counterterrorism director, John Pistole that there was a terrorist attack planned. When pressed for details on when the information was known, no one knows when, or from whom the information came from. No one knows what flight was going to be used, when the flight was going to be hi-jacked. And to top it off, no one was sure what the actual target was.

This was nothing but a lie, to try and change the subject.

Will the media continue to propagate this lie, or will they reveal the truth?

Is Dick Cheney a Racist?

We all know that Ann Coulter is, she calls Muslims ragheads and advocates killing the President:

On Friday, February 10, the rock star of the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) was none other than Ann Coulter. Before an overflow crowd of at least 1000 young right-wing activists, Coulter took her brand of performance art to new heights. Afterwards, I caught up with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to ask him about Coulter's characterization of Muslims as "ragheads." Before I reveal his indignant response, here are a sampling of Coulter's most memorable lines.

Coulter on Muslims:

"I think our motto should be post-9-11, 'raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences.'" (This declaration prompted a boisterous ovation.)

Coulter on killing Bill Clinton:

(Responding to a question from a Catholic University student about her biggest moral or ethical dilemna) "There was one time I had a shot at Clinton. I thought 'Ann, that's not going to help your career.'"

Some very prominent Republicans were amongst the crowd present for the hatefest, was Dick Cheney, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist.

After Coulter's speech, I approached Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist in the CPAC exhibitor's hall. I asked him what he thought of Coulter's characterization 15 minutes earlier of Muslims as "ragheads." HIs reply? "I wasn't there so I better not comment."

I wonder if Dick Cheney believes in these same things.

The General Speaks

Jesus' General drops out of his persona for this post, and talks about life in a part of Washington state that is, for whatever reason, attractive to neo-nazis.

While I can't for a moment imagine what it is like living there, being of Jewish descent, I have experienced some of the same bigotry that he and his family experience regularly.

The point of the post, isn't so much to generate sympathy, as much as it is to point out the hypocrisy that exists when it comes to neo-conservative beliefs WRT to Israel. I agree fully with his point. The Israeli Government does not represent me, or what I think about the Israeli situation as it stands today. The fact is that when it comes to the manner in which the Government choose to treat the Palestinians, I am opposed. How that makes me an anti-semite is beyond me.

Like the General, I have not made any comment on the Danish cartoon fracas currently enveloping Europe and the Muslim world. What is the point? Religious Fundamentalism is the same the world over. The problem is religious fundamentalism. Be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or what have you.

Thought for the Day

"A man thinks that by mouthing hard words he understands hard things."

--Herman Melville

White House Knew

New Oleans was flooded, when it said it didn't:

Brown's appearance in front of the Senate investigative panel came as new documents reveal that 28 federal, state and local agencies - including the White House - reported levee failures on Aug. 29, according to a timeline of e-mails, situation updates and weather reports.

That litany was at odds with the administration's contention that it didn't know the extent of the problem until much later. At the time, President Bush said, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."

To revive an old acronym: YABL

Air Force and Proselytizing

Once permitted, then restricted, again permitted:

The Air Force released new guidelines for religious expression Thursday that no longer caution top officers about promoting their personal religious views.

The revisions were welcomed by conservative Christians, who said the previous rules was too strict and lobbied the White House to change them.

Critics called the revisions a step backward and said they do nothing to protect the rights of most airmen.

The Air Force Academy got in trouble because the evangelicals couldn't let non-evangelical Christians be whatever religion they want to be.

In response to this the Air Force was supposed to put policies in place to prevent this behavior.

Well, that would have been the case if Bush wasn't President.

The new guidelines were applauded by Tom Minnery, vice president for government and policy for Focus on the Family, a conservative ministry in Colorado Springs.

"The guidelines appropriately caution superiors against making comments that could appear to subordinates to be official policy," he said. "With that in mind, they properly state that 'superiors enjoy the same free exercise rights as all other airmen.'"

The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, called the new direction "very, very disturbing."

"It seems that everything related to the kind of misconduct we saw at the Air Force Academy has been removed," he said.

Non-evangelical Christian have no place in todays United States Air Force it seems.

Smears

MSNBC takes the AP article about Abramoff's clients having a relationship with Harry Reid one step further:

Top Democrat Reid met often with Abramoff

Nowhere in the article does it say, or imply that Reid had a single meeting with Abramoff. It is the same article that AP has had up all day long.

Crybaby

George Deutsch:

George C. Deutsch, the young NASA press aide who resigned on Tuesday in the center of a storm over claims that he had tried to keep keep the agency's top climate scientist from speaking publicly about global warming, defended himself today in his first public interviews.

[...]

In the interview, Mr. Deutsch said that Dr. Hansen had partisan ties "all the way up to the top of the Democratic Party," and that he was "using those ties and using his media connections to push an agenda, a worst-case-scenario agenda of global warming." He said that anyone who disagrees with Dr. Hansen "is labeled a censor and is demonized and vilified in the media — and the media of course is a willing accomplice here."

Mr. Deutsch contended that although Dr. Hansen was a scientist, he wanted to talk about policy as well as science. "He wants to demean the president, he wants to demean the administration and create a false perception that the administration is watering down science and lying to the public," Mr. Deutsch said. "And that is patently false."

Typical Republican crybaby.

The fact that he lied on his resume, and is a partisan hack means nothing. To people like Deutsch people who criticize Bush are mean, and the media is liberal.

Deutsch is a wuss.

What's Old is New Again?

Via Romenesko we learn that despite CBS's attempt to turn the Evening News into infotainment, it appears that interim anchor Bob Shieffer is pulling down big numbers of NEW viewers:

For all the talk about new formats and distribution, the nightly news show getting the most traction with viewers by one important measure is the CBS Evening News, which has made the fewest changes of any of the networks. Instead of having a woman in lingerie read the news, or even hiring a permanent replacement for Rather, Moonves's network turned the program over last March to 68-year-old Bob Schieffer. A veteran Washington correspondent and host of CBS's Face the Nation, Schieffer is patently old school. He doesn't blog. He is as serious as your life. And maybe that's why, since the current season began in September, the number of people watching the CBS Evening News has risen by 161,000 to 7.6 million, according to Nielsen Media Research. NBC, though still solidly in the lead with 9.8 million viewers, has had a decline of 785,000. ABC's total viewers have fallen by 808,000 to 8.6 million. Schieffer "has certainly turned the Evening News around," says Brad Adgate, research director of Horizon Media, a New York City media buyer.

I'm not a fan of Schieffer the pundit on Sunday morning (though as compared to Pumpkinhead Russert ...), but as a television news anchor I find him much more preferrable than ANY of the alternatives, except for Keith Olbermann on Countdown.

Note to CNN: Think about this for a moment, and then look at your own viewership numbers.

It Seems I was Wrong

About Bush killing Social Security with a thousand cuts.

He is going to kill it with one fell swoop:

But anyone who thought that Bush would wait for bipartisanship to deal with Social Security was wrong. Instead, he stuck his own privatization proposals into his proposed budget.

"The Democrats were laughing all the way to the funeral of Social Security modernization," White House spokesman Trent Duffy told me in an interview Tuesday, but "the president still cares deeply about this. " Duffy asserted that Bush would have been remiss not to include in the budget the cost of something that he feels so strongly about, and he seemed surprised at my surprise that Social Security privatization had been written into the budget without any advance fanfare.

Duffy said privatization costs were included in the midyear budget update that the Office of Management and Budget released last July 30, so it was logical for them to be in the 2007 budget proposals. But I sure didn't see this coming -- and I wonder how many people outside of the White House did.

Unless Democrats speak up, and Republicans are called to account for whether they will support this budget or not, means that Social Security will be privatized in 2007.

Thanks to Josh Marshall for pointing this out.

Is It a Smear Campaign?

How else can you explain the media's obsession with trying to smear Democrats with Abramoff's odor.

The fundamental issue is NOT whether clients of Jack Abramoff had dealings with Democrats, the Indian Tribes did (before, during, and after), but what was the quid-pro-quo?

Despite the Associate Press's best effort, they still cannot identify that.

Update: It seems that WaPo is running with the story as well. If they are going to reprint AP articles verbatim, perhaps they might want to examine what is alleged to see if it is accurate.

You Trippin' or What?

It seems that Rick Santorum's memory is going.

I suppose that when your party is in the midst of a corruption scandal that involves trips paid for by lobbyists, it is best to forget just how beholden you are to lobbyists.

Hillary Calls Republicans Out

Is Hillary Clinton, or a staff member, reading this lowly blog?

Or am I just being too hopeful?

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Wednesday accused Republicans of "playing the fear card" of terrorism to win elections and said Democrats cannot keep quiet if they want to win in November.

The New York Democrat, facing re-election this year and considered a potential White House candidate in 2008, said Republicans won the past two elections on the issue of national security and "they're doing it to us again."

She said a speech by presidential adviser Karl Rove two weeks ago showed the GOP election message is: "All we've got is fear and we're going to keep playing the fear card."

Support Through Obfuscation

Scaring the public works:

President Bush's monthlong campaign to convince the public that the government's eavesdropping program is an essential anti-terrorism tool appears to have made an impact, a new AP-Ipsos poll suggests.

Some 48 percent now support the administration's program to monitor - without a court warrant - some U.S.-based calls with suspected links to terrorists. That's up from 42 percent last month. Half now say the administration should have to get a warrant, down from 56 percent one month ago.

Bush has been particularly successful at making his case for the National Security Agency's controversial monitoring among men and core segments of his base.

To summarize:

Spying on Americans: Bad.
Convincing Americans that spying on them illegally is for their own protection: Jackpot.

Wal-Mart and Maryland

Today the CEO of Wal-Mart offers his views on Maryland's law to require companies to pay a certain percentage of their payroll on healthcare:

If we closed our doors in Maryland, a lot of things would happen, and none of them would be good for the working families of this state. Seventeen thousand associates work for us in Maryland. Every one of them -- both full-time and part-time -- can become eligible for health coverage that costs as little as $23 per month. Our stores here collect $112 million in sales taxes and generate $13 million more in tax revenue for state and local governments. We buy $678 million worth of goods and services from 667 Maryland suppliers. Thanks to our foundation and good works in our stores, we donate $3.7 million to local charities in Maryland. And when it comes to our customers, we save the average household more than $2,300 per year by offering the products people want at affordable prices in one convenient place.

We think those are valuable things we do for the working families of Maryland. And we're planning to do more. We will build more stores, create more jobs, offer even more affordable health care, generate more tax revenue, do more business with suppliers and give more money to local charities. Though the General Assembly passed a bill that affects our company and our company alone, we will not flinch in our commitment to our customers, our associates and the communities we serve. Working families want us in Maryland, and we're staying in Maryland.

That's not to say that the bill state legislators passed wasn't bad public policy. It was. And we're not the only people who think that. Dozens of experts, academics, business leaders, government leaders and editorial pages from the District of Columbia to Washington state agree that this bill and similar ones popping up in other states aren't solutions. Consider this fact: According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, almost every large business in the United States offers health insurance to its employees, yet only six in 10 small businesses are able to do the same. Clearly, any policy that singles out large employers -- much less a single large employer -- ignores the reality that businesses of all sizes are struggling to deal with the soaring cost of health care in America. Still, we will of course comply with the laws of Maryland.

It is nice to see that Wal-Mart isn't so petty as they have been in the past with Unions, that they are going to pack up and leave Maryland.

However, what is harder to grasp, is that there seems to be a subtle message to the federal government about fixing our healthcare system. However, pointing the finger at small business is not the answer.

Your Cheatin' Heart

Frist and Hastert modify a bill AFTER it becomes law:

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert engineered a backroom legislative maneuver to protect pharmaceutical companies from lawsuits, say witnesses to the pre-Christmas power play.

The language was tucked into a Defense Department appropriations bill at the last minute without the approval of members of a House-Senate conference committee, say several witnesses, including a top Republican staff member.

One very interesting thing, is that the "top Republican staff member" is on the record with this:

But Keith Kennedy, who works for Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., as staff director for the Senate Appropriations Committee, said at a seminar for reporters last month that the language was inserted by Frist and Hastert, R-Ill., after the conference committee ended its work.

"There should be no dispute. That was an absolute travesty," Kennedy said at a videotaped Washington, D.C., forum sponsored by the Center on Congress at Indiana University.

"It was added after the conference had concluded. It was added at the specific direction of the speaker of the House and the majority leader of the Senate. The conferees did not vote on it. It's a true travesty of the process."

After the conference committee broke up, a meeting was called in Hastert's office, Kennedy said. Also at the meeting, according to a congressional staffer, were Frist, Stevens and House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo.

"They (committee staff members) were given the language and then it was put in the document," Kennedy said.

So what prompted Frist and Hastert to modify a bill after becoming law?

Frist has received $271,523 in campaign donations from the pharmaceutical and health products industry since 1989, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a watchdog group.

As John at Americablog (thanks for this link) said:

PS The Republicans control the Senate, the House, the White House and the Supreme Court. If you don't like what you're seeing, vote for a change in November.

Testify brother!

Dishing it Out

Republicans have always been good at lobbing rhetorical bombs. Sounding tough against Democrats. Conversely, many Democrats, and Democratic strategists, and others who presume to tell Democrats what to do are always saying the they need to talk tough back at the Republicans out of one side of their mouth, and saying that Democrats shouldn't resort to the same tough talk tactics that Republicans engage in, out of the other.

However, Paul Hackett is, thankfully, not one of those Democrats:

Paul Hackett is out for one last day of pressing the flesh.

It’s August 2, Election Day, and the lanky, blond, 43-year-old Marine has taken up position outside the polling place in Loveland, a burg on the outskirts of Cincinnati, flashing his toothy smile for the early risers. Hackett is dressed smartly in a blue shirt and striped pastel tie. His khaki pants hang loosely from his wiry, 180-pound frame.

“That’s low politics, punk!” a heavy-set man sneers as he marches toward the poll.
Hackett wheels around. “Pardon me?”
“You know, that radio ad that says, ‘You don’t know Schmidt.’” He’s talking about one of Hackett’s attack ads against Republican Jean Schmidt. The man spews a stream of epithets, and Hackett lets out a crybaby whimper: “Waaaaaaa!”
“What’s that, punk?” the big man growls.

A TV crew is setting up nearby, but Hackett doesn’t seem to care. “What’s your fuckin’ problem?” the candidate snaps. “You got something to say to me? Bring it on!” Hackett, all 6 feet 2 inches of him, is nose to nose with the heckler. “Problem?” he taunts. The man turns around and storms away.

“These guys in the Republican Party adopted this tough-guy language,” Hackett tells me, still steamed, an hour later. “They’re bullies. They’re offended when somebody takes a swing back at them.”

I was in the Army, and I am quite familiar with, and often use myself, language that would offend many people. I try not to use such language here, as I know many people don't like cursing.

By the same token, it is long past time for Democrats to start giving it back. They don't necessarily need to curse, but the equivocation talk that too many Democrats do to try and smooth over a rift, or refuse to take a stand when the rhetoric gets hot, is maddening to the extreme.

Atrios says that not every politician needs to be like Hackett, but stand up for themselves and their party. I agree to a point. I do believe we need more people like Paul Hackett, who are willing to take the rhetorical bombs, and send them right back.

Thought for the Day

"Don't use a big word where a diminutive one will suffice."

--Unknown

Briefing Congress on Domestic Spying

Congress will get briefings on Bush's Domestic Spying program:

Responding to congressional pressure from both parties, the White House agreed yesterday to give lawmakers more information about its domestic surveillance program, although the briefings remain highly classified and limited in scope.

Despite the administration's overture, several prominent Republicans said they will pursue legislation enabling Congress to conduct more aggressive oversight of the National Security Agency's warrantless monitoring of Americans' phone calls and e-mails. Recent disclosure of the four-year-old program has alarmed civil libertarians and divided the GOP, with many Republicans defending the operation and others calling for more information and regulation.

This is a good start. I wonder just how extensive the briefings will be though?

Based on the Bush Administrations lack of transparency, and desire to keep it that way, I suspect that the briefings will raise more questions than answers.

Texas Governors Race

Kinky Friedman out fundraises Democrats in the race for Governor:

In a measure of how far Texas Democrats have fallen, singer Kinky Friedman has raised three times as much campaign money in his independent bid for governor as the two top Democratic candidates combined.

Former U.S. Rep. Chris Bell raised $355,000 in the last six months, and one-time state Supreme Court Justice Bob Gammage collected $67,000, according to campaign finance reports filed Tuesday with the state.

By comparison, Mr. Friedman, the mystery novelist and singer-songwriter who's running his first race for statewide office, reported raising $1.5 million between July and December.

I'm a Democrat, but by the same token I have no qualms about third-party candidates running for elected office. Based on the sparse information on Friedman's site, I could support him as governor (assuming he lives up to his campaign promises), however, I am afraid that he is drawing potential voters away from the two Democratic candidates.

I just hope that which ever candidate wins the election, it is neither Rick Perry, or Carol Keeton Strayhorn.

Thanks to The Agonist for this tip.

Republicans Approve Corruption

How else can you explain that a Congressman under indictment for corruption is allowed to be a a committee chair?

Indicted Rep. Tom DeLay, forced to step down as the No. 2 Republican in the House, scored a soft landing Wednesday as GOP leaders rewarded him with a coveted seat on the Appropriations Committee.

DeLay, R-Texas, also claimed a seat on the subcommittee overseeing the Justice Department, which is currently investigating an influence-peddling scandal involving disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his dealings with lawmakers. The subcommittee also has responsibility over NASA — a top priority for DeLay, since the Johnson Space Center is located in his Houston-area district.

Right here is yet another election year issue that Democrats need to use. The Republican party in the House, tacitly approves of what Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff have done.

Good News (Sort of)

Soldier reimbursed for body armor:

A former Army soldier will be reimbursed after he was required to pay for his equipment when he was wounded in Iraq, a military spokesman said Wednesday.

First Lt. William "Eddie" Rebrook was discharged for medical reasons last week after being injured in Iraq, and the Army said Wednesday he paid about $650 for 18 items that he was issued before going to Iraq.

"Whether procedures weren't followed or the system failed him is currently under investigation," said a written statement issued by a spokesman at Fort Hood in Texas. "What is clear is that this command is going to do the right thing by Lieutenant Rebrook, who is one of our nation's proud veterans."

The statement also said, "There is no question that [Rebrook] should not have to pay for the body armor of his that was destroyed in Iraq."

John at Americablog raised $5400 for Lt. Rebrook, and despite CNN indicating that the money hasn't been sent, John notified Rebrook's father that a check was sent yesterday.

It all makes me wonder how many other soldiers are being billed for their damaged or lost equipment in Iraq?

Illegal? I Think So

But my opinion is trumped by the FISA court, and the Justice Department:

Twice in the past four years, a top Justice Department lawyer warned the presiding judge of a secret surveillance court that information overheard in President Bush's eavesdropping program may have been improperly used to obtain wiretap warrants in the court, according to two sources with knowledge of those events.

The revelations infuriated U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly -- who, like her predecessor, Royce C. Lamberth, had expressed serious doubts about whether the warrantless monitoring of phone calls and e-mails ordered by Bush was legal. Both judges had insisted that no information obtained this way be used to gain warrants from their court, according to government sources, and both had been assured by administration officials it would never happen.

Odd that a program that the Bush Administration, and the Attorney General state is legal, has its legality questioned by the Justice Department AND the FISA court judges.

Just How Friendly was Bush and Abramoff?

Think Progress gives us a hint:

But according to Eisler, Abramoff told him that the two have met almost a dozen times, shared jokes, and spoke about details of Abramoff’s family:

HE HAS ONE OF THE BEST MEMORIES OF ANY POLITICIAN I HAVE EVER MET. IT WAS ONE IF [sic] HIS TRADEMARKS, THOUGH OF COURSE HE CAN’T RECALL THAT HE HAS A GREAT MEMORY! THE GUY SAW ME IN ALMOST A DOZEN SETTINGS, AND JOKED WITH ME ABOUT A BUNCH OF THINGS, INCLUDING DETAILS OF MY KIDS. PERHAPS HE HAS FORGOTTEN EVERYTHING. WHO KNOWS.

(emphasis original)

Thought for the Day

"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."

--Stephen Jay Gould

Murtha, Democrats, Compromise

Via Wampum we are directed to this post from Mark Spittle:

Let me summarize what I said yesterday. Jack Murtha is a right wing, gun toting, anti-abortion, anti-environment, anti-animal rights, pro military nutjob who is not by any stretch of the imagination a "moderate." I want you to read this next sentence slowly, and let it roll around your mind like a fine wine in the front of your mouth: he's farther to the right than Joe Lieberman on almost every political position. If you think Murtha is a moderate, then you must think Lieberman (who some Dems are considering tossing out of the party) is a Marxist. Got it?

Murtha's also about as far as you can get from "the real deal" for Democrats as Earth is from 2003 UB313. He openly supported Reagan during the Iran-Contra crisis and thereafter supported every military action by every President, including all the ones named Bush, up until his recent Damascus road enlightenment. His origins as a Democrat are hardly the stuff of legend: running in a special election to fill the seat of a dead guy (there's opportunity knocking for ya), Murtha went in with almost 8,000 More registered Democrats than his anemic Republican opponent, yet managed to win only by 200 or so votes. Way to energize the electorate. That he got re-elected time after time since then is hardly an endorsement from voters, but more a statement on the growing problems of ballot access restrictions and the powers of incumbency.

I have read the entire post two times now, in an effort to be able to express my opinion of what Mark, and MB Williams at Wampum said adequately.

Politics is the art of compromise.

In these pages I have argued both sides, for and against compromise within the Democratic Party. Mainly because I am originally from the northeast, where such compromise generally is not necessary, but also because I now live in Texas, where reality sometimes forces this compromise. Jack Murtha probably is a very conservative Democrat, and like Mark says, probably more conservative than Joe Lieberman, who I would like to see returned to private life, however, and however unfortunate it is, sometimes the enemy of my enemy IS my friend.

When it comes to the Iraq war, which is the preferred solution? Jack Murtha has been very supportive of military action, and was a supporter of Iran-Contra, and supported the invasion of Iraq. He has (albeit finally) recognized that the Iraq war is a collosal cock-up, and has been calling for a withdraw. For that, he should be commended. And for that, he should be welcomed by all Democrats who want this war to end, and our soldiers home.

On the other hand, I do agree that the praise for this very conservative Democrat seems to be getting out of hand. The swift-boat attacks, orchestrated by the right against him are disgraceful, and the wholehearted and swift condemnation of them from the left was completely warranted. Spittle has provided a list of Murtha's conservative creds, which does not look very good, and warrants looking at Murtha with a jaundiced eye. Murtha is in no way a good Democrat.

With this in mind, I was just looking over some of Sun-tzu's The Art of War. Particularly Chapter Six on Weakness and Strength which opens:

Generally the one who first occupies the battlefield awaiting the enemy is at ease;

the one who comes later and rushes into battle is fatigued.

The Democrats position on the Iraq war is one of perceived weaknesses and strengths (and some real as well). Since the invasion, Democrats have been in a reactive mode. They have been running from one front (WMD's) to another (UN violations), etc. It seems that the message makers have yet to recognize that, in the case of the Iraq war, Murtha put the Democrats in the position of occupying the battlefield first. Democrats could have used that position to be "at ease", and let the Republicans react, and become fatigued racing around reacting. However, if we take the position that Murtha is to be sidelined because of his other positions, Democrats lose the advantage. I'm afraid that advantage may already be slipping out of our grasp.

None of this is to suggest that those of us on the left side of the blogosphere, blogtopia, or whatever you want to call it, should forgive or forget what Murtha's positions on those issues that matter to liberals are. From Chapter 7:

In armed struggle, the difficulty is turning the circuitous into the direct, and turning adversity into advantage.

Therefore, if you make the enemy's route circuitous and bait him with advantages, though you start out behind him, you will arrive before him.

Back-dooring Social Security Reform

Apparently Bush has realized that his attempt at "reforming" (read: Kill Off) Social Security has failed, so he is now setting about to kill it with a thousand cuts:

President Bush's budget calls for elimination of a $255 lump-sum death payment that has been part of Social Security for more than 50 years and urges Congress to cut off monthly survivor benefits to 16- and 17-year-old high school dropouts.

[...]

"There they go again," Sen. Chuck Schumer, the New York Democrat who chairs his party's campaign committee, said Tuesday of the administration. "They can't resist trying to cut Social Security and to cut a survivor's, a widow or widower's benefits; it just shows how warped the priorities are in this budget."

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi agreed. "The president's budget continues to reflect the Republican agenda of cutting guaranteed Social Security benefits that workers have earned," she said

This proposed cut is just mean and vicious. There is no other way to put it. Bush is so bound and determined to kill Social Security.

Call your Republican Senators and Representatives to find out if they support this unecessary and vicious action by the Bush administration.

Obama v McCain

I was holding off on saying anything about the dustup between Barack Obama, and John McCain until things began to sort themselves out.

The main thing I was waiting on, was a response from Joe Lieberman. Apparently Lieberman was at the meeting with Obama and McCain where the "misunderstanding" took place.

True to form, Lieberman abandons the Democrat:

Well, on Imus this morning, Don Imus interviewed Lieberman. And while I don't have the transcript yet, the gist of the conversation was as follows. Imus asked Lieberman about the fight, and Lieberman alleged that it was all a big misunderstanding and that both men had were interested in getting a good bipartisan bill out of the process. He implied that both men had cleared up the misunderstanding. Imus at that point interjected that McCain stands by his letter, and Lieberman changed course. Lieberman then said that McCain stood by his letter, and Obama stood by his letter, except that Obama probably wishes he were a little clearer.

The point here is that Obama was working on some lobbying reform legislation, and McCain was working on rules changes in the Senate.

McCain, apparently fearing a Presidential challenge from Obama in 2008, decides that trying to paint the potential candidate as obstructionist is more important the enacting lobbying reform. Why Lieberman chose to be the middleman, rather than point out that McCain was more concerned about maintaining Republican street cred, rather than enacting the reforms he has been working on for years, is really beyond me.

Lieberman is very Conservative. Why he chooses to remain associated with the Democratic Party is not clear. Fortunately for Democrats he has a challenger in the Primary. Ned Lamont.

Who The Hell ...

... would nominate John Bolton for a Nobel Peace Prize?

I've just been doing some research on former Swedish Deputy Prime Minister and Liberal Party Leader Per Ahlmark who has committed this strange offense and nominated both John Bolton and Kenneth Timmerman for exposing Iran's "repeated lying" to the International Atomic Energy Agency about its burgeoning nuclear effort.

Will wonders never cease?

Reuters Stretches the Truth

and wades into lying territory.

The King's lives were about social justice, expanding and protecting civil rights, and non-violence. For people eulogizing Mrs. King to be painted as partisan is ridiculous.

Second, despite Reuters insistence, Bill Clinton trailed off his speech because he was interrupted by the audience.

Lastly, Hillary Clinton is Bill Clinton's wife.

A Hard Habit To Break

For Bush Administration officials, it's lying:

George C. Deutsch, the young presidential appointee at NASA who told public affairs workers to limit reporters' access to a top climate scientist and told a Web designer to add the word "theory" at every mention of the Big Bang, resigned yesterday, agency officials said.

Mr. Deutsch's resignation came on the same day that officials at Texas A&M University confirmed that he did not graduate from there, as his résumé on file at the agency asserted.

Just a note to future Bush Administration officials, who are going to get themselves known in the news: Make sure your resume is accurate.

Coretta Scott King Versus Republicans

I was at work today, and thus was not able to watch the memorial service. From all accounts it was a rather moving service. Also, from all accounts, a few people may have taken a few shots at the Bush administration, from the perspective of the life and times of Dr. and Mrs. King.

Needless to say, Republicans such as Kate O'Beirne and Chris Matthews took offense at honoring what these two people stood for. Frankly these two Republican operatives views are not relavent.

Just like Paul Wellstone, and the Republican harping on his memorial service, the King's represent things the Republicans don't stand for. Their lives are the civil right struggle, and Republicans traditionally have been opposed to everything they were trying to accomplish.

My message to the Republican operatives like Chris Matthews and Kate O'Beirne, get over it. You don't understand, and you will never understand.

Mary Beth Harrell

Mary Beth Harrell is running against John Carter for the 31st Texas Congressional District.

She has had a post on Daily Kos before, and yesterday she posted a new one.

Harrell is really beginning to find her voice (online voice), and this latest post is a good one, articulating her reasons for running for Congress.

John Carter is a DeLay crony, and needs to go. Harrell is the right person to replace him.

Go read her post, and help her out

If you cannot help financially, go to her campaign and volunteer. Although this is a conservative district, it encompasses Fort Hood. There are a lot of soldiers (her two sons included) that need her type of representation in Congress.

Making it Clear Who's in Charge

Cheney speaks about domestic spying:

"We believe... that we have all the legal authority we need," Cheney said.

He said Bush had indicated he was willing to listen to ideas from the U.S. Congress and that members of Congress certainly have the right to suggest changes.

"We'd have to make a decision, as the administration, whether or not we think it would help and would enhance our capabilities," he said.

[...]

"I think it's important for us if we're going to proceed legislatively to keep in mind that there's a price to be paid for that and it might well in fact do irreparable damage to our capacity to collect this information," he said.

The damage to the administration's capacity to collect information will be that they will again be held accountable for what they collect.

A fair trade in my book.

Silencing Debate

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has traditionally been one of the truly non-partisan offices in the federal government. This non-partisanship has been the thorn in the side of each party when the CRS has provided research that is contrary to the party that their research has disagreed with.

Courtesy of The Carpetbagger we see that this time it is the Republicans who are taking issue with the CRS, and not in an appropriate manner:

In a scathing letter, the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence accused the Congressional Research Service (CRS) last week of issuing a partisan memorandum on domestic surveillance to the agency's director.

Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) called the memorandum, which was requested by ranking member Jane Harman (D-Calif.), "a flawed and obviously incomplete analysis" in his letter Wednesday to CRS Director Daniel Mulhollan.

"Media reports have further suggested the possibility of additional circumstances that could lead an objective observer to question whether the memorandum in question was truly nonpartisan," Hoekstra said in the letter.

If Hoekstra believes that the CRS memorandum is biased perhaps proof of such bias should be offered, rather than thinly veiled threats against this agency?

As it stands, the entirety of Hoekstra's position, appears to be based on the fact that the CRS analysis is in opposition to the Bush administration's position.

"racial suicide"

Courtesy of Media Matters, Pat Robertson shows us what he is really worried about:

ROBERTSON: Studies that I have read indicate that having babies is a sign of a faith in the future. You know, unless you believe in the future, you're not going to take the trouble of raising a child, educating a child, doing something. If there is no future, why do it? Well, unless you believe in God, there's really no future. And when you go back to the existentialism of Jean-Paul Sartre, the whole idea of this desperate nightmare we are in -- you know, that we are in this prison, and it has no hope, no exit. That kind of philosophy has permeated the intellectual thinking of Europe, and hopefully it doesn't come here. But nevertheless, ladies and gentlemen, Europe is right now in the midst of racial suicide because of the declining birth rate. And they just can't get it together. Why? There's no hope.

Because he has seen the future.

I wonder if his next sermon will be about maintaining racial purity?

Thought for the Day

"I shall never be ashamed of citing a bad author if the line is good."

--Seneca

Political Party Bank Accounts

The cash situation in Texas for both political parties is not too good right now.

However, it seems that the Texas GOP is in worse condition than the Texas Democratic Party:

The state political parties were pretty much broke at year's end, with the Democrats barely keeping their heads above water and the Republicans swimming in a shallow pool of red ink.

Three finance reports provided to state and federal agencies indicate that the Democrats had more than $8,000 at the end of 2005, while the Republicans had almost $130,000 in cash, but listed bills and debts of $277,000.

However, in the fund raising department, Democrats are fairing quite well, which could bode well as we head into the campaign season:

State reports spanning from July 1 to Dec. 31, 2005 show the Democratic Party actually outdid the Republican Party in fundraising. But in federal accounts, the GOP garnered four times as much.

Many Texas Republican donors are apparently contributing to Carol Keeton Strayhorn, who is running as an independent, rather than the Texas GOP who backs Perry.

There are a couple of ways you can help the Texas Democratic Party raise money for the campaign.

Obviously you can contribute through the Texas Democratic Party site. But you can also purchase t-shirts from zzzingers.com who contribute a portion of each t-shirt sale to the TDP.

I personally like the "God told me" shirt.

Cue Tweety

More Alabama church burnings:

Fires were reported at four more rural Baptist churches Tuesday following rash of suspected arsons that burned five others south of Birmingham last week, a state official said.

Since Chris Matthews believes that it was Liberals or Gays who burned down these churches, we should expect to seem him on tonight denouncing the same groups tonight.

Asbestos Bill

In June of 2005, I noted the proposed asbestos settlement proposal that was wending its way through Congress. Finally that has come up in the Senate for debate.

As I predicted in April before that, the bill would be heavily tilted towards industry, and away from the victims of asbestos exposure. It seems that such notions have Republicans screaming:

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., objected to allowing a vote on the bill. He spoke only a few moments before uttering the name of disgraced influence peddler Jack Abramoff.

"Washington has been run by the lobbyists. The Jack Abramoff scandal is no surprise," Reid said in his opening remarks.

Corporations that without the bill might be required to pay billions in legal awards to victims should be "jumping with joy," Reid added. "They were able to buy their way into the Senate paying for a bunch of lobbyists."

"Slander!" responded Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the bill's sponsor, whose stewardship of the bill for more than two years helped it survive the committee process to become the first new legislation considered by the Senate this year.

"To accuse us of being the pawns of the lobbyists is - is - is beyond slander, beyond insult," Specter stammered. "It's beyond outrage."

Specter's response is quite telling.

Is This What Republicans Mean by Supporting the Troops?

Army bills wounded soldier for body armor:

The last time 1st Lt. William “Eddie” Rebrook IV saw his body armor, he was lying on a stretcher in Iraq, his arm shattered and covered in blood.

A field medic tied a tourniquet around Rebrook’s right arm to stanch the bleeding from shrapnel wounds. Soldiers yanked off his blood-soaked body armor. He never saw it again.

But last week, Rebrook was forced to pay $700 for that body armor, blown up by a roadside bomb more than a year ago.

He was leaving the Army for good because of his injuries. He turned in his gear at his base in Fort Hood, Texas. He was informed there was no record that the body armor had been stripped from him in battle.

He was told to pay nearly $700 or face not being discharged for weeks, perhaps months.

At what point do we say enough is enough?

John at Americablog has set up a paypal link to help Eddie Rebrook pay for replacing the body armor here.

I really am at a loss for words on this one.

Falling Down on the Job

Cable news is (Howard Kurtz):

Cable news is driving me crazy.

What's been the biggest domestic issue of the last month or so? Bush administration eavesdropping without court orders. And yesterday was the first congressional oversight hearing on the controversy, with Alberto Gonzales as the star witness.

The cable nets all made a great show of 'covering' the Senate Judiciary hearing by carrying the AG's opening statement, then maybe a question or two from Arlen Specter. Then they trotted out their legal analysts to talk about the meaning of the hearing, which by then must have been eight or nine minutes old. The hearing became video wallpaper as the cable talkers talked. They never even got to Pat Leahy, the panel's top Democrat, meaning that only Republican voices were heard. Gonzales essentially got a free ride.

I hate to say I told you so, but this is what bloggers all over the left have been saying for almost 5 years now.

But I thought the Earth was only 6,000 Years Old?

French spelunker finds 27,000 year old art:

A French caver has discovered prehistoric cave art believed to date back 27,000 years - older than the famous Lascaux paintings.

Gerard Jourdy, 63, said he found human and animal remains in the chamber in the Vilhonneur forest, in caves once used to dispose of animal carcasses.

The paintings included a hand in cobalt blue, he told AFP news agency.

The discovery was made in November, but kept secret while initial examinations were carried out.

Phelps Lunacy Gets Wide Play

Via MSNBC:

States are rushing to limit when and where people may protest at funerals — all because of a small fundamentalist Kansas church whose members picket soldiers’ burials, arguing that Americans are dying for a country that harbors homosexuals.

During the 1990s, the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., went around picketing the funerals of AIDS victims with protest signs that read, “God Hates Fags.” But politicians began paying more attention recently when church members started showing up at the burials of soldiers and Marines killed in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[...]

“We’re not proposing to silence the speech of the Westboro Baptist Church, as offensive as most of us find that,” said Kansas Senate Majority Leader Derek Schmidt, a Republican. Instead, he said, he is trying to achieve a balance that respects “the rights of families to bury their dead in peace.”

The church has about 75 members, most of them belonging to the extended family of Westboro Baptist’s pastor, the Rev. Fred Phelps. The church is an independent congregation that preaches a literal reading of the Bible.

Shirley Phelps-Roper, Phelps’ daughter and an attorney for the church, said states cannot interfere with their message that the soldiers were struck down by God because they were fighting for a country that harbors homosexuals and adulterers.

Lawmakers are “trying to introduce something that will make them feel better about the holes we’re punching in the facade they live under,” Phelps-Roper said. “If they pass a law that gets in our way, they will be violating the Constitution, and we will sue them for that.”

And some say the left is loony.

More Iran from the Left

Mark Kleiman seems to lose all sense of perspective, and advocates for invasion of Iran.

What has caused otherwise rational people to support irrational actions is beyond me.

At least Kleiman recognizes that there are practical limits to this folly:

It's important to remember that the relevant time-periods here are years, not months; whatever we do about Iran, we don't have to rush into it. We have time, for example, to get our troops out of Iraq, where they're vulnerable to the Shi'a firestorm that might well erupt in response to an attack on Iran.)

*Sigh*

The "Angry Democrat" Fires Back

Hillary Clinton tells Ken Mehlman what's what:

Speaking to reporters in a Head Start classroom on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, where she came to criticize President Bush's new federal budget plan released this morning, Mrs. Clinton was asked about those remarks by Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee, on the ABC news program "This Week"

"I would suggest that the Washington Republicans worry about these devastating budget cuts, the confusion and bureaucratic nightmare in the prescription drug benefit — that that's where they should be spending their time and energy, instead of trying to divert attention away from their many failures and shortcomings," Mrs. Clinton said.

Let's not forget spying, revealing CIA agents identities, the utter failure of the Gulf Coast reconstruction, the collapsing of the Iraq war, etc., etc., etc.

All of this speaks to their fear of losing.

Say, How's That Gulf Coast Reconstruction Thing Going?

The Bush administration's priorities:

Visiting Alexandria today for a fundraiser, Vice President Dick Cheney vowed the United States would continue to be aggressive in the War on Terrorism.

"We will not sit back and wait to be hit again," Cheney said during the fundraiser for U.S. Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-Quitman.

The fundraiser, held at the Bistro on the Bayou at England Airpark, featured a photo opportunity with the vice president at a cost of $1,000 per couple and a general reception at a cost of $500 per couple.

The vice president flew into Alexandria International Airport at the airpark about 4 p.m., and he left the reception shortly after 5:30 p.m. to go back to the airport to depart.

So when Bush says that when he is going to give his undivided attention to the rebuilding effort in the Gulf Coast region, this is what he means?




Thanks to Scout Prime @ First Draft for the link

Powerline Freakshow

Assrocket, or one of the wankers are Powerline, tried to ask a gotcha question of Senator Durbin during the break of the Abu Gonzales hearing toay. His response: Pajamaline?

Go watch the video.

Powerline are the people who "took down Dan Rather".

The Long Slow (But Accelerating) Death of the Internet

Recently I posted about telecommunication companies trying to set up a tiered internet type system.

Well, apparently the plan to do so, is ramping up:

The nation's largest telephone and cable companies are crafting an alarming set of strategies that would transform the free, open and nondiscriminatory Internet of today to a privately run and branded service that would charge a fee for virtually everything we do online.

Verizon, Comcast, Bell South and other communications giants are developing strategies that would track and store information on our every move in cyberspace in a vast data-collection and marketing system, the scope of which could rival the National Security Agency.

According to white papers now being circulated in the cable, telephone and telecommunications industries, those with the deepest pockets -- corporations, special-interest groups and major advertisers -- would get preferred treatment. Content from these providers would have first priority on our computer and television screens, while information seen as undesirable, such as peer-to-peer communications, could be relegated to a slow lane or simply shut out.

This plan sets tiered rates of access depending on how much you, the consumer, are willing to pay.

If you pay for the "gold" level of access, you get priority of those who only pay for "silver" access, but if someone with deeper pockets is willing to pay for "platinum" access, they get priority.

What will these levels of access mean for you and me? Web browsing, downloading, e-mail message delivery speeds will all be dictated by these levels.

Today one can purchase varying amounts of bandwidth, but ultimately whether you have 1mb/sec of bandwidth, or 100mb/sec of bandwidth the speed by which a single bit of data travels is currently the same.

Under the proposed plans, if you are a "gold" subscriber to the Internet, and a "platinum" subscriber wants to download a program, or send e-mail, or what not, your data stream, be it e-mail, music download, or just general web browsing gets pre-empted by the higher level subscriber, and conversely the person with the lower tier gets pre-empted by you. Thus thwarting the democratization of content and access that the Internet currently provides.

Doesn't sound too bad on the surface, after all, everyone has attempted, at one time or another, to go to a site which was overwhelmed by others trying to access it. Where it becomes insidious, is when Verizon or SBC, et al. decides to further restrict speed on the internet, by promoting access to "their sites". SBC has a deal with Yahoo!, and if you only use Google, your access speeds are reduced since you are going to a competitors site.

There are a host of other issues that will be introduced with such a plan, and the link provides good information in that regard.

The most important thing is to contact your Congressional representatives and encourage them to oppose this plan.

Gonzales Hearings

I have been watching the hearings on C-Span, and reading what others have been writing about various parts of Abu Gonzales' testimony.

There are one factor that keep coming out, repeatedly, and Chuck Schumer is the one that keeps reinforcing that feeling.

Alberto Gonzales is supremely unqualified to hold the position of Attorney General of the United States.

He claims he cannot answer a question, because it is "operational details", yet when pressed on a specific point that does not require specific operational details, he admits to not knowing the answer.

This is despite Leahy having asked him to get some information during the lunch break. Coming back from the lunch break Gonzales obviously didn't bother to get the information. I am sure some of this impression is from his being obstinate about this issue, but there have been other questions asked of him, that as Attorney General, he should have either known the answer, or, based on the morning questioning, had even the modicum of foresight to have this information available to him. The question about how many investigations the Justice Department had undertaken to verify that the NSA spying program complied with the law he is convinced is constitutional.

I could detail each specific instance, but that would be a futile excersize. The facts are that Gonzales was not qualified to be appointed AG, and he is not competent enough to learn on the job, thus should not remain in that position.

Though, I suppose, it is just a part of the utter incompetence that comprises the whole of the Bush administration.

Thought for the Year

"The President seems to have a pre-1776 view of the world. That's the problem."

--Senator Russ Feingold, 6 February 2006

Putting Wal-Mart on the Defensive

It seems the progressives message about how bad Wal-Mart is, is having an impact:

... the number of regular shoppers at Wal-Mart has fallen significantly. At the beginning of 2005, 69% of the population shopped at the company at least once or twice a month. That dropped to 51% by November.

Here's the shocking finding-- progressives have been able to create a significant shift in public opinion and shopping habits, a testament to the strong coalitions built in the last year.

Let's hope the message continues to resonate.

Republican Fear

RNC Chairman Ken Mehlmen demonstrates that the Republican Party is afraid of what in store for 2006 and 2008 by lashing out at Hillary Clinton:

Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a potential presidential contender in 2008, "seems to have a lot of anger" and voters usually do not send angry candidates to the White House, the Republican Party chairman said Sunday.

"When you think of the level of anger, I'm not sure it's what Americans want," said Ken Mehlman, head of the Republican National Committee.

Whether or not Hillary Clinton runs for President in 2008, the Republican narrative going forward is going to be one of trying to frighten Americans with the "Angry Democrat" theme.

Democrats do have plenty to be angry about, and it is apparent that Melhman is afraid that if this anger (which is also felt by many Americans) is directed, and channeled in an appropriate manner, i.e. what is going wrong, and what Democrats plan on doing right, the Republicans could very well lose both the House and Senate.

Abu Gonzales Hearing

Atrios has links to a few bloggers who are covering the Senate Judicary Hearings with Attorney General Gonzales. I will certainly be looking at their sites to see what their take on the hearing is.

However, I tuned in just before the 10 minute break that Specter just called.

So far the one point of contention which I wonder if Specter will address soon, is that he felt it was unnecessary to have Gonzales sworn in. He says AG's aren't sworn in, except that, as Feingold pointed out Janet Reno was always sworn in.

Right before the break, Arlen Specter took the time to point out the Debra Burlingame, sister of the pilot of the flight that hit the Pentagon, was in attendance.

I couldn't figure out why, until now.

In a press conference she was trotted out as a sympathetic witness to 9/11, and domestic spying. She was spewing what could only be termed as talking points. Jeff Sessions then went on to imply that Democrats are endangering America by questioning this program.

Immediately back from break, Chuck Grassley starts pressing for the prosecution of the individual who revealed this blatantly illegal program to the New York Times. His point being that he wasn't offended by the program, so the person who revealed this program, and the others who have a problem with the program, are the ones with a problem.

From the way this short segment has gone on, I suspect we are going to see a stark divided.

Democrats are standing up for the Rule of Law, and Republicans are standing up for Bush.

But What About The Good News From Iraq?

Glenn Renyolds finds some:

Because electricity is essentially free, Iraqis have responded much as you might expect: by buying and using air conditioners, television sets, and refrigerators in record numbers. "We don't even know what demand really is, because it is unconstrained by price," says Crane, the Rand economist. Until the ministry begins charging more realistic rates for electricity, he warns, "you could put a hundred billion dollars into the electrical system and not satisfy demand."

Or does he?

"The basic problem with Qud[a]s is, we have four LM6000s out there that essentially don't have a fuel supply," says a U.S. power-generation engineer who did a yearlong tour in Iraq. "We installed a third of a billion dollars' worth of combustion turbines that can't be fueled."

The LM6000 combustion turbines are a type known as aeroderivative. They are basically Boeing 747 turbines mounted on heavy stands. They work well on natural gas, but to run on diesel, they need high-quality fuel and a fair amount of operational sophistication, two things in short supply today in Iraq. "The first time I went to Quds and saw those LM6000s, the first words out of my mouth were, 'What the hell are those things doing here?'" says the generation specialist in Iraq.

The rest of the electricity situation in Iraq isn't much better.

But in the land of winnuttia, this is good news.

And, according to Reynolds, the Iraq reconstruction is going swimmingly, as compared to the Gulf Coast rebuilding effort.

Whoopee!

More Ciro Rodriguez

This time from Chris Bowers @ MyDD.com:

In other words, on the key votes that separate Democrats form Republicans in the House, Henry Cuellar has actually sided with Republicans more often than he has sided with Democrats. He is actually a more reliable vote for Republicans than he is for Democrats. Overall, Cuellar was the 9th least loyal Democrat in the House. He is by far the least loyal Democrat to come from a blue-leaning district, as the eight Demcorats who are actually less loyal than Cuellar are from heavy Republican territory.

By way of contrast, during the 108th Congress, Ciro Rodiguez voted with the Demcoratic majority on 28 out of 32 occasions. His loyalty rate of 87.5% is almost twice that of Henry Cuellar's pathetic 44.4%. In fact, Rodriguez's loyalty was above the Demcoratic average of 82.3%, and identical to the non-blue dog Democratic average of 87.7% in the 108th congress. Republicans essentially gained half of a seat in the House when Cuellar replaced Rodriguez last year. A real Democrat was replaced with a fake one, and I say it is time to gain that seat back.

[...]

It is no wonder that the Club for Growth has endorsed Cuellar--the first Democrat that group ever endorsed. It is no wonder that Cuellar supported Bush in 2000 (and probably in 2004 as well). It is no wonder that Republicans have not fielded a challenger to Cuellar in 2006. Why bother challenging a Republican inbument?

Rodriguez is getting a lot of support to defeat Cuellar.


he could probably use some more.

Iran

a very interesting read, on what is turning into a repeat of the lead up to the war in Iraq.

At this point, I would say it is too early to say, for certain, if this is just some political posturing leading up to the elections in November, or if there is a real plan to invade Iran.

Nonetheless, the rhetoric coming from the right is a very useful teaching tool. Much of what is being put out, is very similar to the rhetoric leading up to the Iraq war. Without searching out, and linking to all of the tortured rhetoric that was used in the lead up to the Iraq war, we can see, which Silber helpfully linked to in his essay above, that the "danger of an armed Iran" line is being played today. We are told that Iran shouldn't can't have nuclear weapons. All while ignoring the source of the technology that Iran is being sold, namely Russia. What is truly frightening, to anyone who really cares about the state of our military, and whether or not there will be a draft, is that assuming that things follow the Iraq playbook (and there is nothing yet to suggest that it will be any different), we will not have a real warning when the shooting will start. The difference in this case being that military assets are already in the region, and it is a matter of redeploying those in theater assets, or more likely, extending the theater of battle into Iran (or Syria, Libya, ...).

In any case, we can expect to see the issue of a "nuclear Iran" turning into a political meme very soon. The 101st Fighting Keyboarders have already received their marching orders, and, like the good little pawns they are, they have been typing up exactly what they have been told to.

There have already been some initial forays from the right-wing blogs into the mainstream media, particularly Fox News, about the threat of Iran, and we should soon start hearing people like David Brooks, John Tierney, Charles Krauthammer, Fred Barnes, and others who pass along RNC talking points, nearly verbatim, revving up the mighty wurlitzer.

The fact that I or Atrios or anyone else recognizes that the U.S. can neither launch, nor sustain a war with Iran, doesn't matter to any of those people currently advocating action against Iran. The fact that starting military action against Iran, will only strengthen the ties between Iran, and the currently friendly (to Iran) government we installed in Iraq, and what little goodwill that may exist towards the U.S. in Iraq will finally vanish (ignoring for the moment, all other countries in the M.E. which already are hostile towards the U.S.) is beside the point. Never mind that this increasingly threatening language, used to describe what Iran is doing, is the exact opposite of what is needed to change the situation in Iraq. At this point, anything coming from the Bush administration (and by extension the right-wing blogs), needs to be dismissed for what it is.

Fear-mongering.

I fear, that if it is ignored, the battle cry of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders, will intensify in volume, until the media starts really playing along.

At this point, Democrats (and anyone sane enough to oppose action with Iran), needs to start pointing out the insanity of this plan. While the thought of a "nuclear armed Iran" is not a pleasant one, how many people were advocating invasion of either Pakistan or India when they gained nuclear weapons? And let's be frank, which country is more dangerous to U.S. interests, than North Korea, at this point.

If this noise machine is allowed to fully develop into what we saw with Iraq, then I fear that the Democrats will fall back to their "we support war too" position, with tortured explanations of "I voted for it, before I voted against it", and whether the actual threat to invade is real or political posturing, won't matter.

However, as Arthur points out, the battle to stop action in Iran may already be lost, as some on the left are parroting Bush talking point:

But the Iran propaganda has even infected many liberals and progressives. Yesterday, Atrios noted the following:

The other night during the SOTU when I was at CAP Action Fund with Sam Seder I was on for a bit with Amy Sullivan from the Washington Monthly. Seder asked us both to name the biggest threat to the Republic, aside from George Bush and Dickey Cheney. Sullivan responded, with all seriousness, Iran.

Along the same lines, I read this on the front page at Daily Kos last week:

There is little doubt that a nuclear Iran is the largest threat that the world now faces--the most pressing foreign policy issue facing us today.

For a moment, I thought I had mistakenly clicked on a link to the latest Michael Ledeen diatribe, or to one of the other National Review propagandists. As I indicated, I will show later in this series that this view is completely indefensible. "The largest threat that the world now faces"? "The most pressing foreign policy issue"? I find it simply astonishing that the most widely-read liberal blog should highlight such a delusional view -- and there is no other way to describe it accurately. This is and will be Bush's major line of propaganda on Iran now and in the future, a line that will be faithfully echoed by most of the media. Why is Daily Kos parroting it so unquestioningly? (It is clear from some comments to that post that this view is far from unique at Daily Kos.)

So, what is the largest threat the world faces?

If not Iran as a nuclear power, what?

Arthur rightly notes, that besides the problem of "loose nukes" in Russia, with India and Pakistan facing each other down. The issue of an independent Taiwan still is on the table. What would be China's position if the U.S. further weakens its military capabilities by tying up more resources in Iran? How soon would China act against Taiwan?

Given the ease with which one can deflate the ludicrous notion that a nuclear Iran would constitute "the largest threat" facing the world, it is a cause for great concern that this view has so completely taken over rational debate on the subject. It is of even greater concern when we remember that we are only discussing a potential. But note how a central part of the propaganda campaign works: several months ago, the usual estimate for the time Iran would need to develop nuclear weapons was about ten years. Then it got reduced to five years. Now, people speak as if Iran will have nuclear weapons in the next few months. The unavoidable implication of this tactic is the obvious one, the one that Bush used so disastrously with Iraq: we need to act now. We have to do something now. There is only one word to describe this approach: it is not reasoned discourse -- it is hysteria, pure and simple.

(emphasis mine)

So where are we left?

As I suggested above, politically, Democrats (and particularly those running for (re-)election in November, need to start countering this message of hysteria. Those that are not running in 2006, but are in 2008, need to start assisting in the countering of this hysteria.

In particular the Senate, whose members seem to get all of the airtime on television, need to start acting in the best interest of the country. It is not a winning solution to wait until the hysteria migrates from the fringe right (bloggers, right-wing "news" websites, etc.) into the mainstream punditocracy and journalism. By the time it became obvious that the invasion of Iraq was going to go forward without a international coalition, it was too late to stop it (in all honesty, it should have been vigorously opposed much earlier). If anyone is going to be able to stop war with Iran, they need to step up now. It doesn't matter if there is no real plan to invade. If people think there is a plan, they will start preparing for it, and the "Republicans are strong on national security" message is again lost.

This is just the beginning of the war of words that is being, again, launched by the right. And yet again, it appears that some on the left are capitulating early on.

Whether or not Iran gets nuclear weapons, is not the real issue here. The real issue is fear. The Republicans, and the far-right that is quickly taking over, want people afraid. By keeping the public afraid, our civil liberties are taken away, one by one.

A fearful public is a compliant public.

Thought for the Day

"Since we cannot know all that there is to be known about anything, we ought to know a little about everything."

--Blaise Pascal

Debunking Lies

Michael Isikoff:

Newly released court papers could put holes in the defense of Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, in the Valerie Plame leak case. Lawyers for Libby, and White House allies, have repeatedly questioned whether Plame, the wife of White House critic Joe Wilson, really had covert status when she was outed to the media in July 2003.

So, maybe we can finally end the discussion of her status?

For all those people that are demanding people at the NY Times be prosecuted for revealing classified information?

Scooter Libby most differently did reveal classified information, and not as a part of any type of whistleblower case.



Thanks to The Agonist for the link.