Open Thread and Diary Rescue

The Rescue Rangers plow through candidate diaries so you don’t have to, the result of which is a little “eye candy for the mind” compliments of vcmvo2, Painty Kat, jennyjem, Wes Opinion, TruthofAngels, joyful and grog.

Today is a sucky day in recent history. Two years ago, we were hit with a double-whammy of bad: Coretta Scott King passed away and Samual Alito (Scalito) was sworn in as the latest rightwing nutjob Supreme Court justice. Last year, one of the lights of our movement, Molly Ivins, passed away. Pause for a moment and realize we’re on the cusp of making history and the debt that everybody from the snarkiest lefty blogger to a candidate for president owes to these two women. And remember that Scalito will be a justice for a generation and we can’t afford to lose any more generations to men like him sitting in “judgment”.

Before we dive in, the Ranger’s own Got a Grip asks for your help protecting not just her young granddaughter, but threatened women everywhere in Action Alert: Help Ohio Enact Protections Against Stalking. Now onto the diaries!

• davidseth reports how he has leased part of his land as a working farm, as long as no chemical fertilizers or pesticides are used in My Small, Local Stimulus Package. (vcmvo2)
• Once again Louisiana 1976 does an excellent job revealing Bush’s abusive relationship with New Orleans in a diary entitled Bush’s NOLA Surprise. (Wes Opinion)
• Bigotry and false scientific study are no strangers, argues MPetrelis inTX paper: No Dallas data backs UCSF gay staph study. (TruthOfAngels)
• Sarge in Seattle expresses his belief that a straight line exists between states executing criminals to torture and then preemptive war in Executions, Torture and War, (Oh My). Once killing for cause is accepted as legitimate public policy, it invariably finds its way onto the table of options. See what you think. (PaintyKat)
• The idiocy of Bushco’s enocomic theories are dead. Scientician analyses how America might move forward in Towards an Economic Revolution. (TruthOfAngels)
• “A Divided Convention? Very Likely!” writes Kossack Democrat, who then goes on to give us a helpful explanation of how those Super Delegates are div’vied up. (joyful)
• In “I’m not waiting on the government to give me nothing”, Nightprowlkitty explores why the Army Corps of Engineers will not be held liable for the breaking of the levees in New Orleans. (vcmvo2)
• Archangel M writes that “you can’t play nice with Republicans” is one of The lessons we must learn from 1992. (jennyjem)
• Zwoof dares to ask a pointed question about policies of the past in Ask Hillary About This Tonight. I Dare You. (jennyjem)
• The “Spiritual Leader” of Social Security Has Died, and ChangeToWin takes a moment to celebrate the life story of a man most of us have never heard of. (joyful)
• A physician adds an important perspective to our insurance discussions in Tilting Against Insurance.maracucho compares 4 cases in which health care decisions were made with more regard for cost than consideration for the physicians wishes and ended in serious danger to patients, causing escalated costs. (PaintyKat).
• Robert Ullmann calls our attention to news of another country in Second Kenyan MP murdered this week. (jennyjem)
• FLArmyMom points to a health care system that is often “penny wise but pound foolish” in Health care and the poor. (vcmvo2)

BeninSC has Top Comments – Candidate Diary Edition.

Don’t think twice about some gratuitous diary pimpage but remember, it’s an open thread during primary season so be careful out there.

Sphere: Related Content

FISA Fight: Dems didn’t cave!

The Senate leadership has reached agreement with Republicans on how to proceed with the surveillance bill, and they held tough. According to leadership sources, these key Democratic amendments will get a simple majority vote:

• Striking Immunity (Feingold/Dodd): Strips the provision providing for telco amnesty from the current bill.
• Sequestration (Feingold): Prohibits the use of illegally obtained information.
• Bulk collection (Feingold): Requires the government to certify to the FISA Court that it is collecting communications of targets for whom there is a foreign intelligence interest.
• Reverse targeting (Feingold): Prohibits warrantless reverse targeting by requiring a FISA Court order for surveillance of a foreign person where the “significant purpose” of the collection is to target a U.S. person located in the United States.
• Substitution (Whitehouse-Specter): Substitutes the government for telcos being sued for their participation in the warrantless wiretapping program, but only if the company is first determined by the FISA Court to have cooperated with the Bush Administration reasonably and in good faith.

The amendments that would require a 60 vote majority are:

• Minimization (Whitehouse-Rockefeller-Leahy-Schumer): Minimization is the process of weeding out data obtained about U.S. persons and destroying it. This amendment would grant the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court the discretionary authority to not only approve minimization rules but to review their implementation.
• Sunset Provision (Cardin): Shortens the sunset of the FISA Amendments bill from six years to four years.

Additionally, they agreed to accept as part of the base bill Sen. Feingold’s amendment that would require that Congress be given timely access to FISA Court pleadings, opinions, and decisions that contain significant interpretations of law, retroactive five years.  The SSCI bill (the current base bill) mandates congressional access going forward, but does not require access to previous documents. There is an additional provision that may be accepted as part of the base bill put forward by Sen. Feinstein that would would reiterate Congress’ original intent that FISA be the exclusive means for conducting electronic surveillance and  would reject the President’s now discredited argument that the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force gave the executive authorization to authorize spying.

The votes are now scheduled to start Monday afternoon. The order of the votes hasn’t been determined yet, which is important. For instance, the Feingold/Dodd amendment supercedes the Whitehouse/Specter substitution amendment–if Feingold/Dodd prevails, Whitehouse/Specter is irrelevant. The latter amendment is a hugely watered down version of Feingold/Dodd, but it would at least allow suites to go forward. It’s not a compromise that I think Democrats should make.

There are also pending amendments that weren’t included in this list that might still go forward, including some others that could potentially be poison pills, causing Bush to veto. Amnesty is their big baby, obviously, as their all-out assault to try to make it into a “liability” issue demonstrates. Here’s Cheney yesterday:

CHENEY: People who don’t want to — I guess want to leave open the possibility that the trial lawyers can go after a big company that may have helped. Those companies helped specifically at our request, and they’ve done yeoman duty for the country, and this is the so-called terrorist surveillance program, one of the things it was called earlier. It’s just absolutely essential to know who in the United States is talking to Al-Qaeda. It’s a program that’s been very well managed. We haven’t violated anybody’s civil liberties. It’s in fact a good piece of legislation.

When all else fails, try to divert attention to trial lawyers. And, as emptywheel points out, when did the ACLU and EFF become trial lawyers? What this demonstrates is that they are losing ground on this fight. They weren’t maintaining traction by continuing to play the fear card, because their argument that listening in on Aunt Fannie’s call to her niece in Paris is keeping us safe is ludicrous to everyone.

If nothing else, the relentless push by the left on telco amnesty has put the Dems in a stronger bargaining position. Maybe if we keep up the pressure, we can put enough into this bill to force a veto, which would mean, in emptywheel’s words:

Bush has said he wants FISA plus immunity, but if he vetoed it even if it had immunity in it, he’d be forced to admit that he’s asking for much much more than he has publicly admitted. That would allow us to have the debate we should be having right now: how much privacy do Americans give up–indeed, how much privacy have they already given up–in the WOT?

You know the drill. This time, call all of your Senators, including the Republicans, including Smith, Coleman, Sununu, and Snowe. If the Republicans gave in to simple majorities on many of these key amendments, it could mean their caucus is softening. Let’s see if we can finally poke a big ol’ hole in it.

Sphere: Related Content

Debate Open Thread #14

FOURTEEN!

Q: Pick the other as your running mate?

Obama: Premature and presumptuous.  But unlike this administration, I don’t want a cabinet of yes-men and yes-women.  Cabinet to civil service, they aren’t working for me, they are working for the American people.

Stutters on whether she’d be on his short list, and recovers and says she’d be on anyone’s shortlist.

[Interesting question, btw, in the context of the reports that they really aren't fond of each other.]

We have almost finished.  Hillary basically says “what he said” so she can launch in to an advertisement for some townhall meeting, and I realize that not once all evening did they really talk over each other.

And that’s all folks!

Sphere: Related Content

Debate Open Thread #13

Why can’t CNN figure out when their own debate will resume?  This is the second straight time they came back to the debate with a question already being answered.

Something about spouses.  Obama should just not interrupt when Hillary is getting one of those “touchyfeely” moments.  It doesn’t help him.

Q to Clinton: What about the perception that you can’t control your husband?  ”It’s a choice between the two of us,” meaning her and Obama.

LAST QUESTION:  You two, people see a dream ticket.

Crowd erupts!  

That would NEVER happen at a Republican debate!!!

Sphere: Related Content

Debate Open Thread #12

Wolfie to Clinton: Why do you keep coming back to “if you knew then what you know now?”

Honestly, I’ve lost track of what her answer was.  To be fair, it might not be because it’s a bad or meandering answer.  But I haven’t followed it other than that she wouldn’t have exercised force, and something about a soldier from the 10th Mountain division.

Wolfie says “help me, are you saying you were naive in trusting George W Bush?”  

Crowd booed, Clinton tells Wolfie “nice job,” and is now trying to include Obama as being the same, as they’ve had to deal with the same realities of dealing with George W. Bush.  OK, sorry, this part is bullshit.  Dealing with the reality of a war after you partially greenlight it is different from having to deal with the quagmire after it’s been created.  

Obama: Hillary talks, correctly, about being prepared to be president on “day one.”  But it’s also important to be right on day one.  

CNN touting the discussion at CNN.com.  I just looked at their site, and we get more comments in a thread in five minutes than they’ve generated all night.  

Sphere: Related Content

Debate Open Thread #11

Clinton asked, in the context of “judgment,” why she didn’t vote for the Levin amendment to tie the AUMF to the findings of the UN weapons inspectors.  This is Clinton’s Achilles’ heel, and after a comment about not wanting to cede authority to the UN–please, that’s sooooo rightwing radio circa 1993–she pivots around to try to differentiate herself from the Republicans.  

Wolfie gives Obama an opportunity to respond, but puts it in the context of Petreus’ claims that we’ve had progress in Iraq.  Obama makes the correct point that there’s been almost no political progress, so even though we’re happy with the lessened violence, that we’re not happy with the lack of political progress.  Then he says it’s about judgment, and he thinks he’d be the strongest nominee on national security, because he’s always been right in opposing the war in Iraq.  

Sphere: Related Content

Debate Open Thread #10

Talking about Iraq.  Obama pointing out the differences between his position on setting a date certain with Clinton’s more ambiguous position, but still pointing out that it’s a difference between Dems and Repubs.  

Clinton invokes the endorsement of Maxine Waters, a convener of the Out of Iraq Caucus in Congress.  

This is a case where both have legitimate points.  Obama is correct that we need to get the hell out of the country.  Clinton is correct that when we leave, that it could be very difficult for the surrounding countries.  Again, like the immigration issue, this isn’t an easy issue, and whoever wins the nomination will have a difficult time with a difficult issue.  No question we need to get out, but as the adage goes, the devil is in the details.  

[Update: It WAS more than 200 comments every 10 minutes. Now it's more than 300. Remember to READ some of them, too. - MB.]

Sphere: Related Content

Debate Open Thread #9

Lot of questions about change.  Clinton says it would be a great change to have a woman as President.  Obama could have said it would be great to have an African-American, a point some guy made the other day.  

Q: “I’m 38 and I’ve never had an election where one of the choices hasn’t been either a Bush or a Clinton.  How is it change if those two families keep appearing on the ballot.”

Clinton talks about Bill’s record, then says something like it takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush.  

BTW, you guys are posting over 200 comments per 10 minutes.  

Sphere: Related Content

Debate Open Thread #8

“Why should you be elected if you haven’t run a business?”

STOOOPID question.  Governance is NOT profit-seeking.  Accountability to a board, several of whom the CEO may have recruited, is not like being accountable to the American people.

Clinton rejected the premise, which was exactly the thing to do.  Then Obama pointed out that Mitt Romney hasn’t gotten a very good return on his investment so far.  Good answers from both.  

Sphere: Related Content

Debate Open Thread #7

Both have been making what appear to be transparent appeals to Edwards.  We expected that.  But Obama just invoked Richardson, whose endorsement would be a big prize to either of them.  

Obama pointed out Clinton’s changes on drivers licenses to illegal immigrants but said it illustrated how difficult the issue is.  Clinton pointed out that while she has changed her position on drivers licenses since that earlier debate, that in that debate Obama didn’t have an answer, and used the example to underscore how difficult an issue immigration is.  Nice answers by both candidates, and good job by both to emphasize that they are actually close on the issue while their positions are far from the divisive positions of the Republicans.  

This was maybe the best moment of the debate so far, as they pointed out substantive differences between them, did it in a firm but respectful way, used the example to point out that the problem doesn’t have an easy answer–oh, if politicians did that more often!–and finally used it as an opportunity to differentiate the small differences within the Democratic tent compared to the huge differences between Democrats and nativists Republicans.  

Sphere: Related Content

Next Page »