BlogPulse Top News Stories for Mar 11, 2008
March 12, 2008 by
Filed under Money, TOP HEADLINES
BlogPulse Top Videos for Mar 11, 2008
March 12, 2008 by
Filed under 2008 Candidates, Bush Powers, Celebrity Nonsense, Clueless, Daily Cartoons, Deserved, Double Standards, Fuel News, Idiot Ideas, Legal Ramblings, Media Fools, Money, Mortgage Mess, Total Nonsense, Videos
Open Thread and Diary Rescue
March 12, 2008 by
Filed under Bush Powers, Capitol Hill, Clueless, Deserved, Double Standards, Idiot Ideas, Legal Ramblings, Money, Uncategorized
This evening’s Rescue Rangers are Avila, jennyjem, dadanation, TruthOfAngels, grog and joyful, and jlms qkw, with watercarrier4diogenes at the editor’s desk
Tonight’s diaries cover a variety of interesting issues not covered by the MSM with the kind of research, perspective and analysis we see here every day.
- Although child labor is recognized as exploitation in Article 32 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, renaissance grrrl pens a sad and beautiful essay on the loss of carefree childhood to economic reality, in Not even the rain has such small hands. (Avila)
- mdgarcia rejoices in the fact that Charlotte NC public schools adopt Anti Bullying Policy, despite opposition from Republicans who fear protecting gays and lesbians from harassment. (jennyjem)
- StrangeAnimals discusses the greatest environmental risk to today’s kids, television, in Happy Days With Hormones. It appears the V Chip didn’t fix the problem. (grog)
- 123frenchwine looks back on past attitudes toward race in America in How Racism Feels. (TruthOfAngels)
- Tex Kosmaniac Dem Lady celebrates the memory of a brave and wonderful spirit in the charming Dear, dear Mrs. Harrison… She never missed a beat. (joyful)
- Mark Warner and I are Democrats because… is Elsinora’s stunning reminder of why we are here – and why we continue to fight for what we believe in. (joyful)
- Hannibal introduces us to one of those Better Democrats we so desperately need in CA-52: Commander Mike Lumpkin answers 10 important questions. Now if we could just elect 400 more just like him. (grog)
- gregflynn perfectly illustrates why all politics are local, and why we all need to help kick Patrick McHenry to the curb in NC-10 McHenry Smears Responsible Lending With Right Wing Front Group. (jennyjem)
- ramsfan brings us the story of a playwright so insignificant that he must jump up and down screaming, “I’m a conservative now!” to get attention, in Glengarry Glenn Stupid- The Conversion of David Mamet. (jennyjem)
- Using the 2007 Congressional Scorecard as issued by TheMiddleClass.org, one metric to evaluate how well your Congresscritter did over the last year or so can be found here in DMIer’s well-sourced DMI Sends Members of Congress Home with Their 2007 Grades! (dadanation)
- EducationAction discusses the issues and possible solutions in Core Dilemmas of Community Organizing in Urban America. Maybe the same principles can help us elect more and better Democrats. (jlms qkw)
- In two powerful reminders of the tragedy of the Iraq War, xofferson asks us Why we count the casualties, while pakaal wonders How important is the war to you? (joyful)
- For both then (1971) and now (2008), James G Lewes tells us Why we need the Winter Soldiers and why they need us, since our country’s leadership didn’t learn the first time around. (jlms qkw)
- WisCheez tells us about journalism history and describes this role model in Worth a celebration: a century of I. F. Stone. (jlms qkw)
- phenry gives us a treatment for the primary blues in Daily Kos Bingo. (jlms qkw)
Carnacki has Top Comments Wednesday.
Enjoy and please promote your own favorite diaries in this open thread (even if you’re the author! Here’s where that’s actually cool to do). And, of course, since it’s an open thread, PLAY NICE, OK? 8^)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s Conflict of Interest
March 12, 2008 by
Filed under Bush Powers, Capitol Hill, Clueless, Deserved, Double Standards, Idiot Ideas, Legal Ramblings, Money, Uncategorized
A key leader of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, by her own admission, has a serious conflict-of-interest:
The national party, enthusiastic about the three Democratic challengers [in South Florida], has not yet selected Red to Blue participants. But [Debbie] Wasserman Schultz has already told the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee that if any of the three make the cut, another Democrat should be assigned to the race.
Let’s leave aside for a moment that the first part of this statement is incorrect – the first round of Red to Blue challengers has already been announced. It’s the second sentence that troubles me.
Debbie Dubya co-chairs the Red to Blue program. She has a major say in who gets tapped for it. Yet here she is saying she wouldn’t help three awesome candidates – Joe Garcia, Raul Martinez, and Annette Taddeo – if they get picked for that program. But if she’s already so hostile to the idea of them running, don’t you think she might steer the D-Trip away from choosing any of these three for R-to-B status in the first place? How can these three get a fair hearing?
This is a major conflict of interest, one which threatens to hurt not just our South Florida trio, but the fortunes of the Democratic Party as well. I also think it undermines the DCCC’s broader efforts, too – for instance, which other potential recruits might shy away from running if they thought that the scales were tipped against them?
As James Hell said, there are no recusals in politics. Debbie Dubya has to buck up, heartily endorse all three candidates and throw fundraisers for each of them. If she can’t do that, then she is hopelessly unqualified to perform her job at the DCCC.
An enraged Rahm Emanuel once thundered: “[W]e’ve got a [Republican] target and you’re out there kissing his ass in the press?” Rahm didn’t accept this kind of bullshit from Alcee Hastings, and Chris van Hollen shouldn’t accept it from Debbie Wasserman Schultz. She needs to change her tune, or take a seat on the bench.
Ferraro Wants an Apology
March 12, 2008 by
Filed under Bush Powers, Capitol Hill, Clueless, Deserved, Double Standards, Idiot Ideas, Legal Ramblings, Money, Uncategorized
Ferraro said she has a 40-year history of opposing discrimination of all kinds, including race, and that she was outraged at criticism of her remarks by David Axelrod, Obama’s chief media strategist, because he knows her and her record.
“David Axelrod, his campaign manager, has chose to spin this as a racist comment because everytime anybody makes a comment about race who is white — he did it with Bill Clinton, he was successful; he did it with (Pennsylvania governor and Clinton supporter) Ed Rendell, he was less successful; and he is certainly not going to be successful with me,” Ferraro told CBS’ “The Early Show.” “He should have called me up … He knows I’m not racist.”
Seriously? The perpetrator of one of the most egregious race-baiting plays in recent national-level politics is outraged to be called out for it? Well, I’m no David Axelrod, I’m just someone who, at 7 years old, was thrilled to have a woman nominated for vice president. But I’ll say it: If Geraldine Ferraro is not personally a racist, she’s doing a damned good impression of one. Racist, racist, racist.
And while, per her resignation letter, Ferraro has no intention of refraining from further race-baiting remarks, she’s still attempting to blackmail the Obama campaign into that apology she wants:
Ferraro, for her part, told Fox News that “if it makes David [Axelrod] happy, I would get off the [Clinton] finance committee.”
But, she added, referring to Axelrod, “He shouldn’t really antagonize people like me.” If Obama is nominated, Axelrod “is going to come to me and ask me to raise money for Barack Obama, and I will do it for him, too, if he stops doing this kind of horrendous attack.”
I’ve got news for Geraldine Ferraro: Your ideas about campaign finance are almost as out of date as your ideas about race. In February, Barack Obama had nearly three-quarters of a million donors, and with 500,000 contributions already this month, he doesn’t need supposed big fundraisers like you to keep him solvent. (”Supposed” because it seems Ferraro had some trouble repaying her debts from her 1998 Senate campaign.) So I doubt they’ll be groveling for help, especially after the lavish well-poisoning you’re engaging in.
Looking for the map-changing campaign
March 12, 2008 by
Filed under Bush Powers, Capitol Hill, Clueless, Deserved, Double Standards, Idiot Ideas, Legal Ramblings, Money, Uncategorized
“Most of those states haven’t voted Democratic in a presidential since the Johnson landslide over Goldwater in 1964, and we don’t see that changing,” said Harold Ickes, a senior adviser to Mrs. Clinton. “They’re great states, but Idaho, Nebraska and the Carolinas are not going to be in the Democratic column in November. He’s winning the Democratic process, but that is virtually irrelevant to the general election.”
First of all, it’s funny that he says that Obama is “winning the Democratic process”, but that it’s “irrelevant”. Nice framing there, Harold.
But beyond that, here’s the Clinton campaign once again automatically writing off entire swaths of the country.
Should we write off all those states? North Carolina and Nebraska can absolutely be competitive. According to SurveyUSA, North Carolina is currently only a 47-45 McCain state against Obama. And given the torrid growth of the state’s Research Triangle, the Democratic gains in the state’s 2006 mid-term elections at both the state and federal levels, and the overall negative climate for Republicans, NC is _absolutely_ in play. Even Clinton’s 8-point deficit in the state in that SUSA poll suggests that it is the case.
Remember, 2004 “swing states” Missouri was lost by seven, Washington was won by seven, Florida was lost by five, and so on. A minus eight deficit absolutely puts a state in play, and that the Clinton campaign would insult a state as irrelevant at this junction is shocking and counterproductive — yet more evidence that the Clinton campaign is intent on waging last cycle’s battles, rather than looking toward a map-changing future.
Then there’s Nebraska. Believe it or not, Nebraska has always been in play because it splits its electoral votes by congressional district. In fact, the Kerry campaign made an unsuccessful play for some of those EVs.
Since Nebraska created its split system for apportioning electoral votes in 1991 – joining only Maine in not using a winner-take-all system – Nebraska’s electoral votes always have gone to the Republican. In his 2000 race against Democrat Al Gore, Bush carried Nebraska with 62 percent of the vote.
The state’s electoral votes have not gone to a Democrat since Lyndon Johnson claimed them 40 years ago.
Early last summer, the Kerry campaign hoped to change that.
With projections of another sharply divided national election, in which every electoral vote counts, the Kerry campaign hired a state coordinator for Nebraska. Kerry advisers were convinced that the electoral votes in Nebraska’s 1st and 2nd Districts could be up for grabs.
Local Democrats started talking about turning Nebraska “purple” on electoral maps, a mix of blue for Democrats and red for Republicans.
That SUSA poll shows Clinton losing Nebraska badly, but Obama — surprise! — picks up two of the state’s five EVs, and trails narrowly statewide 45-42.
In Crashing the Gate, Jerome Armstrong and I write:
The Democratic Party is in the upswing in the Mountain West and the South, in places like Montana and Virginia, because Democrats there have made a serious effort to compete for votes everywhere, rather than make a nominal effort to be an “also-ran” outside the Democratic-density areas. As [former Virginia Gov. Mark] Warner asks, how many more times will the Democrats run presidential campaigns where they abandon thirty-three southern and western states and “launch a national campaign that goes after sixteen states and then hope that we can hit a triple bank shot to get to that seventeenth state?”
In the 1992 and the 1996 presidential elections, with three candidates in the race, as many as thirty states were viewed as competitive battleground contests up through election day. In 2000, that number dropped to just seventeen by election day. In 2004, the number of contested states early in the presidential contest stood at eighteen, and was whittled down to about eight by election day.
This strategy—or more accurately this obsession—that the Democratic establishment in D.C. has with narrowing electoral campaigns to ever shrinking “swing states” is self-defeating. It doesn’t build any new converts to the party, it makes it easier for the Republicans to walk away with huge chunks of the country unchallenged, and it starves the Democratic Parties in those “red” states. But don’t tell that to Bob Shrum, the über-consultant who lost eight presidential campaigns so far and won zero. Asked by writer Ben Smith in the November 21, 2005, issue of the New York Observer whether he had any regrets about his work on Kerry’s campaign, Shrum responded that had he believed Florida would go for Bush so strongly, “the campaign would have sent more resources—including Mr. Kerry—to Ohio.” One can only hope that Bob Shrum won’t be back in 2008 to run one more Democratic candidate into the ground with his overpriced expertise and a three-state strategy.
The Clinton campaign may not have Bob Shrum in its ranks, but Mark Penn, Harold Ickes, and the rest of that gang seem just as committed as ever to their shrinking pool of “swing states”. The Clinton gang is doing what Mark Warner decries — minimizing, belittling, and ignoring southern and western “red” states and claiming that the only states that matter are, predictably, the states that “mattered” last election (Ohio and Florida).
But that’s the old map, and it’s an obsolete one.
One campaign is irrationally attached to that old map, while the other is focused on being a map changer — spurring Democratic victories in unexpected places and generating a true national mandate for change.
It’s easy to see which campaign is which.
FISA Fight: Whither the Blue Dogs?
March 12, 2008 by
Filed under Bush Powers, Capitol Hill, Clueless, Deserved, Double Standards, Idiot Ideas, Legal Ramblings, Money, Uncategorized
The House will be voting on their updated FISA legislation (H.R. 3773) tomorrow. This is the legislation justified today in Chairman Conyers’ strong rebuke of retroactive amnesty.
House leadership is confident that the bill will pass:
“I feel very confident,” said House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn , D-S.C., who added that he has spoken to many conservative Blue Dog Democrats, 21 of whom have endorsed competing Senate legislation backed by the Bush administration. “There’s great support among members for this legislation.”
However, Tim Starks at CQ followed up with those Blue Dogs, and came away with a different picture (link forthcoming).
Congressional Quarterly contacted each of the 21 Democratic Blue Dogs, or their offices — or both — seeking comment. Only one, Rep. John Tanner, D-Tenn., has offered any kind of opinion.
Several others said they have not read the legislation yet, one day before a vote on a complicated, controversial topic, and one day after House Democratic leaders unveiled the legislation to reporters….
A senior lawmaker said the group is concerned about the ultimate goal of House Democratic leaders. If they knew the next step would get Congress closer to sending a final compromise bill to Bush, the lawmaker said, they might be more inclined to vote for the legislation.
Tanner said he might be able to support the bill for that reason. “I’d like to see something pass so we can get a conversation started with the Senate,” he said Wednesday…..
Other lawmakers interviewed Wednesday would not even go that far. Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., said, “I’m waiting to see what it looks like,” he said. “I’m willing to look at any compromise that resolves this issue.”
Rep. Allen Boyd, D-Fla., said he has not reviewed the bill because he was focused on other issues.
Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn., also said he had not read the bill. Asked about whether he could support any legislation that does not include retroactive legal immunity, he declined to answer, saying “I’m a little bit of a nerd” when it comes to reading a bill himself before commenting on it.
Most offices of the other 21 lawmakers had declined by late Wednesday to return phone calls or e-mails or answer questions about the new House bill.
The group’s “senior lawmaker” seems to still be operating under the misapprehension that Bush will compromise. That after more than seven years a Democrat can still make that argument with a straight face is utterly laughable. And a good argument for primarying Democrats.
Here are our old friends, the Blue Dogs for whom “compromise” on FISA is capitulation to Bush, the ones for whom protecting AT&T comes before protecting our civil liberties.
- Rep. Leonard L. Boswell, D-Iowa — Phone: (202) 225-3806, Fax: (202) 225-5608
- Rep. Marion Berry, D-Ark. — Phone: (202) 225-4076, Fax: (202) 225-5602
- Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark. — Phone: (202) 225-3772, Fax: (202) 225-1314
- Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D. — Phone: (202) 225-2611, Fax: (202) 226-0893
- Rep. Robert E. “Bud” Cramer, D-Ala. — Phone: (202) 225-4801, Fax: (202) 225-4392
- Rep. Melissa Bean, D-Ill. — Phone: (202) 225-3711, Fax: (202) 225-7830
- Rep. Heath Shuler, D-N.C. — Phone: (202) 225-6401, Fax: (202) 226-6422
- Rep. John Barrow, D-Ga. — Phone: (202) 225-2823, Fax: (202) 225-3377
- Rep. Allen Boyd, D-Fla. — Phone: (202) 225-5235, Fax: (202) 225-5615
- Rep. Joe Baca, D-Calif. — Phone: (202) 225-6161, Fax: (202) 225-8671
- Rep. Dan Boren, D-Okla. — Phone: (202) 225-2701, Fax: (202) 225-3038
- Rep. John Tanner, D-Tenn. — Phone: (202) 225-4714, Fax: (202) 225-1765
- Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah — Phone: (202) 225-3011, Fax: (202) 225-5638
- Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn. — Phone: (202) 225-4311, Fax: (202) 226-1035
- Rep. Lincoln Davis, D-Tenn. — Phone: (202) 225-6831, Fax: (202) 226-5172
- Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind. — Phone: (202) 225-4636, Fax: (202) 225-3284
- Rep. Tim Holden, D-Pa. — Phone: (202) 225-5546, Fax: (202) 226-0996
- Rep. Charlie Melancon, D-La. — Phone: (202) 225-4031, Fax: (202) 226-3944
- Rep. Dennis Moore, D-Kan. — Phone: (202) 225-2865, Fax: (202) 225-2807
- Rep. Christopher Carney, D-Pa. — Phone: (202) 225-3731, Fax: (202) 225-9594
- Rep. Zack Space, D-Ohio — Phone: (202) 225-6265, Fax: (202) 225-3394
Call and e-mail them tonight and tomorrow. Call your own representative, too. Tell them to read Chairman Conyers’ statement on amnesty, and to support H.R. 3773.
Foster Casts Deciding Ethics Vote
March 12, 2008 by
Filed under Bush Powers, Capitol Hill, Clueless, Deserved, Double Standards, Idiot Ideas, Legal Ramblings, Money, Uncategorized
This is why we work our asses off to elect Democrats:
Bill Foster won his election on Saturday. He was sworn in on Tuesday. Hours later, an ethics bill came up for a vote.
The bill, pushed aggressively by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), creates an independent, outside panel to investigate ethics complaints against House members. The House approved it last night, 229-182, with most Democrats in favor and most Republicans opposed. That margin is deceptive: Before final passage, the bill first had to clear a much closer procedural vote, which gave House members a chance to kill the idea without, technically, voting against it.
The bill survived that test by a single vote, with Foster voting in favor.
Do you think Jim Oberweis, a guy who violated election laws on the way to losing to Foster, would have cast the deciding vote for increased scrutiny on ethics?
Ferraro Resigns From Campaign She Claimed Couldn’t Fire Her
March 12, 2008 by
Filed under Bush Powers, Capitol Hill, Clueless, Deserved, Double Standards, Idiot Ideas, Legal Ramblings, Money, Uncategorized
CNN has Ferraro’s unrepentant “resignation letter”
Dear Hillary –
I am stepping down from your finance committee so I can speak for myself and you can continue to speak for yourself about what is at stake in this campaign.
The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you.
I won’t let that happen…
I used quotation marks around “resignation letter” because Ferraro had continued to insist as recently as yesterday that she wasn’t part of the Clinton campaign:
Ferraro said the Clinton campaign cannot fire her because she is not an adviser.
“It’s impossible to fire somebody who’s not involved with it,” she said.
If it’s impossible to be fired because you don’t work for the campaign, how can you resign?
If one can think of resignation letters on a continuum of repentant to defiant, this one definitely falls less on the “gee, I’m sorry” side of the continuum and more on the “screw those jerks who are making me step down” side. She continues to speak the language of a persecuted victim. And her promise to continue to speak out—should we expect more cozy chats with her adoring ally Bill O’Reilly?–suggests she will continue to spew her theory that there’s a hierarchy of persecution that should determine our presidential nominee, and that the near-certainty that Barack Obama will earn the Democratic nomination is tainted, according to Ferraro, because he’s Black and Hillary Clinton is a woman.
Hillary Clinton should not passively allow herself to benefit from Ferraro’s race-baiting. Look what Clinton herself said in the February 26th debate about Barack Obama in her attempt to associate him with a race-baiter with whom Obama had never been associated and whom he had repeatedly denounced:
No. I’m just saying that you asked specifically if he would reject it. And there’s a difference between denouncing and rejecting. And I think when it comes to this sort of, you know, inflammatory — I have no doubt that everything that Barack just said is absolutely sincere. But I just think, we’ve got to be even stronger. We cannot let anyone in any way say these things because of the implications that they have, which can be so far-reaching.
Senator Clinton, you can no longer simply state that it’s “regrettable that any of our supporters on both sides say things that veer off into the personal.” It’s to for you to personally “reject and denounce” the race-baiting statements of Geraldine Ferraro. Your failure to do so will make it look like you hope to benefit from the attempts of your allies to create racial divisions and exploit fear.
FISA Fight: House Judiciary members reject amnesty
March 12, 2008 by
Filed under Bush Powers, Capitol Hill, Clueless, Deserved, Double Standards, Idiot Ideas, Legal Ramblings, Money, Uncategorized
John Conyers and 19 members of the House Judiciary Committee have rejected the Bush administration case for retroactive amnesty for the telecoms.
The following Members joined Chairman Conyers in signing on to the statement: Representatives Howard L. Berman (D-CA), Rick Boucher (D-VA), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Robert C. Scott (D-VA), Melvin L. Watt (D-NC), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), William D. Delahunt (D-MA), Robert Wexler (D-FL), Linda Sánchez (D-CA), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Hank Johnson (D-GA), Betty Sutton (D-OH), Brad Sherman (D-CA), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Anthony D. Weiner (D-NY), Artur Davis (D-AL), Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL), and Keith Ellison (D-MN).
Statement of Undersigned Members of the House Judiciary Concerning the Administration’s Terrorist Surveillance Program and the Issue of Retroactive Immunity
As a result of our review of classified as well as unclassified materials concerning the Administration’s Terrorist Surveillance Program, we have concluded that blanket retroactive immunity for phone companies is not justified. However, we do recommend a course of action that would both permit the carriers the opportunity to defend themselves in court and also protect classified information – by eliminating current legal barriers and authorizing relevant carriers to present fully in court their claims that they are immune from civil liability under current law, with appropriate protections to carefully safeguard classified information. In addition, we recommend legislation to fill a current gap in liability protection for carriers, and to create a bipartisan commission to thoroughly investigate the legality of the warrantless surveillance program….
Accordingly, we support a resolution that would, notwithstanding the state secrets doctrine, authorize relevant carriers to present fully in court their claims that they are immune from civil liability under current law, with appropriate security protections to carefully safeguard classified information. This solution would ensure that carriers can fully present their arguments that they are immune under current law, while also ensuring that Americans who believe their privacy rights were violated will have the issue considered by the courts based on the applicable facts and law, consistent with our traditional system of government and checks and balances.
Our review has also led us to support two other recommendations. First, there is arguably a gap in liability protections for carriers that complied with lawful surveillance requests covering the time period between the expiration of the Protect America Act and the future enactment of more lasting FISA reform legislation. As Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid have proposed, legislation to fill that gap is justified and important. This provision is not included in the Senate FISA bill, and shoul dbe included in any final legislative product.
In addition, our review of classified information has reinforced serious concerns about the potential illegality of the Administration’s actions in authorizing and carrying out its warrantless surveillance program. We, therefore, recommend the creation of a bipartisan commission to conduct hearings and take other evidence to fully examine that program. Like the 9/11 Commission, it would make findings and recommendations in both classified and unclassified reports and thus inform and educate the American people on this troubling subject.
This statement is a solid justification for the legislation House leadership introduced yesterday. It also covers some new ground. First, it found among the telcos “a variety of actions at various times with differing justifications in response to Administration requests.” So it was potentially not just Qwest. Additionally, “a variety of actions at various times with differing justifications in response to Administration requests,” making the case critical to be decided by the courts, not by Congress. Furthermore, “the arguments for blanket retroactive immunity – that a decision not to enact it will irreparably harm the relevant carriers and that it will endanger our national security – have not been substantiated, either in a public or a classified setting.”
This is a strong rebuke for retroactive amnesty, and provides what would be a legal, responsible, and appropriate solution to the amnesty stalemate. Which means, of course, that the Republicans (and probably Rockefeller) will oppose it.
