Hullabaloo

Saturday, May 17, 2008

 
A Conundrum

by digby

I'm curious as to what you might think about this:

While much of the Congressional political focus has been on the declining fortunes and numbers of House Republicans, House Democrats have their own problem – they are winning too many elections.

By prevailing in conservative locales where they ordinarily would not have a chance, Democrats are widening the ideological divide in their own ranks and complicating their ability to find internal consensus.

This will be an interesting challenge. In the blogosphere we've been in the business of trying to elect more and better Democrats, by which we mean progressive. This raises the question: is more, without the better, a good idea?

The article asserts that the Democrats need to win much more in order to have a real working majority and there may be a chance this year to do it. But it still presents an interesting conundrum. What if you end up with a bigger majority of people with (D) after their names, but most of the new ones are conservative? It's not an unexpected outcome in a country that has, until recently, been very evenly divided.

The Republicans kept their "moderates" on a very short chain and consciously governed with as few cross over votes as possible in order to keep the other side frustrated and the caucus "pure." They got things done for a while, and protected their president with the loyalty of feral pit bulls, but ended up destroying themselves.

On the other hand, if the Democratic "moderates," the Blue Dogs, become the deciding factor in legislation, the change we will see will be incremental at best. Having the majority means that the most heinous right wing legislation never sees the light of day, so that's worth it, no matter what. But it's going to be very difficult to enact sweeping changes in policy unless these new Representatives are running explicitly on that agenda. Otherwise, they may very well vote with the Republicans, even if their president can raise lots of money for them. Money can't guarantee that Democrats in conservative districts can win.

I'm a big believer in padding the progressive caucus, so a new group of conservative Democrats seems like a mixed bag to me(although it's great to see Republicans reeling.) But it's happening and it is something for which we should prepare ourselves.



.
digby 5/17/2008 02:55:00 PM |

 
This Is My Favorite Week Ever

by dday

In the comments of the last post, Jemand von Niemand ran through some of the week's highlights.

On May 15th, the Senate cast a near-unanimous vote to reverse the Federal Communication Commission's December 2007 decision to let media companies own both a major TV or radio station and a major daily newspaper in the same city. (freepress.net)

On May 16th... Bush used a private visit to King Abdullah’s ranch here Friday to make a second attempt to persuade the Saudi government to increase oil production and was rebuffed yet again. (NYT)

The California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage on May 15th ... invalidat[ing] virtually any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. (LA Times)

On May 14th, about 100 House Republicans refused to vote for more war funding, voting 'present'... Democrats were able to increase their 'no' vote number on funding from 141 to 149; the bill failed...

Finally the GI bill passed with overwhelming margin of 256 votes in the House, including 32 Republicans... This might actually be the most remarkable piece of the votes today; conservative Democrats agreeing to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for educational benefits for veterans. (Matt Stoller)

On May 16th, Hans von Spakovsky, a former Justice Department official who never had Democratic support to win confirmation, withdrew his nomination on Friday. Bush "reluctantly accepted" von Spakovsky's request, the White House said. (sfgate.com)

Hell of a week, huh, Bootsie? And there are thirty more to come.

Not even a mention of Travis Childers' win in a Mississippi House seat that has caused Republicans to despair of a landslide loss in the fall.

Representative Tom Davis, Republican of Virginia and former leader of his party’s Congressional campaign committee, issued a dire warning that the Republican Party had been severely damaged, in no small part because of its identification with President Bush. Mr. Davis said that, unless Republican candidates changed course, they could lose 20 seats in the House and 6 in the Senate.

“They are canaries in the coal mine, warning of far greater losses in the fall, if steps are not taken to remedy the current climate,” Mr. Davis said in a memorandum. “The political atmosphere facing House Republicans this November is the worst since Watergate and is far more toxic than it was in 2006.”

And let me give you another one to add to the list. Remember that Missouri voter ID scheme that Digby wrote about earlier in the week? Turns out the State Senate refused to consider it.

In a victory for all voters, Missouri lawmakers ended this year’s legislative session without a final vote on legislation that could have prevented up to 240,000 Missourians from voting. The proposed change would have altered Missouri’s constitution, allowing for strict citizenship and government-issued photo ID requirements that would make Missouri one of the toughest states in the country for eligible, law-abiding citizens to register to vote or cast a ballot.

“I am relieved that I will be able to vote this fall,” said Lillie Lewis, a St. Louis city resident, “I’ve been voting in every election since I can remember, but if I needed my birth certificate, that would be the end of that. I hope this is the last we hear of this nonsense.” Lillie Lewis was born in Mississippi, but the state sent her a letter stating they have no record of her birth.

Birdell Owen, a Missouri resident who was displaced by hurricane Katrina, also voiced her relief. “I should be able to participate in my democracy,” she said, “even if Louisiana can’t get me a copy of my birth certificate. I’m glad Missouri politicians had the sense to protect my right to vote.”

Oh, and Series of Tubes Ted Stevens might lose his Senate seat after 50-odd years.

We're seeing an entire political party's collapse happen before our eyes, and in many of these cases a strong citizen-led movement, aided by leadership in the political sphere, has been decisive. There are two things at work here. One, you have a conservative movement that has been horrible for the country and created all these terrible policies which have made us less safe, less economically secure, and weakened in the eyes of the world. And you have a vibrant progressive movement that has been able to broadcast these failures widely. Consider what we've learned in the last month or so:

• The Defense Department embedded "military analysts" as propaganda engines inside US media with the full knowledge of the White House, mainlining the Pentagon message directly to the public with the imprimatur of independent media voices.

• The politicized show trials scheduled to crop up at Guantanamo during the fall election have been delayed because of the amount of perversions of justice employed by interrogators. The top DoD adviser to military commissions has been barred from participating in them because of evidence of bias, and one detainee had his charges dropped because torture was used (authorized by the Secretary of Defense), making the testimony inadmissable. Meanwhile the US is planning a huge new prison in Afghanistan, suggesting that indefinite detentions of masses of prisoners will continue.

• Domestic spying in the United States has spiked at a time when actual terrorism prosecutions have decreased, a massive violation of citizen privacy with no material benefit in stopping crime.

• The US government routinely injects psychotropic drugs into detainees to keep them sedated during deportation flights. , in violation of international human rights standards.

• An official at the VA told his staffers to stop diagnosing returning soldiers with PTSD, in an attempt to lower the costs of permanent disability payments. Many leaders in Washington, including Sen. Obama, are demanding an investigation.

The Republicans are wasting away because of more than just bad branding. It's because over the last eight years they've taken the country we know and done something terrible to it. And despite media blackouts and whitewashes, Americans intuitively know this. The historically high wrong-track numbers have a basis in economic struggles, but I believe just as much in this loss of faith in what we've become as a country in the Age of Bush.

It's going to take years to repair all of this, and the Republicans will be all too happy to sabotage those efforts as the opposition and pin the blame on their opponents. It's what they do.


.
dday 5/17/2008 12:05:00 PM |

Friday, May 16, 2008

 
Friday News Dump Alert

by dday

Democrats held the line and Hans von Spakovsky is out as FEC Commissioner.

President Bush's contentious nominee for the Federal Election Commission has yanked his name from consideration, potentially ending a broader confirmation deadlock in the Senate.

Hans von Spakovsky, a former Justice Department official who never had Democratic support to win confirmation, withdrew his nomination on Friday.

Bush "reluctantly accepted" von Spakovsky's request, the White House said.

I heard that Bush was giving up on the von Spakovsky nomination in solidarity with the troops.

Get this, Hans sez that the drawn-out nomination process has been terribly hard on his family and he doesn't have the financial resources to wait around. Well that's just terrible. Hopefully some think tank like Heritage or AEI in need of a known vote suppressor on staff will pick up the slack for him. Or maybe someone is needed to go around the country and agitate for crap voter ID laws to depress turnout in November. I'm sure he'll find something.

This is kind of a big deal because it'll break the deadlock at the FEC and get it to function again in this election year. And with McCain breaking finance laws with each passing day by continuing to spend primary money over the limit without getting out of the public system, the oversight agency ought to be in working order. (I say kind of because the FEC is a rather toothless body)

But really it's big because of poor George and Hans, getting kicked around again. It feels good to win one every so often.
dday 5/16/2008 03:04:00 PM |

 
Just Words

by dday

Hey, before you go off on this, just lighten up, 'kay? Mike Huckabee was only joking about the assassination of a leading black candidate for President in front of the NRA.

During a speech before the National Rifle Association convention Friday afternoon in Louisville, Kentucky, former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee — who has endorsed presumptive GOP nominee John McCain — joked that an unexpected offstage noise was Democrat Barack Obama looking to avoid a gunman.

“That was Barack Obama, he just tripped off a chair, he's getting ready to speak,” said the former Arkansas governor, to audience laughter. “Somebody aimed a gun at him and he dove for the floor.”

Why can't you libruls take a joke? Sure, the jokes normally take the form of violence against political opponents, but it's not their fault if you don't know what FUNNY is!



Yuk it up, you bastards! You know you love it!


.
dday 5/16/2008 02:06:00 PM |

 
Don't Know Much About History

by dday

Chris Matthews' brutal takedown of some robotic wingnut yesterday was notable simply for how easy it was. Apparently asking a conservative to define the words coming out of their mouth is a question on par with the final round of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire.



Of course, what the wingnut is referring to above is the President's comments yesterday in Israel, trying to stick it to the Democrats by calling them Nazi-appeasers. He used the artful phrase "an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.’ in discussing the times in 1939, aware but unwilling to admit that he was alluding to Republican isolationist Senator William Borah of Idaho. What he appeared blissfully unaware of was the collaboration of his own grandfather, Prescott Bush, who reaped financial reward for him and his family (including his son Bush 41 and grandson Bush 43) through sitting on boards of companies who did business with the Nazis.

(By the way, this is the biggest gift George Bush could have given the Obama campaign, so much so that I almost believe it had to have been staged.)

But less remarked upon was this amazingly ignorant comment by John McCain in an interview with Matt Bai.

as we talked, I tried to draw out of him some template for knowing when military intervention made sense — an answer, essentially, to the question that has plagued policy makers confronting international crises for the last 20 years. McCain has said that the invasion of Iraq was justified, even absent the weapons of mass destruction he believed were there, because of Hussein’s affront to basic human values. Why then, I asked McCain, shouldn’t we go into Zimbabwe, where, according to that morning’s paper, allies of the despotic president, Robert Mugabe, were rounding up his political opponents and preparing to subvert the results of the country’s recent national election? How about sending soldiers into Myanmar, formerly Burma, where Aung San Suu Kyi remained under house arrest by a military junta?

“I think in the case of Zimbabwe, it’s because of our history in Africa,” McCain said thoughtfully. “Not so much the United States but the Europeans, the colonialist history in Africa. The government of South Africa has obviously not been effective, to say the least, in trying to affect the situation in Zimbabwe, and one reason is that they don’t want to be tarred with the brush of modern colonialism. So that’s a problem I think we will continue to have on the continent of Africa. If you send in Western military forces, then you risk the backlash from the people, from the legacy that was left in Africa because of the era of colonialism.”

Of course, there is no history of colonialism in the Middle East. Except for Algeria. And Jordan. And Iran. And Saudi Arabia. And Yemen. And Bahrain. And Oman. And Qatar. And The United Arab Emirates. And Iraq, whose borders were almost randomly drawn on a British map, which has led us to the instability we see today.

(McCain, by the way, was for talking to Hamas before he was against it, another example of torching the past.)

The worst thing the conservative movement has foisted on the country is a collapse of historical memory. Our civic education here is not so robust, and our civic knowledge of history is worse. This has given wide latitude for conservatives to create their own reality, and jabber away with "facts" that consist of shibboleths and catch phrases, which by now have been ripped of all meaning outside the Manichean "good" and "bad." That's what we saw with that shameful appearance on Hardball. That's what we saw by the President yesterday. That's what we saw from McCain in that interview. And that, sadly, is a part of America. The Poor Man says it best:

It’s all like this. Everything is just like this. Some blank young person who has memorized a 5″x7″ index card of focus group-approved phrases, yelling, yelling, yelling over everyone. And you can say what you want, and be as right as you want, but he’s going to keep yelling, and yelling, and yelling until you get sick of it, and at the end of the day everybody knows that Barack Obama goes to secret Muslim church. Everything is like this. An election won’t fix it. This rules the world.

.
dday 5/16/2008 08:46:00 AM |

 
Winning By Losing

by digby

Last night I had the great pleasure of hearing Rick Perlstein read from Nixonland here in LA. There were many interesting questions and among them, naturally, were some about the current election. One, during the book signing phase, was "do you think the Democrats can possibly win?" which Perlstein deflected to me, explaining that I've been writing for the past year that it's in the bag, "tell him in 25 words or less, why you think the Democrats can't lose..." Since I go into brain freeze at times like that, I think I muttered something about seismic forces and tsumanis, so I'm sure the poor fellow thought I was confused and thinking about the natural disasters in Asia.

Upon reflection, I think the short answer is this: Because the Republicans want to lose.

It's not that I believe the winds of change aren't at our back. They are. And it's not because I don't think that the modern conservative movement is tired and played out. I do. There is a shift happening toward the liberal side of the spectrum which started with the Nader campaign, grew with the Dean campaign and has reached critical mass with the Obama campaign. The broad middle is disgusted by what Bush has wrought (he was never that popular to begin with, you'll recall, and only became so after a terrorist attack.) They too are listening to the Democrats for the first time inmany years. There is fundamental discontent with GOP governance and the people are highly unlikely to reward them for it.

But just as important, I think the conservatives have always taken the long view of politics and they understand the value of a tactical retreat. The Bush years have weakened them considerably and they are going to take some time to count their ill gotten gains, rest up and reengage. The Republicans are all about ressentiment. They understand the value of being out of power and know how to advance their agenda from that perspective. I wrote this a while back:

The truth is that they know the Republicans are very, very likely going to lose the presidency anyway. And they are fine with it. It brings them together. Here's old hand Richard Viguerie making his pitch for GOP to lose in 2006:

[Sometimes] a loss for the Republican Party is a gain for conservatives. Often, a little taste of liberal Democrats in power is enough to remind the voters what they don’t like about liberal Democrats and to focus the minds of Republicans on the principles that really matter. That’s why the conservative movement has grown fastest during those periods when things seemed darkest, such as during the Carter administration and the first two years of the Clinton White House.

Conservatives are, by nature, insurgents, and it’s hard to maintain an insurgency when your friends, or people you thought were your friends, are in power.

They use their time out of power to grow their movement and one of the main ways they do this is by obstructing anything positive the Democrats want to do. They are organized around the principle of being insurgents --- outsiders --- victims. It is not in their interest to cooperate with Democrats.

When they have damaged their reputations as badly as they have under Bush, they recognize the value of allowing the chickens to come home to roost on the Democrats' heads and obstructing any efforts they might have to advance their own agenda.

So, I think they want to lose. That doesn't mean they won't do everything in their power to damage Obama and deny him a mandate. They want the Democrats to win and then fail. The first is fairly easy --- the second, not so much. If President Obama is wily and tough he can outmaneuver and outsmart them. The presidency has a lot of power and with a majority can do some amazing things. But the Republicans' sole energies will be put to making it impossible for them. They love to play defense and are good at it. As Viguerie says above --- it's their very identity.

I think the Democrats are destined to win this election for many reasons. And I believe they have a chance to set in motion a new progressive era. But I also think the Republicans are happy to let them win this one, will regroup and try to obstruct them with everything they have to tee up 2012. Then they will bring in The Man Called Petraeus to save us all.

If the Dems govern well, they won't be able to pull it off.


.
digby 5/16/2008 07:56:00 AM |

 
Requests And Complaints

by digby

A reader sent this to me. I thought you might find it useful:

This website helps Americans get copies of complaints filed with the Federal
Communications Commission about television programs:

http://www.TVshowComplaints.org



This website helps Americans get copies of their FBI File:

http://www.GetMyFBIfile.com



This website helps Americans get copies of their GRANDFATHER's FBI file, or
the FBI File of any dead person:

http://www.GetGrandpasFBIfile.com



This website contains a large amount of hard-to-find government information
posted online:

http://www.GovernmentAttic.org

.
digby 5/16/2008 07:46:00 AM |

Thursday, May 15, 2008

 
Not Our Problem

by digby

I hate to interrupt the ongoing flag pin and orange juice obsessions, but this seems like a big deal to me:

Troops dug burial pits in this quake-shattered town and black smoke poured from crematorium chimneys elsewhere in central China as priorities began shifting Thursday from the hunt for survivors to dealing with the dead. Officials said the final toll could more than double to 50,000.

As the massive military-led recovery operation inched farther into regions cut off by Monday's quake, the government sought to enlist the public's help with an appeal for everything from hammers to cranes and, in a turnabout, began accepting foreign aid missions, the first from regional rival Japan.

This isn't good either:

The United Nations said on Wednesday up to 2.5 million people might have been affected by the Myanmar cyclone and proposed a high-level donors conference as the Myanmar junta again limited foreign aid.

The European Union's top aid official said the military government's restrictions on foreign aid workers and equipment were increasing the risk of starvation and disease.

U.N. humanitarian affairs chief John Holmes told reporters between 1.6 and 2.5 million people were "severely affected" by Cyclone Nargis and urgently needed aid, up from a previous estimate of at least 1.5 million.

Thai Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej met Myanmar Prime Minister Thein Sein in Yangon and urged him to ease visa rules for relief workers. He said he was told Myanmar could "tackle the problem by themselves."

Myanmar state television raised its official toll to 38,491 dead, 1,403 injured and 27,838 missing.

The International Federation of the Red Cross estimated on the basis of reports from 22 organizations working in Myanmar that between 68,833 and 127,990 people had died.

In a rational world the news media would be obsessing on these stories night and day. It's human tragedy on an epic scale. Instead, well ... you know.


.
digby 5/15/2008 07:00:00 PM |

 
Unitary Flyboy

by digby

So McCain declares Mission Accomplished in Iraq --- in 2013. Yea. War is over. Someday. Maybe.

Even more good news. McCain also says he's going to be different than Bush and be more transparent and seek congressional approval. According to his faithful hound, Huckleberry Graham, he doesn't believe in the Unitary Executive theory:

“I think Sen. McCain would be an aggressive advocate of executive power, but not to the extent that this administration has framed it,” said Graham.

Boy, that's a relief, huh? Well, there is a tiny little wrinkle though. He does believe that the President has nearly unlimited power as Commander in Chief. Which is what the unitary executive "powers" allegedly derive from:

“The Congress can declare war, but it cannot dictate to the president how to wage war,” McCain said when Democrat Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia tried to restrict the resolution to authorize military strikes only if there was a clear threat of attack from Saddam Hussein.

So, don't count on McSame being substantially different from his predecessor. If he feels the need to torture, spy on Americans or invade countries at will, he believes he has the constitutional right to do it. It seems he's only promising not be as arrogant and in your face about it. So that's good.


.
digby 5/15/2008 05:21:00 PM |

 
Basic Civil Right

by digby

It's a proud day to be a Californian:

California's Supreme Court today struck down the state's statutory ban on same-sex marriage, finding the state's constitution "properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples."

In a 4-3 ruling, the majority - with a 121-page opinion authored by Chief Justice Ronald George, joined by associate justices Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar and Carlos Moreno - found the fact that California law assigns a different name for the official family relationship of same-sex couples compared with the name for the official family relationship of opposite-sex couples "raises constitutional concerns not only under the state constitutional right to marry, but also under the state constitutional equal protection clause."

But that, unfortunately, isn't the end of the story. Kevin Drum explains:

... the initiative to strike down their ruling has already gathered over a million signatures and is just waiting for verification from the Secretary of State before it goes on the November ballot. It's 14 words long, identical to the wording of Prop 22 back in 2000: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." This time, however, it's a constitutional initiative, not a statutory initiative, so if it passes it will be immune to court challenges.

Prop 22 passed overwhelmingly with 63% of the vote. Has 13% of the state decided to relax since then and allow gay couples to live in peace? We're about to find out.

This is one state where the huge youth turnout could really make a tangible difference in real people's lives immediately. If they come out in the numbers we expect in November, I believe we will defeat this on the ballot, no matter how many reactionary wingnuts get excited about it.

It's fitting that in an election year where we are dealing head on with all these issues of race and sex that we're going to have a showdown on gay marriage in the most populous state in the union. The chances have never been greater to defeat the forces of bigotry and discrimination. It's a risk, but there will probably never be a better time to take it. Bring it on.


.
digby 5/15/2008 10:41:00 AM |

 
A Question For Robert Kaplan

by tristero

Yesterday, Robert Kaplan in the NY Times: discusses, in all seriousness, the possibility of invading Myanmar to get aid to the victims of the cyclone. He concludes that it's probably a bad idea - you think? - but threatening invasion has some possibility. Uh huh, riiiight. And along the way, types this:

It seems like a simple moral decision: help the survivors of the cyclone. But liberating Iraq from an Arab Stalin also seemed simple and moral. (And it might have been, had we planned for the aftermath.)

Sigh. There are times I wonder whether something was dropped in the food supply and drove this country mad.

No, it could never have been, Mr. Kaplan. Yes, the aftermath of Bush's invasions was the result of incompetent decision-making. But it's all of a piece with the incompetent decision-making that led to the invasion of Iraq in the first place.

And an invasion of Myanmar is just about the stupidest idea I've heard since the last stupid idea that came out of the White Man's Burden crowd.

Time to cue the Nixonlandians who're gonna bleat, Are you suggesting that the world stand idly by while the Myanmar military junta witholds aid to perhaps hundreds of thousands of starving, homeless children? As if invasion of Myanmar was an actual choice. As if the only "choices" available are invade or do nothing.

Folks, this a bonafide childish idea. There is something truly shameful, perhaps even immoral, about the Paper of Record taking seriously an idea as batty as invading Myanmar - if only to reject it - when people are suffering horribly in the aftermath of the cyclone and could benefit from serious solutions.

Perhaps you disagree and think we should waste everyone's time discussing the Myanmar invasion with a suitably sober mien. So Iet me pose a question to Mr. Kaplan:

Did any op-ed writer in Mexico seriously discuss the possibility of invading the US in the wake of the incompetent, maliciously negligent response of the Bush Administration to Katrina?

[UPDATE: I note that Josh Marshall takes the same attitude I did towards Kaplan's article. Meanwhile, Matt repeats the same mistake he made before Bush/Iraq, taking seriously the idea of an invasion when it should be denounced and mocked.]


Special note: I am very aware that Kaplan is against the invasion of Myanmar. The point of this post is the abysmally low level of mainstream discourse that would even bother to raise the notion. You simply can't have a serious discussion of the terrible tragedy of Myanmar within the context of proposing willynilly to invade the country. The cultural context that saw fit to take seriously the possibility of invasion is so juvenile and crude as to make rational discussion impossible. But we in the US take it as perfectly normal that one of the most widely-respected newspapers in the world would see fit to dignify such a puerile notion by entertaining a discussion about it.

That is how low public discourse has sunk, to the level of grammar school - sit-in-a-circle social studies. . Next topic - What did we all think of My Pet Goat?

tristero 5/15/2008 08:16:00 AM |

 
Here We Go Again

by digby

There's a big voter disenfranchisement scheme unfolding in Missouri this week. It could be a very big problem --- they want it in place before November:

Missouri, the battleground state that has accurately picked the Presidential winner in every election since the 1950s, now faces an unprecedented peril this week: the theft of the voting rights of at least 240,000 of its citizens (nuns included) and the sure loss of the swing state of Missouri to Republicans in the Presidential race in November. And If Obama, the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party loses Missouri, he will likely lose the fall election as well.

Unfortunately, the wily "Thor" Hearne, the St. Louis-based voter-fraud propagandist and Republican lawyer who has been the leading GOP operative promoting vote suppression since 2000, has been working closely with the key Republican legislator promoting a new constitutional amendment requiring photo ID. Republicans are rushing to pass the measure before adjournment this Friday and bring it to voters in August, in time to stop enough blacks, the poor, the elderly, students and the disabled from voting Democratic in November.

As John Hickey, the executive director of the advocacy group ProVote, told me, ""If you exclude 240,000 people from the electorate, that is plenty to swing the election in Missouri," with state-wide races having razor-thin victory margins as little as 21,000.

This is one state where it really could make the difference.

Thor Hearne is one of the preeminent vote suppression experts in the Republican party. I've written about him many times. Brad Friedman has been following his every move for years. His involvement means this is a serious move to steal Missouri.

We know this hits African Americans and Latinos hard and it's designed to make them think twice about putting themselves through this legal hassle. But there's another group that's going to be hard hit by this ---- the elderly. And in Arizona, where they now require proof of citizenship, even though they've been voting for 60 years, they are now just out of luck:

The devastating personal impact of denying people the right to vote because they can't get hard-to-get photo ID and birth certificates is best illustrated by a heart-breaking story I reported earlier in the week . I spoke to 97-year-old Shirley Preiss about her efforts to vote in Arizona after having voted for every Democratic Presidential candidate since FDR in 1932. I quote an ACORN organizer about the use of immigrant-bashing as a lever to block American citizens from voting, then I went on to tell Shirley's story. It bears repeating, because what happened to Shirley could happen to every poor person, disabled person, elderly person and minority who doesn't have the ready access to the funds, time and ability to navigate bureaucratic hurdles to obtain government-issued embossed birth certificates and other ID:

"All the discourse here is about immigration," Arizona ACORN organizer Monica Sandschafer observes. "But we're really talking about Arizonans who are Americans and whose legal right to vote is being denied. And while Latino citizens are hit hard, we're finding that all Arizonans are at risk of being disenfranchised by this requirement."

Perhaps no one knows that as well as 97-year-old Shirley Freeda Preiss. She was born at home in Clinton, Kentucky in 1910, before women had the right to vote, and never had a birth certificate. Shirley has voted in every presidential election since FDR first ran in 1932, and proudly describes herself as a "died-in-the-wool Democrat." After living in Arizona for two years, she was eagerly looking forward to casting her ballot in the February primary for the first major woman candidate for President, Hillary Clinton. But lacking a birth certificate or even elementary school records to prove she's a native-born American citizen, the state of Arizona's bureaucrats determined that this former school-teacher who taught generations of Americans shouldn't be allowed to vote.

"I have a constitutional right to vote, don't I?" she asks with her soft Southern drawl. "I didn't get to vote because of a birth certificate. What am I going to do now?"

Her strong-willed 78-year-old son, Nathan "Joey" Nemnich, a World War II veteran, is infuriated. "I'm pissed. She's an American citizen who worked her whole life and I want her to vote," he says. He went down to the local Motor Vehicle Division to get her an Arizona ID and register her to vote, armed with copies of his mother's three drivers' licenses from her previous home in Texas, along with copies of her Social Security and Medicare cards. All that wasn't good enough for the state of Arizona. "The sons of bitches are taking away our Constitution," Nemnich says.

In Arizona and now as seems likely in Missouri, Kafkaesque rules blend with right-wing ideology to block American citizens like Shirley Preiss from voting, collateral damage in the Republican-led war on democracy. "I was very disappointed," she says of the state's roadblocks to voting. "It's not acceptable. I've always voted."

digby 5/15/2008 12:00:00 AM |

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

 
A Little Bit At A Time

by digby

One of the most frustrating things about the authoritarian house that Bush built is the argument that you have to trust them, they're only doing it to "keep the country safe." But when you put a large bunch of bozos in boots and uniforms and give them the authority to be assholes --- some of them will inevitably be assholes. If you've read anything about the totalitarian states of the 20th century, you know what can happen. Petty bureaucrats at your car insurance company are one thing. Petty bureaucrats with guns and police powers are another. It's just not a good idea.

The good news (unless you are one) is that so far, they are mostly just fucking with foreigners:

He was a carefree Italian with a recent law degree from a Roman university. She was “a totally Virginia girl,” as she puts it, raised across the road from George Washington’s home. Their romance, sparked by a 2006 meeting in a supermarket in Rome, soon brought the Italian, Domenico Salerno, on frequent visits to Alexandria, Va., where he was welcomed like a favorite son by the parents and neighbors of his girlfriend, Caitlin Cooper.

But on April 29, when Mr. Salerno, 35, presented his passport at Washington Dulles International Airport, a Customs and Border Protection agent refused to let him into the United States. And after hours of questioning, agents would not let him travel back to Rome, either; over his protests in fractured English, he said, they insisted that he had expressed a fear of returning to Italy and had asked for asylum.

Ms. Cooper, 23, who had promised to show her boyfriend another side of her country on this visit — meaning Las Vegas and the Grand Canyon — eventually learned that he had been sent in shackles to a rural Virginia jail. And there he remained for more than 10 days, locked up without charges or legal recourse while Ms. Cooper, her parents and their well-connected neighbors tried everything to get him out.

Mr. Salerno’s case may be extreme, but it underscores the real but little-known dangers that many travelers from Europe and other first-world nations face when they arrive in the United States — problems that can startle Americans as much as their foreign visitors.

[...]

Though citizens of those nations do not need visas to enter the United States for as long as 90 days, their admission is up to the discretion of border agents. There are more than 60 grounds for finding someone inadmissible, including a hunch that the person plans to work or immigrate, or evidence of an overstay, however brief, on an earlier visit.

While those turned away are generally sent home on the next flight, “there are occasional circumstances which require further detention to review their cases,” Ms. De Cima said. And because such “arriving aliens” are not considered to be in the United States at all, even if they are in custody, they have none of the legal rights that even illegal immigrants can claim.

But, hey, after 9/11 you can't take any chances. They must have suspected this guy was some sort of terrorist, right?

In questioning Mr. Salerno, customs agents seemed to suspect that he intended to work here. Ms. Cooper, a copy editor for an educational publication, said she was in the airport lobby when an agent called to ask about Mr. Salerno’s income and why he visited so often...

Ms. Cooper said that at the airport, when she begged to know what was happening to Mr. Salerno, an agent told her, “You know, he should try spending a little more time in his own country.”

We don't need their kind round here. The customs agent said the man told them he feared being killed if he was sent back to his home country ... Italy. So they had to take him into custody.

Twelve hours later, when Mr. Salerno was granted a five-minute phone call, he called Ms. Cooper and denied saying anything of the kind. Instead, he said, the asylum story seemed to be retaliation for his insisting on speaking to his embassy.

After being turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, he was taken to the Pamunkey Regional Jail in Hanover, Va., where he ended up in a barracks with 75 other men, including asylum-seekers who told him they had been waiting a year.

Ten days after he landed in Washington, Mr. Salerno was still incarcerated, despite efforts by Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, and two former immigration prosecutors hired by the Coopers.

“He’s just really scared,” Ms. Cooper said in an interview last Thursday. “He asked me if Virginia has the death penalty.”

You can't blame him for wondering. They finally let him out when the well-connected girlfriend's family contacted the NY Times. He was, of course, put on a plane back to Italy and will likely not be allowed to ever come back. I'm sure this is on his "permanent file" like that Icelandic woman who had overstayed her visa a dozen years ago. But then, why would he want to? Why would anybody?

I keep wondering when this overstuffed police apparatus is going to get so bad that international business decides it's not worth it to do business here. I suspect it's already happening. Did you know that customs now has the legal right to download all information from laptops or cell phones without any kind of probable cause? And it doesn't have anything to do with terrorism either:

The Association of Corporate Travel Executives (ACTE) is warning its members to limit the amount of proprietary business information they carry on laptops and other electronic devices because of fears that government agents can seize that data at U.S. border crossings.

The group is worried that corporate data could be downloaded by agents, leading to potential security breaches and the exposure of information that is supposed to be private. Among the devices that could be searched by border agents are cell phones, handhelds, digital cameras and USB storage devices.

The warning follows a recent ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that basically upheld the right of U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials to search laptops and other electronic devices at U.S. borders without reasonable cause or suspicion.

The appeals court decision involved an individual who was arrested in 2005 on charges of child pornography after a warrantless search of his computer by customs officers at Los Angeles International Airport. A district court judge had previously ruled that the evidence presented by the prosecution should be suppressed because it was gained via an unreasonable search. That decision was later overturned.

[...]

Many companies, especially in Europe, are having compliance officers look at the broader implications of such searches and have begun curtailing the kind of information their executives can carry on their laptops when traveling to the U.S, she said.

[...]

"There may be some legitimate reasons for wanting to look at the data" on a traveler's electronic device, Gurley said. "But what are the parameters for such searches? Once they have the information, what do they do with it? What are the policies for retention and for data destruction? This shouldn't be such a hidden secret."

It is and there are no criteria. They have just empowered government agents to do whatever they want with your primate information for any reason they choose. To protect us, don't you know.

Trust 'em?


.
digby 5/14/2008 09:12:00 PM |

 
"Minitruths" And Big Lies

by digby


Gabor Steingart in der Spiegel online has been an interesting observer of the presidential race. I haven't always agreed with him, but he brings a different perspective than most journalists and is particularly astute about the US political media. Today he pinpoints something that I don't think ever gets enough attention:

A journalist's twin points of references should be the real and the important. But for months the focus of the election coverage was on trivia. Every insignificant detail got blown out of proportion, with every chipmunk becoming a Godzilla. According to a report by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, over 60 percent of election coverage by the US media has been focused on campaign strategies, tactics or personalities -- but not on actual political content.

Reporters focused the most attention on such pressing questions as whether Barack Obama was wearing an American flag lapel pin, whether John McCain had a mistress eight years ago or whether former first lady Hillary Clinton was incorrectly recalling her 1996 trip to Bosnia.

Clinton claimed to recall hearing sniper fire as her plane landed in Bosnia. In fact, as archive TV footage later showed, Clinton was actually greeted by a young girl who recited a poem on the tarmac. That may have been embarrassing for Hillary Clinton, but it is insignificant for voters.

Even the eccentric pastor from Obama's church, Jeremiah Wright, is not worth the fuss. "God damn America," he preached. So what? The priest at my Catholic church was a reactionary, while my class teacher was a communist. Perhaps the mad and the blind to the right and the left of our path through life are there simply to show us where the middle way is.

The American public has not only been misled during this election campaign, but has also been fed a constant stream of irrelevant information. In one of his novels, the British writer, essayist and journalist George Orwell invented the Ministry of Truths, which he called "minitruths," with which one would try to confuse the public with small parts of the truth that even when added up do not give the whole picture.

I actually think he understates the phenomenon. These "minitruths" add up to a completely distorted picture.

I have watched a lot of campaigns unfold in the media and I thought 2000 was a low point for sheer trivia and misdirection. But this one is shaping up to be even worse. There are real problems in this country and around the world and yet we have spent the last four months reading and listening to an ever expanding list of celebrity blowhards pontificate for hours about braindead pop psychology and calling it political analysis. And in a new twist, the media have now openly declared themselves to be kingmakers and final arbiters of our election process. It's mind boggling.

If you ever want to know which way the wind is blowing among the gasbag pundits and village scribes, look no further than the poison pen of Maureen Dowd:

Raspberry for Barry

In grim times, a bitter Hillary clings to bitter voters who in grim times supposedly cling to guns, religion and antipathy to people who aren’t like them.

Mining that antipathy, the New York senator has been working hard to get the hard-working white voters of hardscrabble Appalachia so she can show that a black man can’t yet be elected president.

Obama breezed through West Virginia, the state he couldn’t charm even wearing a flag pin and promising to invest in “clean coal.” Fast Barry shot some pool Monday afternoon at Schultzie’s Billiards in South Charleston, including prophetically sinking an eight-ball in the pocket, and then fled from Hillary territory to pursue white, blue-collar workers in battleground states and convince them not to vote for John McBush.

Obama is acting the diffident debutante, pretending not to care that he was given a raspberry by a state he will need in the fall.

"Bitter Hillary," "Fast Barry," "diffident debutante" --- this is what the Village dinner parties are tittering about these days. The old hag, the new fag, the same old shit.

And there is nothing much more substantial going on anywhere else. The endless obsession with process, the horse race, the "math," what they're eating, what they're wearing, what they're playing, runs on and on as if it tells us something truly important about what the citizens want and whether these candidates are giving it to them. Meanwhile we have a war, an energy crisis, global warming, economic dislocation, crumbling infrastructure, fifty million uninsured and huge debt both personal and public among many other things that government must tackle in the next four years due mostly to the massive failure of conservative governance. Apparently, the press feels that whether they wear lapel pins or misremember some event from a decade ago are the best means of finding out what the candidates do about those things. Or maybe they just don't give a damn and are entertaining themselves with high school story lines.

These amusing Dowdian character portraits have infected our politics like a toxic chemical spill, turning candidates into fun house mirror versions of normal human beings and treating the voters like spectators in a game for which the media decides the rules and determines the outcome.

Dowd always says she's speaking truth to power. Not so. She speaks truthiness to power and doesn't even know the difference. In her world there isn't any. And since her world is journalism it's a problem for any democracy that relies on a free press to inform the public. No wonder people so often end up throwing up their hands and refusing to participate. Let's hope all these new voters don't read papers or watch TV or they'll quickly become disgusted and apathetic too.


Update: Media Bloodhound has a perfect example of truthiness in action. lest anyone think that my objections to the pervasive cowardice and malpractice of themedia is political in nature, you only have to follow this story about the pentagon mouthpieces. Unfortunately, you can only follow it on blogs like Glenn Greenwald's, since the mainstream media is blacking it out.

.
digby 5/14/2008 02:42:00 PM |

 
Beaten With A Stove

by digby

The ACLU has obtained some more sickening documents:

"These documents provide further evidence that the torture of prisoners in U.S. custody abroad was not aberrational, but was widespread and systemic," said Amrit Singh, a staff attorney with the ACLU. "They only underscore the need for an independent investigation into high-level responsibility for prisoner abuse."

One of the documents released to the ACLU is a list of at least four prisoner deaths that were the subject of Navy Criminal Investigation Service (NCIS) investigations. The NCIS document contains new information about the deaths of some of these prisoners, including details about Farhad Mohamed, who had contusions under his eyes and the bottom of his chin, a swollen nose, cuts and large bumps on his forehead when he died in Mosul in 2004. The document also includes details about Naem Sadoon Hatab, a 52-year-old Iraqi man who was strangled to death at the Whitehorse detainment facility in Nasiriyah in June 2003; the shooting death of Hemdan El Gashame in Nasiriyah in March 2003; and the death of Manadel Jamadi during an interrogation after his head was beaten with a stove at Abu Ghraib in November 2003.

There was nothing illegal or immoral about any of this, of course, because the president has proclaimed that the US doesn't torture.


.
digby 5/14/2008 08:41:00 AM |

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

 
The Wave Builds

by digby

.... even in Mississippi:

DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen released the following statement on Travis Childers' victory in the special election runoff in Mississippi's 1^st Congressional District. With tonight's win, the Democratic majority in Congress has expanded to 236-199.

"Congratulations to Travis Childers on his stunning victory. His victory has sent a political thunderbolt across America tonight. It is yet another rejection of the House Republican agenda, the Bush Administration's misguided policies, and John McCain's campaign for a third Bush term.

"For the first time in more than 30 years the Democratic Party has picked up three Republican seats in special elections in one cycle. Republicans and their outside groups pulled out all the stops in an attempt to nationalize a congressional race and distract voters away from their own candidates' failure to stand up for middle class families. The NRCC broke the bank and spent nearly 20 percent of their cash on hand on a ruby red district. Travis's victory proves that a Democrat who puts the economy, health care, and homegrown values front and center can win anywhere in America. After three consecutive Special Election defeats in districts President Bush twice won easily, it is abundantly clear the American people have turned their back and shut the door on the special interest driven agenda of the Republican Party. There is no district that is safe for Republican candidates because President Bush's failed policies have hurt every community in America.

Ads featuring Reverend Wright aren't working in the deep south. Something's happening.



.
digby 5/13/2008 07:54:00 PM |

 
The New Face Of California

by dday

Something really special happened today in California and I thought I'd mention it.

Today, Karen Bass became the new Speaker of the California State Assembly, the first African-American woman to attain that office, and the highest-ranking woman of color in any state in the union. She's a capable progressive leader, and her ascension to the top of the Legislature power structure is laudable. We have a lot of problems in this state and she's going to have to get right to work. Fortunately, her goals are narrow but focused; to balance the state budget, nearing a $20 billion dollar hole, and to restructure the structural revenue deficit that makes every state budget here an adventure. She wants to do it in a progressive way, making sure everybody shares in the sacrifice and the benefits, and letting all the stakeholders know that California's future is worth paying for.

But beyond what this means for the rising progressive movement here, and it means plenty, the optics of an African-American woman becoming one of the two highest-ranking Democrats in the nation's largest state is undeniably powerful. We talk about what it means to see a Barack Obama or a Hillary Clinton running for President but those historical barriers are being broken every day in offices large and small.

Chris Bowers had a great post the other day looking at how under-represented groups are starting to take leadership roles in the party with which they have increasingly identified, and the implications.

Whatever its flaws, the Democratic Party really is the party for "everyone else" in America. Virtually every ethnic, religious and sexual minority votes for Democrats by overwhelming margins. Vulnerable economic groups, such as single women, union members, and low-income voters also break for Democrats by overwhelming margins. Fewer than 50% of the Democrats in the United States House and United States Senate combined are white, male, straight and Christian. Even the elites of the Democratic Party are very different, on demographic level, from the elites in the media and business community in America.

For quite some time, the Democratic Party struggled with a "loser" image nationally. Given its minority heavy, downtrodden heavy, freaks and geeks membership, it isn't a huge secret how it developed that negative brand. However, over the last few years, something unusual is starting to happen: traditionally under-represented groups are starting to occupy leadership roles in the party, and the party is starting to win a lot of elections. Now, with Nancy Pelosi as Speaker, Democrats hold 235 seats in the House (a number that is soon to rise quite a bit), even though the highest Republicans ever reached was 232. In addition to holding the majority of Governors, state legislatures, and members of the U.S. Senate, all of those majorities are expected to expand significantly in 2008. To top it all off, the Democratic presumptive nominee for President, Barack Obama, is expected to become the next President of the United States.

On this great day for the state of California, I'm pleased to see the party live up to mirroring the face of the electorate. I'm happy to see those decisions go rewarded. And I'm proud of Karen Bass.




.
dday 5/13/2008 03:00:00 PM |

 
Make It Work

by digby

d-day wrote an interesting post last night about the Bush Justice Department's legal opinion outlining what kind of power the legislative branch has to stop an out of control Executive without resorting to the courts. He concluded:

Here's the thing. These may be Bush Administration lawyers doing the talking here, but they're absolutely right. The Congress has all sorts of tools in their arsenal to force compliance from the executive branch. They can shut down the nomination process. They can eliminate any and all expenditures for the President and staff or executive agencies. They can refuse to enact spending bills for programs and policies prized by the executive. They can constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court that may investigate the executive. They can use the power of inherent contempt to try those neglecting a Congressional subpoena, and imprison them. And they can, you know, vote to remove the President from office, or all civil officers of the United States, for that matter.

There are dozens of ways for this Congress to get the attention of the President, as the Justice Department's own lawyers recognize. But of course, they won't do that. They worry about their image, their perception by the voters, what the Republican noise machine would say about them, and all the rest.

I agree. But that's politics. All politicians worry about their image, their perception by the voters, what the opposition will say about them and all the rest. They always have and they always will. Profiles in courage in politics are as rare as someone who is seven feet tall. If doing the right thing depends upon that, then doing the right thing never gets done.

Why do politicians worry about their image, their perception by the voters and what the opposition will do? Because their main purpose in life (aside from those who are just plain corrupt and want to steal taxpayers money) is keeping their seats. That means they have to always ensure that their constituents are happy with them. It's human nature. It's democracy.

So why is it then so difficult for them to do the right thing? The voters must want them to and will reward them for it, right?

That's the rub. Showdowns between the legislative and executive branch are unpredictable. And politicians are always fighting the last war:

November 15, 1995
Web posted at: 11:10 a.m. EST

While Americans have shifted toward the Republicans in the question of who has the best approach toward dealing with the budget deficit, more blame the GOP than Democrats for the bringing about the partial government shutdown this week, according to a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. The poll sampled the opinions of 652 adult Americans on Tuesday. Sampling error is plus or minus four percentage points.

When it comes to dealing with the tough choices involved in cutting programs to reduce the federal budget deficit while maintaining needed federal programs, poll respondents chose the Democrats over the Republicans, the opposite results from a poll in July.

Best Approach to Budget
Now July
Democrats 49% 43%
Republicans 36% 44%


When asked if they personally view the government shutdown as a crisis, as a major problem, as a minor problem, or not a problem at all, a majority of respondents said it was a major or minor problem.

Government Shutdown
Crisis 11%
Major problem 40%
Minor problem 33%
Not a problem 14%


Overall, Americans blame the Republican leaders in Congress more for the recent shutdown of the federal government, not President Clinton.

Blame for Shutdown
GOP leaders 49%
President Clinton 26%
Both 19%

Here's a fairly typical news report of the time:

Monday morning, just before driving back to Washington for another plunge into the meat grinder once known as the U.S. House of Representatives, Rep. Owen B. Pickett was asked the question on the lips of a lot of angry citizens.

``Just what in the name of God are you guys doing up there?''

Pickett, along with every other elected federal official, has heard the question in one form or another for weeks.

With the government in a nominal shutdown - one that inconveniences only the governed, not those who govern - and political leaders calling one another names in public that one should not call a rodent in private, Pickett could only shake his head and concede, ``The exercise we're going through right now is totally uncalled for.''

``Shutting down the government,'' he said, ``isn't any way to do business. It's a bad reflection on everybody. It's inexcusable and simply should not be permitted.''

Pickett, a Democrat who for nine years has represented most of Norfolk and Virginia Beach in Congress, said in a lengthy interview that he's hearing no small amount of anger from people in the district.

``They are cynical and upset,'' he said, ``and very severe in their criticism. They say things like, `What's wrong up there?' and `Why can't you settle your differences? Who's in charge?' ''

Granted, that is ancient history to most people. But it isn't ancient history to the congress, which remembers very well that in a head on collision with the executive, they can pay a steep price with the public.

Newt Gingrich lost his revolution over that one. The press turned on him and dealt him the worst humiliation possible:



Congresscritters and Senators care about perception and image and what the opposition (and the media, by the way) will do because their careers depend on it.

This is why it's important to have a strong and thriving *independent* progressive movement, to push from outside the political process to build public support for specific issues. During the Martin Luther King day flap in the primary earlier this year, Robert Borosage wrote a piece to which I've referred before:

The lesson of the King years isn't a choice between rhetoric and reality, or between experience and change. The lesson of the King years is the vital necessity of an independent progressive movement to demand change against the resistance of both entrenched interests and cautious reformers.

King understood that electing good liberal leaders - whether the young and fresh like Kennedy or the experienced and wily like Johnson -- was necessary but not sufficient. "Freedom," he taught, is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed." King called each of us to vote but also to act. "Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable... Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals."

Obama is right that there is power in the word, that hope has a true force in the world. Hillary is right that Johnson's experience and forcefulness were vital to passing the civil rights laws. But King's example and lesson is that neither of these is sufficient. It takes a movement to force even a sympathetic president to act.

You cannot depend upon politicians alone --- any politicians --- to defeat the status quo, no matter how much they may promise. The forces of aristocratic privilege are very, very strong. They must believe that it is in their political interests to do so. And in the case of things like civil liberties or social justice or any other issue for which there is no moneyed interest to promote it, it must come from a mass of average citizens demanding change from the outside.

Political machines can gain power and sometimes keep it. Only an independent political movement can make them use it for the greater good.


.
digby 5/13/2008 12:55:00 PM |

 
Global Test II

by dday

Four years ago, Bush defenders got a lot of mileage out of a comment that John Kerry made in the third Presidential debate.

No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

Bush defenders immediately pounced on this by deliberately using a different definition of the word "global" that Kerry intended, and claiming that Kerry wanted to subject American national security to a vote by the United Nations.

Four years later, Barack Obama sat down for an interview with The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg and asked him a leading question about Israel which Obama handled fairly well.

JG: Do you think that Israel is a drag on America’s reputation overseas?

BO: No, no, no. But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national-security interest in solving this, and I also believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I believe that the status quo is unsustainable. I am absolutely convinced of that, and some of the tensions that might arise between me and some of the more hawkish elements in the Jewish community in the United States might stem from the fact that I’m not going to blindly adhere to whatever the most hawkish position is just because that’s the safest ground politically.

So off of that, the Republican leader in the House John Boehner has decided that Obama called Israel a constant wound and a constant sore, instead of what he actually said, that the conflict is a wound, and conflict resolution is preferable.

It's important to recognize that a core part of Republican strategy in 2008, in addition to disenfranchising Democratic voters, is simply lying about their opponent. And the lies will vary from this variety of misinterpretation, to asserting that Obama's policies are socialist despite the fact that, you know, they're far from it, or making up wild stories that Obama favors some kind of $777 trillion dollar reparations fund. There's no real slickness to the strategy, or forethought put into it. Birds are gonna fly, fish are gonna swim, and Republicans are gonna lie about the Democrat.

Goldberg, a conservative, managed to display some intellectual honesty and point out that Boehner is, in fact, lying. The question is whether or not the rest of the media will follow his lead when some lie like this becomes front and center in the election.

Oh, in case you're wondering, the answer is "no, they won't, they'll give Republicans ample opportunity to lie and won't step in to correct the record."


.
dday 5/13/2008 11:05:00 AM |

Monday, May 12, 2008

 
How To Play The Game

by dday

This is honestly the saddest news item I've seen in the whole of the Bush Administration.

So the Congress has taken the Bush Administration to court to enforce subpoenas of officials involved in the US Attorney purge. The Administration's lawyers have laid out, in an 83-page document, their opinion of the case, which (surprise) rests on the notion that the judiciary branch should stay out of a political dispute between the other two branches. And they conclude that the legislative has plenty of cards to play in such a battle against the executive.

"For over two hundred years, when disputes have arisen between the political branches concerning the testimony of executive branch witnesses before Congress, or the production of executive branch documents to Congress, the branches have engaged in negotiation and compromise," Justice Department lawyers wrote [...]

As part of their argument, the administration lawyers cited Congress' considerable leverage as the more traditional means of getting what it wants. This is from the motion:

And the Legislative Branch may vindicate its interests without enlisting judicial support: Congress has a variety of other means by which it can exert pressure on the Executive Branch, such as the withholding of consent for Presidential nominations, reducing Executive Branch appropriations, and the exercise of other powers Congress has under the Constitution.

Here's the thing. These may be Bush Administration lawyers doing the talking here, but they're absolutely right. The Congress has all sorts of tools in their arsenal to force compliance from the executive branch. They can shut down the nomination process. They can eliminate any and all expenditures for the President and staff or executive agencies. They can refuse to enact spending bills for programs and policies prized by the executive. They can constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court that may investigate the executive. They can use the power of inherent contempt to try those neglecting a Congressional subpoena, and imprison them. And they can, you know, vote to remove the President from office, or all civil officers of the United States, for that matter.

There are dozens of ways for this Congress to get the attention of the President, as the Justice Department's own lawyers recognize. But of course, they won't do that. They worry about their image, their perception by the voters, what the Republican noise machine would say about them, and all the rest.

I'm certain that this reminder by the DoJ wasn't an effort to get the Democratic Congress to recognize their own power, or even an effort to get the courts to rule in their favor. It was an effort to get Republicans to recall what tools they can use in the event of a Democratic President. A committed minority in the Senate can make life more miserable for the incoming executive than this majority has ever made it for George Bush; executive power rollback is in some ways simply a matter of Congressional will. One thing is clear; the go-along-to-get-along nature of the Democrats over the past eight years will not be reciprocated.

And it's deeply embarrassing that it takes a bunch of Regent University grads or whoever they've got on the case at the Bush Justice Department to point this out.


.
dday 5/12/2008 09:35:00 PM |

 
There Is No They There

by digby

Steve Benen points to more self-serving media navel gazing:

Harwood explained that the McCain campaign, in a move that “many Republicans would find ironic,” is pushing the line that the press is friendlier to Obama. Harwood said, “John McCain’s benefited from very friendly press coverage for many years, but he’s going to try to argue, which will have corollary benefit of rallying conservatives, if he can pull it off, of saying, ‘The press wants Obama to win. I’m pushing back, too.’”

Tim Russert added, “In 2002, John McCain referred to the press as his base.” To which Harwood responded, “They were his base.”

I guess somebody should have reminded them that the name of the show they were on is called ---Meet The Press. They are the "they" of which they speak. But then Russert spent two years pontificating on the same show about Scooter Libby pretending he wasn't a major playing in the investigation, so this isn't exactly new. He's the Village High Inquisitor, charged with ensuring that the one true conventional wisdom is adhered to for the good of all. He isn't a member of the press at all.


.
digby 5/12/2008 05:47:00 PM |

 
We're Chillin'

by digby

I realize that a good many people think I'm living in cloud cuckoo-land, but apparently a large majority of the Democratic party is drooling and delusional right along with me:

Pushing back against political punditry, more than six in 10 Democrats say there's no rush for Hillary Clinton to leave the presidential race even as Barack Obama consolidates his support for the nomination and scores solidly in general-election tests.

Despite Obama's advantage in delegates and popular vote, 64 percent of Democrats in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll say Clinton should remain in the race. Even among Obama's supporters, 42 percent say so.

That's not a majority endorsement of Clinton's candidacy; Democrats by a 12-point margin would rather see Obama as the nominee, a lead that's held steadily in ABC News/Washington Post polls since early March. Instead it reflects a rejection of the notion that the drawn-out contest will hurt the party's prospects. Seventy-one percent think it'll either make no difference in November (56 percent) or actually help the party (15 percent).

Those views correspond with opinions on Clinton continuing her candidacy. And in a related result, 85 percent of Democrats (including Democratic-leaning independents) are confident the party would come together behind Obama as the nominee though fewer, 45 percent, are "very" confident of it. That underscores the importance of the endgame for the party's prospects.

The second slot is one possibility: Clinton continues as the preferred choice as Obama's running mate, with 39 percent of Democrats saying they'd like him to pick her if he's the nominee. That peaks at 59 percent of African-Americans, 47 percent of Clinton supporters and 42 percent of women (vs. 34 percent of men).

I'm not necessarily endorsing the Unity ticket, but I don't see a lot of hate and division in those numbers. If nearly 60% of African Americans prefer Clinton on the ticket, it's fair to say that the party isn't irrevocably broken.

And McCain just looks sad;

In other signs of difficulties for McCain, Obama leads him in trust to handle the public's top issue, the economy, by 10 points; in trust to handle gasoline prices, by 20 points; and in trust to handle health care, by 24 points. On personal attributes Obama leads by wide margins as being better able to bring needed change, having the better temperament for the job, better empathy and a clearer vision for the future.

McCain also could suffer from the broader public discontent, generally and with George W. Bush in particular. Public disgruntlement neared a record high in this poll, with 82 percent of Americans saying the country's seriously off on the wrong track, up 10 points in the past year to a point from its record high in polls since 1973. And Bush slipped to his career low approval rating, 31 percent.

In a related result, the Democratic Party in gen