Time For Turd Blossom To Sing

Kudos to John Conyers and the House Judiciary Committee for this, pertaining to the U.S. Attorneys scandal, though if Rove shows up, the committee could ask him about the Don Siegelman case and give him a chance to lie about that also.

It just hasn’t been the same without him, has it (actually, it’s been much better).

Patrick Watches Our Money - Again

The following letter appeared in the Bucks County Courier Times today...

A recent opinion questioned Congressman Patrick Murphy on fiscal responsibility. Obviously, we have hit the political season because the congressman's record on fiscal issues was misrepresented.

If you look at how Murphy has voted on fiscal issues, he has actually bucked the Democratic Party on several occasions, most notably voting twice against the Democratic budget because it did not go far enough to curb government spending. Murphy also voted to make sure that Congress uses a pay-as-you-go system, so that politicians don't simply add programs by increasing the national debt. Instead, if you want a piece of legislation passed, you have to explain how you'll pay for it.

The number of earmarks has been cut dramatically by Murphy and members of this Congress. And so what if Murphy brought more money back to his district than many other representatives. Isn't that what we want him to do?

You can't distort Murphy's record to make him out to be something he's not. Any honest look at his record on fiscal issues will show he has been responsible and careful with taxpayers' money.

Ersula Cosby
Levittown, PA

To help Patrick, click here.

It's Little Ricky And "Hating Teh Gay" Thursday!

Yes, our favorite “Elephant Poop In The Room” pundit is back to spread more misinformation, and today, he predictably goes after California’s recent decision on same sex marriages…

The latest distressing news came last week in California. The state Supreme Court there ruled, 4-3, that same-sex couples can marry.

In doing so, four judges rejected a statute that passed in a referendum with 61 percent of the vote that defined marriage as a union of one man and one woman.

It's merely the latest in a string of court decisions that have overturned the overwhelming will of the people.

By the way, if you detected an uncanny similarity between this language and that used by neocon quota hire pundit Bill Kristol of the New York Times and The Weekly Standard earlier this week, you’re not alone (and fortunately, this response from Shakesville to Kristol Mess applies to Little Ricky also, in particular)…

If Mr. Kristol had bothered to read the history of the case or the ruling itself rather than launch his typical right-wing volley of "activist judges" missiles, he would have known that the court ruling was not making social policy from the bench at all, but doing exactly what the court was created to do in the first place: interpret the laws and the constitution of the state. The California Assembly had twice tried to pass laws legalizing same-sex marriage, only to have them vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who wanted the State Supreme Court to first decide whether or not such laws would pass constitutional muster. The court so ruled on Thursday, citing only the state constitution and pointedly avoiding the social policy aspect of the case.

But of course, a phrase like “activist judges” is something Little Ricky’s minions are more prepared to froth themselves over than something like “activist state legislatures” (too many syllables, I guess).

To continue with Little Ricky’s screed…

Look at Norway. It began allowing same-sex marriage in the 1990s. In just the last decade, its heterosexual-marriage rates have nose-dived and its out-of-wedlock birthrate skyrocketed to 80 percent for firstborn children. Too bad for those kids who probably won't have a dad around, but we can't let the welfare of children stand in the way of social affirmation, can we?

Oh, brother…

I have news for Little Ricky; a whole lot of other countries besides Norway apparently believe in “social affirmation” also, because, according to this link from Encyclopedia Britannica Online…

In 1989 Denmark became the first country to establish registered partnerships – an attenuated version of marriage – for same-sex couples. Soon thereafter Norway (1993), Sweden (1994), Greenland (1995), Iceland (1996), The Netherlands (1997), and Finland (2001) established similar laws, generally using specific vocabulary (e.g., civil union, civil partnership, domestic partnership, registered partnership) to differentiate same-sex unions from heterosexual marriages. By the early 21st century other European countries with such legislation included Croatia, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, Luxembourg, Portugal, and Switzerland.

Interestingly – and perhaps a reflection of tensions between the marriage-for-procreation and marriage-for-community-good positions discussed (previously) – many European countries initially prevented same-sex couples from adoption and artificial insemination; by 2007, however, most of those restrictions had been removed.

Outside Europe, some jurisdictions also adopted some form of same-sex partnership rights; Israel recognized common-law same-sex-marriage in the mid 1990s (the Israeli Supreme Court further ruled in 2006 that same-sex marriages performed abroad should be recognized), while same-sex civil unions were legalized in New Zealand in 2004, in the Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul in 2004, and in Mexico City in 2006. In 2007, Uruguay became the first Latin American country to legalize same-sex civil unions; the legislation became effective in 2008.

The Britannica article then goes on to note that, as civil unions have been recognized in more and more countries, those populations have tended to accept same-sex marriage with greater frequency (basically, the only other countries I can find who are as harsh on this subject as were are would be China and Iran, and probably a few others I can’t identify at the moment – nice).

And as far as this “straw man” concerning the alleged decrease of heterosexual marriages and increase in out-of-wedlock birth rates, this Media Matters link concerning Falafel Boy’s similar assertions about Sweden (with the help of Hoover Institute hack Stanley Kurtz) tells us…

Kurtz wrote in February 2004: "A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more."

Here, Kurtz conflates correlation with causation. The data show that high cohabitation and out-of-wedlock birth rates are not even correlated, but Kurtz assumes that such correlation exists, then concludes causation from it. In fact, the data show that cohabitation and out-of-wedlock birth rates began rising in Scandinavia long before the enactment of homosexual partnership laws. This trend is apparently partially a result of laws governing heterosexual unmarried couples. In many Scandinavian countries, cohabitating heterosexual couples have most of the same rights as married couples, which obviously reduces incentives for a cohabitating couple to marry.

I realize that, now, I’ve given Little Ricky a chance to rail in his next column about “the evils of unmarried cohabitation” leading to an increase in tolerance of same-sex unions…or something.

This is also making me seriously rethink my opposition to same-sex marriage, by the way (never opposed to same-sex partnerships with all attendant legal rights, however), if for no other reason than the fact that it is increasingly more abhorrent to me to share any position whatsoever with Rick Santorum.

Wednesday Stuff

For reasons that I cannot truly enumerate even if I had from now until next Tuesday, I must tell you that Maureen Dowd's column in the New York Times today is one of the most wretched attempts at political commentary that I have ever seen. She managed to recycle every tired, stale, insulting Democratic narrative you can imagine as an attempt at parody, when it fact, practically her entire, insipid body of work can be easily categorized as such.

And I truly wonder at this point if she knows the difference between reality and fantasy; in this clip with Timmeh Russert about Caroline Kennedy endorsing Obama, she actually makes the inference that JFK is equivalent in some measure to...Dan Quayle (what, is she trying to refute Lloyd Bentsen somehow)?

As far as I'm concerned, when she gets paid, she is stealing from the New York Times. Here's a link; if you are a subscriber and you wish to punish yourself, have at it (and speaking of pretend journalism)...



...and even though she won Kentucky (no doubt with the help of some voters who count with their toes), I hope Hillary survives her "flesh wound"...



...and I don't know much about Missouri politics, but boy, is Sam Graves a cretin (from here)...



...and good for his opponent Kay Barnes for throwing it back in his face (last three videos courtesy of The Daily Kos).

Dismantling A McCarthyite Relic

I just wanted to give a plug here to the case of Wendy Gonaver (pictured), who was hired to teach two courses at Cal State Fullerton, “but was fired because she refused to sign a ‘loyalty oath’ without being able to add a note explaining that her religious views as a Quaker and pacifist would prevent her from taking up arms,” according to People for the American Way.

As PFAW tells us…

Ms. Gonaver was perfectly willing to sign the oath to uphold the Constitution as long as she could clarify that she wasn't committing herself to military action and that she had free speech concerns with a compelled "loyalty oath."

People For the American Way Foundation has sent a letter to Cal State on Ms. Gonaver's behalf urging the school to change its policy and allow employees who have religious or other objections to signing the "loyalty oath" to append an explanation of their views that would then allow them to sign the oath. The University of California already has such a policy in place in order to protect its employees' religious freedom and free speech rights.

(And the U of C exemption exists because of a lawsuit by a former faculty member - more on that shortly.)

To sign the petition asking Cal State Fullerton to implement a policy that doesn’t violate religious liberty and free speech, please click here.

I have to admit that this story piqued my curiosity a bit to the point where I wondered how on earth someone who, by all accounts, was perfectly qualified and capable to do the job could be denied employment for this, so I did a bit of digging and found that this particular variation of the “loyalty oath” issue in this country is particular to California, or, as noted from here…

Under Executive Order 9835 (March 1947), President Truman created the Federal Employee Loyalty Program. More than three million government workers were investigated and cleared, 2,000 resigned, and just over 200 were dismissed from their jobs. The small number of dismissals is surprising considering that an employee could be suspected of subversion merely by being perceived as “potentially disloyal” or considered a security risk. People viewed as security risks included homosexuals, alcoholics, and those who were in debt and needed money. States and municipalities followed the administration's example and required many of their workers to take a loyalty oath as a condition of employment. The oaths typically stated that a person was not and had never been a member of the Communist party or any organization that advocated the overthrow of the government of the United States. Teachers were often targets of suspicion. When the Supreme Court ruled in Tolman v. Underhill (1953) that professors at the University of California could not be singled out, the state required all of its employees to take loyalty oaths.

(The circumstances of Edward Chace Tollman, the psychology professor who sued over the U of C oath, are somewhat similar to that of Wendy Gonaver, by the way).

Though this was a bit of overzealousness in light of the ever-more-ominous Cold War, this definitely was not a shining moment for “Give ‘Em Hell, Harry.”

And wow, just a bit of an overreaction from the state of California in response to the Supreme Court ruling, huh? “Can’t single out who we want? Fine – we’ll just go ahead and nail everybody!”

And outside of the world of academia, here (Kansas) and here (Virginia) are instances of a political party attempt to obtain loyalty oaths from its members (and I’m sure you’ll never guess who would stoop so low, would you; I’ll give you a hint – they’re going to lose big in November).

In the case of California, it would appear that it is up to the state legislature to pass a bill making the oaths illegal; either that, or Governor Ahh-nold could issue an executive order to that effect. Personally, I would like to see that statewide in this country; I don’t know the legality of (God willing) an incoming Democratic president trying to do that on the federal level.

But remembering the person in question here who has the courage to stand up to this idiocy, I would ask again that you sign the PFAW petition on behalf of Wendy Gonaver here (and the entire text of the PFAW letter appears here).

Resurrecting The Ruined Repug "Brand"

Apparently it has finally dawned on the national Republican Party that they face a rout in November; one indicator is their anemic fundraising numbers (resulting in this) compared to the Dems from “straight talk” McCain here (Hillary raised more, and from an electoral point of view, she’s a “dead man – person? – walking”), so in a frantic attempt to escape their legacy of utter failure, they’re doing what they do best, which is to blow smoke and create the appearance of actual governance, as noted in this New York Times story yesterday…

The party leadership in the House has already begun to roll out its own agenda under the rubric “The Change You Deserve,” but some lawmakers have said the party needs to be more aggressive. Others are skeptical about overreacting to the elections or embracing too strong a conservative theme.

I’m sure now that this story will usher in a whole “divided Republicans” narrative that will generate a bountiful harvest, if you will, of stories depicting their division and chaos…and if you believe that, then I’m sure you’ll believe that 75,000 people showed up in Oregon recently only to see the rock group The Decemberists (here - h/t Eschaton).

A draft of the conservative agenda calls for the endorsement of a constitutional amendment to prohibit federal spending from growing faster than the economy except in times of war or national emergency.

What a joke. Gee, could you qualify that any more so that it applies to some vague, distant point in the future as opposed to right freaking now? Besides, the Dems have already implemented the PAYGO rules in the House, so the Repugs are “a day late and a dollar short” again.

And when it comes to limiting federal spending particularly concerning earmarks, this Think Progress post from last January tells us…

The conservatives’ political posturing over earmarks seems purely an effort to get headlines without actually bringing about change. When Rep. David Obey (D-WI) just last month proposed whacking “an estimated 9,500 earmarks worth about $9.5 billion” from an omnibus spending plan, he ran into deep opposition from conservatives. Conservative bloggers even criticized their party for not supporting the plan.

Back to the Times story…

The plan seeks support for an income tax overhaul that would provide a simplified flat tax and allow people to choose between it and the current system.

Can you imagine the IRS having to process returns with taxpayers using two different tax formulas? There’s the issue of verifying whether or not they’re using the correct formula, and then there’s the issue of verifying that the numbers computed with that formula are correct.

In the immortal words of Poppy Bush, “Na. Ga. Ha. Pen.”

And when it comes to the so-called “flat tax” embraced by Mike Huckabee when he isn’t trying to make jokes about shooting Barack Obama, this first came up in the 1996 presidential campaign of Steve Forbes, and as noted in this Time article from that year…

…the spareness of Forbes' flat tax is deceptive. Yes, taxpayers would pay a single rate on their income above a certain threshold: for example, above $36,000 for a family of four. (And families below that threshold would pay no income tax.) But it is almost impossible to sort out fully the economic burdens that would result from the system's new rules. This much seems clear: the scheme Forbes is pushing in his television ads looks as if it would either swell the federal deficit or raise taxes on middle Americans while bestowing extra riches on the rich.

Back to the Times story again…

The conservative proposal seeks tax credits for buying health insurance, more domestic energy production and a streamlined terrorist surveillance program. The draft also said that House Republicans should extend existing welfare work requirements to food stamps and housing assistance “so that those who are not old, young or disabled are either working in the private sector or serving in their community.”

And do you know how exactly the Repugs want to “increase domestic energy production”? As noted here, by “moving $17 billion in financial incentives from major oil companies to alternative and renewable energy programs,” as well as investigating price gouging and overseas price fixing (yeah, let me know how that works out, Repugs; I’m sure our “friends” the Saudis would be happy to see that, probably squeezing supply even more in response).

Sound nice (a bit)? Well, the Dems are prepared to actually accomplish something by…

…(imposing) a 25% windfall profits tax on oil companies that do not invest in increased capacity or renewable energy sources. (The Dems’ measure) would suspend federal purchases of crude for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve through December unless the 90-day average price fell to $75/bbl or less. And it would attempt to limit oil futures market speculation by keeping traders from routing transactions through offshore exchanges to avoid disclosure, and by substantially increasing margin requirements for oil futures purchases.

Now there’s a thought – trying to prevent anyone from gaming the futures market and thus make a killing through high energy prices (can you say “Enron”?).

And of course, it wouldn’t be a Repug plan unless it included a nod towards “Terra! Terra! Terra!” and persecution of the poorest in our society, would it (the whole “streamlining terrorist surveillance” bit and “extend(ing) work requirements to food stamps and housing assistance,” with the geniuses who concocted this nonsense apparently unaware of the fact that we’re in a recession).

I also cannot understand why the Repugs have not embraced the vision of their one-time leader, a certain Newton Leroy Gingrich, who wants to re-define his party with such bold moves as continuing to underfund the upcoming census, declaring English the official language of government, and building a space-based GPS system to route our air traffic (here).

The Times story also notes the following…

(Jeb Hensarling of Texas, chairman of the group of 100 Repug lawmakers trying to concoct this scheme) said his group was emphasizing fiscal policy because polls and recent electoral experience showed that voters viewed Republicans as having strayed too far from the party’s tradition on spending restraint.

Uh…yep.

Tuesday Stuff

Lord knows I have issues with Baker, but I'd like to see McCain call him out over this (somehow I think Baker would hand him his lunch - from here)...



...and it's pretty gutsy to take on a member of one's own party like this, as this T.V. ad does over Bush Dog Chris Carney, but it is, sadly, necessary (Eschaton hat tip #1)...



...also sadly necessary to call out "Senator Honor And Virtue" as follows on the Webb-Hagel G.I. Bill (Eschaton hat tip #2)...



...and "The Pap Attack" discusses John W. McBush and his "immigration tightrope" (sorry about the commercial; I know Air America has bills to pay also).

Ring A Ding Ding!

A little late, but better than never on this (and here's one of my favorite clips of Ol' Blue Eyes, from the Columbia "crooner" days).



(I should have noted earlier that this starts with "If You Are But A Dream" and ends with "The House I Live In" after Sinatra talks to the kids.)

Words For This Sad Day

What follows is the conclusion of the eulogy Ted Kennedy gave for his brother Robert on June 8, 1968, which features much of a speech RFK gave in South Africa in 1966; Ted was speaking about Bobby with these words, but given his 46-year career in the U.S. Senate, he might as well have been speaking about himself as well (a truly strange circumstance that the 40th anniversary of Bobby's assassination will be observed soon in the wake of this tragic news - the most memorable excerpt of this wonderful reflection occurs at about 6:20 when Ted's voice starts to give a bit).

Monday Stuff

So...according to Dallas Lawrence of the Pentagon, the matter of the military analysts acting as propaganda conduits is "a matter for the Defense Department" (re: here), and even though he can't confirm the existence of the program, he can confirm that the program is over...WHAAAA????!!!

And by the way, Mr. Lawrence, I never lied about a war and got someone killed as a result (re: his "liberal blog" comment)...



...and by the way, here is the face of white rural American prejudice in West Virginia - perhaps the most ridiculous comment was the woman who said she votes "straight Democrat" but will support McCain (just get out of the way and don't bitch while we try to make this a better country, OK?).

No "Pork" For Patrick

(Once more, posting is questionable; I got a bit lucky today, but I don't think that will be the case tomorrow - sorry for being repetitive about this.)

This Guest Opinion appeared in the Bucks County Courier Times today (here)...

Richard Staedtler's May 1 Guest Opinion takes Congressman Patrick Murphy to task for accepting advanced royalties on his upcoming autobiography. He quotes the rules: “No member of Congress can receive royalties while a member of Congress.” No matter that Staedtler himself (along with the House Ethics Committee and the good government lobbying firm Common Cause) absolves Murphy of any wrongdoing when he states Murphy accepted the advance “a few days before he was sworn in as a congressman.” Murphy is being criticized for “NOT” breaking the rules.

Elsewhere in his opinion, Staedtler takes Murphy to task for “writing his autobiography on our time.” Hmmm. I guess Murphy will next want to go to the bathroom “on our time,” or, heaven forbid, get a drink of water “on our time.” Are those in Congress “on our time” 24 hours a day, seven days a week? Do they campaign “on our time”? I wonder if George Bush takes all those vacations “on our time.”

Staedtler continues: “Murphy was the sole sponsor of more than $11.8 million in earmarks (per USA Today), the fourth most of any freshman in Congress.” Staedtler may have gotten this from the Dec. 11, 2007, USA Today. What Staedtler omitted from the article were the words “for local projects and businesses.” Maybe Staedtler or others might offer suggestions on what “local projects and businesses” they begrudge?

Also omitted was this: “Murphy pointed to new rules requiring earmark sponsors to be disclosed for the first time. The House also requires members to disclose each earmark recipient. Murphy said he makes "no apologies for fighting hard for my district.' ” This transparency on earmarks, which Murphy voted for, is a product of the Democratic Congress.

Anyone concerned with earmarks should go to the conservative Heritage Foundation/Citizens Against Government Waste Web site. Here they will find that the number of earmarks under the Republican Congress grew from 1,318 in 1994, to 13,997 in 2005. The last five of these pork-laden budgets were signed by Bush.

For 2008 the total is 11,610 earmarks. The three leading porkers in the Senate are Republicans; No. 1, Thad Cochran; No. 2, Ted Stevens; and No. 3, Richard Shelby. For Pennsylvania, Republican Arlen Specter was No. 31 and Democrat Bob Casey was No. 38. The two leading House members are also Republicans; No. 1, Roger Wicker (now an appointed senator) and No. 2, Bill Young. Patrick Murphy is No. 138 on the list.

It's an election year. Republicans are crying crocodile tears over earmarks while feeding at the government trough by the boatload.

John Wible
Bensalem, PA

Indeed (to help Patrick, click here).

Update 5/20/08: More good stuff...

More Monday War Love From “Clap” Hanson

I had to laugh at the fact that the Philadelphia Inquirer gave column space to noted “classicist” V.D. Hanson today, who James Wolcott once described as “full of the ripest fertilizer” (on display also here in – where else? – The Wall Street Journal).

And it takes a particularly galling sense of entitlement, I would argue, to criticize others for writing books in which the authors attempt to escape blame for their actions in the Iraq war, when in fact Dubya’s foreign policy catastrophe, to quote that pop culture icon Chico Esquela, has been veddy veddy good to one V.D. Hanson in particular (I don’t think I appropriated that from anyone – sorry if I did).

I’ll ignore for a moment Hanson’s utterly preposterous attempt to propose a similarity between a work of scholarship such as Richard Clarke’s “Against All Enemies” and some “through the looking glass” Bushco-simpatico yarn as Douglas Feith’s “War And Decision” (which looks strangely like “State of Denial” by Bob Woodward here; Feith can’t conceive of anything original, including the jacket design). I'll also ignore Hanson's equally laughable characterization of Clarke's work as a story of "how someone else did (him) in."

Instead, I’ll just take you to what is perhaps the definitive Hanson takedown written by Gary Brecher here (shocking that this was published on a conservative site), which is actually a review of Hanson’s tome “A War Like No Other,” including the following excerpt (the book is yet another attempt to parallel Iraq with clashes of ancient cultures)…

This book is just a point on the graph of Hanson’s decline. It shows him in the late stages of a wild ego trip, getting more and more thoughtless as he starts believing his own press. The whole book stinks of vanity, from the idea of thinking you could improve on Thucydides to the careless writing, the sleazy connections between alien cultures, and the big blind spot at the center of it all. Hanson has become so sure that the ancient Greeks are with him and the neocons that he can’t see how Thucydides’ story silently condemns our Iraq adventure. If only we could resurrect the real Thucydides and commission him to do a history of Bush’s invasion of Iraq. Now that would be worth reading. But I don’t think Victor Davis Hanson would enjoy it.

Hanson once declared the Iraqi city of Ramadi as undergoing a rebirth of sorts under our occupation, though a Marine intelligence report from September 2006 declared it to be “beyond repair” here.

I think that is a perfectly apt description of Hanson’s literary career also.

Dubya Moves The Goalposts Again

Sheryl Gay Stolberg reported the following in the New York Times yesterday (from here)…

…when Mr. Bush arrived in this Red Sea resort city on Saturday, he seemed cozy with the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas; the two ended a quick photo opportunity by strolling down a stone walkway, holding hands. And the president was also back to making predictions. Previewing a speech planned for Sunday, he said, “I’ll make it clear that I believe we can get a state” — as in, a Palestinian state — “defined by the end of my presidency.”

“Defined by the end of my presidency”?? Gee, that sounds a lot less strident than “a Mideast deal by the end of my term,” doesn’t it (as noted here)?

OK, so what exactly is involved in “defining a Palestinian state,” Dubya (to be fair, though, he does use the “defined” language in the MSNBC story as well as Stolberg’s account). Since our corporate media cousins aren’t going to ask you, then I guess it’s up to me to do so.

Does it include the right of return for Palestinians to what they consider to be their homeland? Does it involve any negotiation on control of the city of Jerusalem? What about Israeli occupation of the West Bank? Returning to the 1967 boundaries? Anything on this from Olmert and Abbas?

Anything at all? Hello??

And I don’t care about Incurious George telling us that that’s what he wants. We all know by now that he can say anything his aides feed him with a straight face, no matter how preposterous it may be. How are we supposed to know any of this will actually materialize?

In an accidental way, Little Tommy Friedman actually highlighted the issue I’m getting at here, which of course is that President George W. Milhous Bush doesn’t intend to take any of this seriously or add what precious little intellectual capital he has in an effort to move the process along (this is all “water wet, sky blue” stuff I know, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t call him on this).

Besides, why should Dubya do any “heavy lifting” when he has Condi around to present the façade that something is actually being accomplished here (hardly the first time this has occurred and probably won't be the last).

Today’s “Kristol Mess” Fluffery For St. McCain

(Pushing it with that pic, I know…).

The New York Times’ conservative quota hire columnist tried to spin a scenario whereby, even if congressional Repugs get trounced in the fall, that “straight-talking maverick” could still win the presidential election (here).

There is probably much more right-wing mythology that could be exploded in this drivel, but here are three obvious points…

The crucial swing states of Ohio and Pennsylvania (whose primaries Obama also lost to Hillary Clinton) have a fair number of West Virginia-type working-class, culturally conservative voters. The Obama campaign can’t be confident about his prospects there in the fall.

Yeah, I know Kristol and his ilk are going to be perpetually spinning this tale of how Obama supposedly can’t win white, working-class voters (I would argue that, yes, that’s true for a small percentage, but overwhelmingly not as a group), but funny thing; this Quinnipiac University poll taken on May 1st shows Obama losing by a single percentage point to McCain in Ohio (which, as far as I’m concerned, amounts to a statistical tie), and Obama leading McCain in PA (47 percent to 38 percent). And that is with Hillary Clinton’s campaign still alive; Obama will get a boost nationwide when he eventually defeats her.

Another thing: I know Kristol and company want to completely ignore the influence of Ron Paul, but he and his people are going to end up siphoning some votes away from McCain to Obama, which may prove to be the most enduring legacy of Paul’s candidacy.

Also, concerning the recent decision of the California Supreme Court to allow gay marriage…

In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court redefined marriage in that state, helping to highlight the issues of same-sex marriage and judicial activism for the 2004 presidential campaign. Now the California court has conveniently stepped up to the plate.

…

Since the next president will almost certainly have one Supreme Court appointment, and could have two or three, this difference on judicial philosophy could well matter to voters — and in a way that should help McCain.

And as you can read here (h/t Atrios), the 2003 decision by the Massachusetts court swung that state decisively to Dubya in ’04 – not!

(In that infamous speech Dubya gave at the Knesset last week) Obama took Bush to be alluding to Obama’s willingness to meet, without preconditions, with Iran and North Korea, and attacked Bush. The conventional view in Washington is that Obama was smart to pick a fight with the unpopular Bush. And when McCain intervened, Obama was able to attack Bush and McCain in the same breath. But over the longer term, it can’t be in Obama’s interest to divert voters from a focus on gas prices or health care to the question of what he hopes to achieve by negotiating with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

First of all, Obama and others attacked Dubya because President Highest Disapproval Rating In Gallup Poll History referred to Obama as an appeaser, comparing him to former British PM Neville Chamberlain circa 1938 (Kristol actually does mention that word in quoting Dubya, though of course Kristol has nothing to say about the context).

But as far as meeting with our enemies goes, it’s a funny thing in a way, but as noted here by Media Matters…

Bush's (Knesset speech attacking Obama)… came just hours after The Washington Post reported that Bush's defense secretary, Robert Gates, said that the United States needs to "sit down and talk with" Iran. Not only that, Gates added, "We can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander."

Oops.

Naturally, then, a media firestorm erupted, with the Bush administration and its political allies questioned all day about whether Bush has any idea what he is talking about, whether he has lost control over the Pentagon, whether Gates will be fired, what Gates thinks about Bush's comparison of those (like Gates) who advocate dialogue between the United States and Iran to appeasers of Adolf Hitler, and whether the fiasco will remind voters that the Bush administration's foreign policy has been marked by incompetence and dishonesty, thus doing irreparable electoral damage to John McCain and other Republican candidates.

Sorry -- what was I thinking? That didn't happen.

Instead, much of the news media got busy pretending the Post article didn't exist and that Gates had not undermined Bush's political attack on Obama. Instead, many news outlets simply rushed to repeat Bush's assault over and over again, as though it had merit.

Kristol and his fellow travelers can preoccupy themselves all they want with how Obama is campaigning in opposition (as they see it) to the mindless “Defense of Marriage Act” and other “value voter” trivialities. However, those precious “independent” voters for whom the Repugs concocted such hot-button nonsense as trying to deny same-sex couples the right to adopt and qualify for medical benefits have woken up in light of real issues, such as our economic collapse, failure to provide something approximating universal health coverage and war without end in Iraq, to say nothing of the environment. And the result of that “wakeup” has been highly beneficial to the Democrats.

So much so that Survey USA tells us this (let’s keep working and doing what we can to make sure they’re right).

Update 1 5/19/08: Good point here about the California Supreme Court merely being asked whether or not the same-sex marriage bill would "pass constitutional muster," as opposed to acting like the dreaded "activist judges" (h/t Eschaton).

Update 2 5/19/08: I had a feeling that 41 percent number was wrong (Kristol Mess said no presumptive party nominee had lost by that much in a primary), but kudos to Think Progress for exploding that lie; every week is a new adventure in pundit stupidity for the "stalwart" of The Weekly Standard (and the Times, of course).

Update 5/21/08: Welcome to the Times' neocon pundit errata party, BoBo!

Sunday Stuff

Posting is going to be a question mark this week, probably off and on, but we'll see.

In the meantime, here's "The Real McCain 2" from Robert Greenwald and Brave New Films (McCain may actually be worse than Dubya when it comes to evasions and half-truths, and I didn't think that was possible)...



Update 5/19/08: Excellent question here (h/t Thers at Eschaton).

...and in that vein, we have this convenient memory lapse from "Senator Honor and Virtue" concerning The Sainted Ronnie R...



...meanwhile, John Edwards defends Obama with The Beard on the subject of meeting with our enemies (kudos)...



...and best wishes to Senator Kennedy for a full and speedy recovery (this video concerns the vote on SCHIP, of course, from last September).



(Oh, and by the way, Dubya, it's about 10:40 PM EST...take a little longer to decide whether or not you want to show a speck of class and announce a public message of support, you creep - at least McCain did the decent and honorable thing for real on this occasion.)

Update 5/22/08: To be fair, I should note that Dubya and Laura issued a statement of support dated on May 20th; I had to search the whitehouse.gov site to find it, but it's there.

Friday Stuff

Here's why "Senator Honor And Virtue" should fire his chief political adviser Charlie Black...



...and the next time you hear that "straight-talking maverick" criticizing Obama or anyone else for expressing a wish to have a dialogue of sorts with Hamas, remember what he said here to James Rubin (hat tips for these two videos to The Daily Kos)...



...and leave it to The Onion to ask the question on no one's lips (well, maybe one or two people), and that is this: Are politicians failing our lobbyists?...



...and I'll bet you were just wondering what went on while Falafel Boy had his legendary meltdown, didn't you? Well, now you know.

Where The Rubber Meets The Road (5/16/08)

As reported in last Sunday's Philadelphia Inquirer, here is how Philadelphia-area members of Congress were recorded on major roll-call votes last week.

House

Federal mortgage relief. Voting 266-154, the House authorized a program in which mortgage holders would refinance hundreds of thousands of at-risk home loans in return for Federal Housing Administration backing of those loans and other benefits. Now before the Senate, the bill (HR 3221) is designed to rescue up to 500,000 mortgages, totaling $300 billion, that are now headed for default.
A yes vote backed the legislation.

Voting yes: Robert E. Andrews (D., N.J.), Robert A. Brady (D., Pa.), Michael N. Castle (R., Del.), Charles W. Dent (R., Pa.), Chaka Fattah (D., Pa.), Jim Gerlach (R., Pa.), Tim Holden (D., Pa.), Patrick Murphy (D., Pa.), Allyson Y. Schwartz (D., Pa.), Joe Sestak (D., Pa.), and Christopher H. Smith (R., N.J.).

Voting no: Frank A. LoBiondo (R., N.J.), Joseph R. Pitts (R., Pa.), and H. James Saxton (R., N.J.).

This is the work first and foremost of Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services committee, which he crafted after meeting with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke (as noted here).

And as I noted earlier, President No More Golf In “Tribute” To Our Dead And Wounded Service People has threatened a veto because it is “a burdensome bailout that would open taxpayers to too much risk.”

Does he mean “burdensome” financially? If so, I have a question; how much is the Iraq war costing us again?

Homeowner tax breaks. Voting 322-94, the House adopted an amendment to HR 3221 that authorizes $7,500 tax credits for first-time home purchases and allows taxpayers who do not itemize deductions to treat up to $700 of their 2008 property taxes as a federal tax deduction. The measure also authorizes housing authorities to issue $10 billion in tax-exempt bonds to refinance subprime loans and provide low-income rental housing.

A yes vote backed the amendment.

Voting yes: Andrews, Brady, Castle, Dent, Fattah, Gerlach, Holden, LoBiondo, Murphy, Schwartz, Sestak and Smith.

Voting no: Pitts and Saxton.

At least Saxton has the decency to be leaving; if Pitts had a speck of integrity, he’d do the same thing (and once more, to help Bruce Slater, click here).

Home foreclosures. Voting 239-188, the House sent the Senate a bill (HR 5818) providing $15 billion in grants and loans through 2013 for a program to help communities and nonprofit organizations buy, rehabilitate and occupy vacant, foreclosed homes. Families with incomes below the regional median income would then be offered the properties for purchase or rental.

A yes vote was to pass the bill.

Voting yes: Andrews, Brady, Fattah, Holden, Murphy, Schwartz and Sestak.

Voting no: Castle, Dent, Gerlach, LoBiondo, Pitts, Saxton and Smith.

This was sponsored by Maxine Waters of California, as noted here; also, here is an extended Center for American Progress article about what the organization proposes for the current downturn, including the Waters bill (the party line vote here indicates some continued Repug reality avoidance, which is not surprising at all).

Senate

Wind-damage insurance. Voting 19-74, the Senate defeated an amendment to expand the National Flood Insurance Program to cover wind damage as well as water damage. This occurred during debate on a bill (S 2284) to renew and reform the FEMA-run program, which serves 5.5 million policyholders in 20,000 communities. The bill remained in debate.

A yes vote backed the amendment.

Voting yes: Frank Lautenberg (D., N.J.) and Robert Menendez (D., N.J.).

Voting no: Thomas Carper (D., Del.), Bob Casey Jr. (D., Pa.), and Arlen Specter (R., Pa.).

Not voting: Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D., Del.).

I tend to go along with Chris Dodd and Richard Shelby on this here (amazing I agree with Shelby on anything, I guess) in that it would make the NFIP prohibitively expensive. Of course, the New Jersey senators needed to vote “yes” on this given the state’s ocean exposure, but there was no real need for anyone else to do so.

This week, the House took up an Iraq-Afghanistan war-funding bill (it didn't pass due to a Repug parliamentary gimmick). The Senate debated energy programs and flood insurance, with a possible vote by both chambers on the farm-bill conference report.

More "Bang Up Comedy" From Mike Huckabee

The man who once made a “joke” about taking some razor blades with him to the bathtub (here) and also made similarly stupid remarks about looking emaciated after escaping from a concentration camp run by the “Democrat” Party (here) is now trying to be funny over the attempted murder of the presumptive nominee against John McCain for the presidential election in November (here).

For a guy who is supposed to be a preacher, Mike Huckabee sure is some kind of screwed up mess of a human being.

Now watch Chuck Norris come and try to kick my ass for saying so.

Update: Daily Kos blogger smintheus has more here.

A "Very Tall Order" For John W. McBush

The New York Times wrote this editorial today, including the following (it started out with some nice sound bites from McCain, though the Times rightly notes that they were likely spurred on by the coming electoral Repug disaster)...

Mr. McCain said he would achieve victory in Iraq by 2013, for instance, without a glimmer about how he would do it. The Democratic candidates know that the next president’s task will be to extricate the United States from an unwinnable situation as cleanly as possible, not to hold out for an impossible final victory.

His promise to respect the constitutional balance between Congress and the White House raised questions, too. Is he willing to find and fix all the ways that Mr. Bush has undermined the Constitution and abridged civil liberties? Or is he just promising to do better?

Mr. McCain’s record is not encouraging. His approval was critical to the passage of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, one of the most damaging pieces of legislation in the nation’s history. It created kangaroo courts at Guantánamo and suspended habeas corpus, a prisoner’s fundamental right to a hearing in a real court.

Mr. McCain won some improvements in the bill’s provisions on the treatment of prisoners, but acquiesced to an appallingly cynical deal that exempted the intelligence agencies from a ban on the torture, abuse and humiliation of detainees.

Just talking about change is not enough. Look at the Republican Party’s witless attempt to repackage itself with a new Barack Obama-like sound bite, only to find that “The Change You Deserve” was the ad slogan for an antidepressant.

Mr. McCain’s speech highlighted some of the most egregious failures of the failed Bush presidency. But he needs to do much more to persuade the country that he has the ideas and the will to address them — and that his party, which refused to question Mr. Bush for seven long years, is really the one to change direction.

It is a very tall order.

Indeed (and here's more on that).

Revisiting The Mike Allen Horror Show

Aside from Dubya’s typically disgusting copouts on Iraq and his lie about giving up golf for the war (still almost too unbelievable for words, though K.O. still managed to summon ample language in his spirited evisceration yesterday), there was this choice excerpt that I wanted to note in that wretched interview (I could probably spend the rest of my life refuting Dubya’s propaganda and utter lies, but after awhile you start feeling like all you’re doing is punching a wall made out of Nerf)…

Q: Mr. President, I know you're not going to believe this transition, but the Congress and Democrats now have been in charge for the Capitol for 18 months. I wonder if you care to give them a grade.

Bush: Well, one thing is for certain, Michael, that I've laid out a very aggressive agenda: a trade agreement with Colombia to help our economy continue to grow; making sure we got the tools necessary to protect our country from attack; supporting our troops in harm's way. And there hasn't been much action. And we got a housing crisis, and I proposed a reasonable set of reforms. And so I would call them stalled. I would call them, so far, good at verbiage and not so good at results.

Well, here is a list of "results" from last June and an update to that (a mixed bag, I’ll admit) from last December (better have someone help you read it, Dubya - it goes beyond the length of a Bazooka Joe Bubble Gum cartoon).

And concerning the housing crisis, this tells us of the rescue plan crafted by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd along with the committee’s top Repug, Richard Shelby.

Which, of course, faces the inevitable veto threat from President Clueless.

(Oh, and by the way, you morons, this is Chase Utley from the Phillies, not “Ottley” – way to “fact check,” people; a minor point I know, but it still bugged me.)

Snarlin’ Arlen’s Goal-Line Stand For Team Comcast

The Inquirer reported yesterday that our PA Republican senator is after the National Football League once more…

Specter on Wednesday called for an independent investigation of the New England Patriots' taping of opposing coaches' signals, possibly similar to the high-profile Mitchell Report on performance enhancing drugs in baseball.

"What is necessary is an objective investigation," Specter said at a news conference in the Capitol. "And this one has not been objective."

The Pennsylvania Republican was unforgiving of his criticism of NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, saying that Goodell has made "ridiculous" assertions that wouldn't fly "in kindergarten." The Senator said Goodell was caught in an "apparent conflict of interest" because the NFL doesn't want the public to lose confidence in the league's integrity.

And Arlen also rambled on about how football players are such role models…yaddah yaddah yaddah.

And even though Ted Kennedy is hardly an impartial observer in this, he was quoted as follows…

"With the war in Iraq raging on, gasoline prices closing in on $4 a gallon, and Americans losing their homes at record rates to foreclosure, the United States Senate should be focusing on the real problems that Americans are struggling with," the Democrat said. "I'm looking forward to another great Patriots season where they can let their play on the field speak for itself."

I would be inclined to agree with that.

OK, for all of our sakes, I’m going to cut to the chase here and let you know about what’s really going on (and with most stories involving politics and anything that touches on the media, particularly in the Philadelphia area, it involves Comcast – I’ll get to them in a minute).

This tells us that Specter was mad at the NFL in 2006 for the following reason…

Specter said the NFL should not use (its antitrust) exemption to negotiate exclusive programming packages such as DirectTV Inc.'s "Sunday Ticket," which allows viewers to watch teams outside their regional market.

"As I look at what the NFL is doing today with the NFL channel with the DirectTV ... a lot of people, including myself, would like to be able to have that ticket," Specter said.

Among the grievances cited by Specter in what he termed a "fans be damned" mentality demonstrated by the NFL was the relocation of franchises, and decisions like the one that moved Monday Night Football from ABC, an over-the-air network broadcaster, to ESPN, a cable entity.

Both of which are owned by Disney, by the way, which Comcast tried to acquire, though it failed to do so (here, and Specter replayed this a year later here).

How does Comcast fit into this? Well, DirectTV is a competitor of Comcast (here). Also, Comcast wants the right to include the NFL Channel as a premium channel (more $$) instead of part of basic service, but it can’t do that as long as the NFL owns it because of its antitrust exemption (there’s other stuff going on here, but that’s what matters the most).

And by the way (as noted here), Specter’s two biggest campaign contributors are 1) Blank Rome, a PAC set up by a law firm that represents Comcast, and 2) Comcast (not much else to think about, is there?). So it stands to reason that Specter’s marching orders are to do whatever he can to ultimately rid the NFL of its antitrust exemption.

And what does the senator have to say for himself in response?

"They have been a campaign contributor," Specter said, "along with 50,000 other people ... I've been at this line of work for a long time, and no one has ever questioned my integrity."

Yep, they don’t call him “Snarlin’ Arlen” for nothing (and by the way, Senator, I’m still waiting to hear about that book deal).

Raining On Flowers

The Philadelphia Daily News' hacktacular freeper pundit provides the following today (tough choice between posting on her or the weekly Friday commercial for the war by Kevin Ferris in the Inquirer)…

Stereotyping is such fun. Problem is, it's almost never accurate, and usually ends up revealing more about the prejudices of those who use labels to make their arguments than it does about the people being labeled.

And then, a few paragraphs later…

There is that sense among people with college degrees, 401(k)s and wine cellars that those who never made it to their educational or economic level have a stunted existence that makes them much more susceptible to racism and sexism and all the other -isms (except, of course, "multiculturalism") that make them unworthy of the vote.

Yes, “Stereotyping” is fun, isn’t it, Christine? Especially when used to try and enforce talking points about people who support Barack Obama that have no credibility (however, if you’re really writing about people of your ideological ilk but you don’t have the courage to say so, that’s something wholly other).

And by the way, I don’t have a wine cellar either.

Thursday Stuff

K.O.'s "Special Comment" from May 14th, Part 1...



...and Part 2 (h/t profmarcus; and he gives the Knesset speech today AFTER this - we've been saying that Dubya is delusional for awhile now...wouldn't it have been nice if more people had listened to us?).

Fun With Joe And Dave

The whole “Bush and his cowardly sneak attack on Obama at the Knesset” thing just won’t die, as it turns out, though that's a good thing really (third post of the day on this topic based on this Daily Kos post).

And kudos to one of the senators from MBNA (and I’m definitely not referring to Tom Carper) for this…

"This is bullshit, this is malarkey. This is outrageous, for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, to sit in the Knesset . . . and make this kind of ridiculous statement."

"He is the guy who has weakened us," he said. "He has increased the number of terrorists in the world. It is his policies that have produced this vulnerability that the U.S. has. It’s his [own] intelligence community [that] has pointed this out, not me."

I still have no regrets about not supporting Biden for president – he’s a good man and he’d be an excellent Secretary of Defense for Obama, but there are too many bogus votes for me to ever reach a comfort level with him on any higher office.

And in the House, we had this exchange between Dem David Obey (pictured) and Repug John Culberson of Texas over the alleged “pork” and “tax hikes” in the emergency supplemental for Iraq (with Obey confronting Culberson to identify the “pork,” which Culberson couldn’t, of course).

(Kind of slumming it with the posting today I know because of this ongoing item; I’ve got something in the works that I may or may not get to today.)

Crackpot History From “The Straight Talk Express”

I updated an earlier post on the latest Obama-bashing with this link to today’s Times story by Elisabeth Bumiller, who once more continues to actually practice journalism again by following up when McCain says something stupid (memo to Pinch – give her a raise).

However, I'd like to focus on something else from John W. McBush...

“I believe that it’s not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was president of the United States. He didn’t sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran, he made it very clear that those hostages were coming home.'’

Oh boy…

This links to some rather voluminous information detailing the arms-for-hostages deal negotiated with, among others, incoming Reagan CIA head William Casey in October 1980 before The Sainted Ronnie R took office in 1981 (after he was sworn in, arms shipments flowed through Israel to Iran and our hostages were released). And it is possible that this would never have come to light had not the second attempt to deal arms for hostages to Iran in 1986 blown up in their faces (which was a violation of the Boland Amendment, let’s not forget – tells you what the Repugs thought of Congress then as now).

I suppose, though, that “Senator Honor And Virtue” should be forgiven for this slipup, seeing as how he was busy during the ‘80s helping to utterly destroy our savings and loan institutions (as noted here) and was perhaps distracted from other news.

Nothing Worth Celebrating

This story from the NBC World Blog tells us that the current anniversary of Israel’s inception being celebrated in that country (with President Highest Disapproval Rating In Gallup Poll History dutifully asking “how high” when the Israelis tell him to jump) is hardly a fond memory for Palestinians, including two sisters, Fatima and Zeinab Jaber, 65 and 71.

As the story tells us…

They are haunted, too, by the memory of their mother, Nuzah, who they recall crying as she rushed members of their family to safety (while their village burned).

And they are their last recollections of their home, the village of Deir Yassin, as it was being overrun and destroyed by armed Jewish militant groups.

The attack on Deir Yassin in April 1948 is one of the most well-documented in a series of expulsions the former British Mandate of Palestine that led up to the foundation of Israel (sic) – an episode that Palestinian recall bitterly as "Nakba" ("the Catastrophe").

So while Israelis are celebrating 60 years of independence on May 14, many Palestinians will be commemorating what they call "Catastrophe Day" on May 15 – an annual day of remembrance for the hundreds of thousands of Arabs who were displaced as Israel was being born.

And this post from January tells us that Dubya actually brought up the issue of Palestinian “right of return” in a news conference upon his arrival at Ben Gurion Airport, but it was systematically expunged by the Israeli and American media (sounds like our preznit was “freelancing” again, but not to worry; our corporate distracters are forever on guard, doing all they can to perpetuate the myth that Dubya is an actual leader).

And this post tells us the following about Incurious George and his supposed plan for Middle East peace (have to scroll almost to the bottom)…

From the Daily Star of Lebanon: "Bush is the delinquent foreign-policy maestro of an otherwise great country. He has failed to deal honestly and rationally with the realities of the region, preferring wishful thinking and simplistic black-and-white threats to the hard work and nuanced sensibilities that are needed to grapple with the problems, challenges and opportunities of the Arab-Asian region. His desperate, last minute, pull-the-rabbit-out-of-the-hat attempt at Annapolis to achieve Palestinian-Israeli peace was clearly insincere - because he did not invest the required political capital to get it done, and did not have the required intellectual clarity and moral gumption to make it happen. He hoped to ride a runaway horse to the finish line, and ended up in a horror house of mirrors. His peace partners have proved illusory, his necessary impartiality nonexistent, and his sense of how Palestine-Israel fits into the wider picture in the Middle East totally absent."

And this quote from the Jerusalem Post is just peachy…

"While Bush may have been wrong on Iraq, he is dead right about Iran