AlterNet Blogs

AlterNet's focused blogging

Election Activists Win Three Key Battles
Posted by Steven Rosenfeld on May 16, 2008 at 4:56 PM.

Voting rights activists won three big battles this week.

The Missouri state Legislature adjourned without taking up a controversial voter ID bill. The Department of Justice settled a lawsuit with Arizona that will force the state to offer welfare recipients the opportunity to register to vote. And Hans von Spakovsky, the White House's controversial nominee to the Federal Election Commission, withdrew his nomination.

The Missouri voter ID bill would have required voters show a government-issue photo ID to vote and would have required new registrants to produce proof of citizenship to complete their voter registration. Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, a Democrat, estimated more than 200,000 people could have been disenfranchised by the citizenship requirement.

The voter ID proposal, which was intended to take effect before the November election, was extremely controversial. According to voting rights activists monitoring the Missouri Legislature's final day, the criticism of the bill pressured Republican sponsors and legislative leaders to not bring up the proposal before the Missouri Legislature adjourned on Friday.

Missourians for Fair Elections reports over 4,200 calls were made to lawmakers in the past two weeks urging them to not back this legislation.

Arizona

In Arizona, which is the only state to require proof of citizenship from state residents seeking to register to vote, that requirement has lead to the rejection of 37,000 new applications since 2004, when the law took effect.

On Thursday, the U.S. Department of Justice announced it was settling a lawsuit with Arizona to bring the state into compliance with a federal law that requires certain state agencies offer public aid recipients the opportunity to register to vote.

This past January, Project Vote and Demos, two voter advocacy groups, sent a letter to Arizona Secretary of State Jan Brewer notifying her that Arizona was not in compliance with the public agency provisions of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). The letter said voter registration at the state's welfare had declined 70 percent over the past 12 years.

"This agreement ends the need for litigation and means Arizona will bring voter registration to the state's low-income communities," said Michael Slater, deputy director of Project Vote.

Washington, DC

Finally, the decision by Republican lawyer Hans von Spakovsky to withdrew his name for consideration for an appointment to the Federal Election Commission was also seen as a victory for voting rights activists. He had been one of the administration's most outspoken voices to newly regulate various aspects of voting, such as more stringent voter ID laws.

Von Spakovsky had served as a FEC commissioner after a recess appointment but could not gain Senate confirmation. Before his temporary FEC post, he was a lawyer at the Justice Department where he changed its voting rights enforcement priorities from defending minority voting rights to ensuring only people with current ID and other credentials could vote.

Election Activists Win Three Key Battles
Posted by Steven Rosenfeld on May 16, 2008 at 4:56 PM.

Voting rights activists won three big battles this week.

The Missouri state Legislature adjourned without taking up a controversial voter ID bill. The Department of Justice settled a lawsuit with Arizona that will force the state to offer welfare recipients the opportunity to register to vote. And Hans von Spakovsky, the White House's controversial nominee to the Federal Election Commission, withdrew his nomination.

The Missouri voter ID bill would have required voters show a government-issue photo ID to vote and would have required new registrants to produce proof of citizenship to complete their voter registration. Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, a Democrat, estimated more than 200,000 people could have been disenfranchised by the citizenship requirement.

The voter ID proposal, which was intended to take effect before the November election, was extremely controversial. According to voting rights activists monitoring the Missouri Legislature's final day, the criticism of the bill pressured Republican sponsors and legislative leaders to not bring up the proposal before the Missouri Legislature adjourned on Friday.

Missourians for Fair Elections reports over 4,200 calls were made to lawmakers in the past two weeks urging them to not back this legislation.

Arizona

In Arizona, which is the only state to require proof of citizenship from state residents seeking to register to vote, that requirement has lead to the rejection of 37,000 new applications since 2004, when the law took effect.

On Thursday, the U.S. Department of Justice announced it was settling a lawsuit with Arizona to bring the state into compliance with a federal law that requires certain state agencies offer public aid recipients the opportunity to register to vote.

This past January, Project Vote and Demos, two voter advocacy groups, sent a letter to Arizona Secretary of State Jan Brewer notifying her that Arizona was not in compliance with the public agency provisions of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). The letter said voter registration at the state's welfare had declined 70 percent over the past 12 years.

"This agreement ends the need for litigation and means Arizona will bring voter registration to the state's low-income communities," said Michael Slater, deputy director of Project Vote.

Washington, DC

Finally, the decision by Republican lawyer Hans von Spakovsky to withdrew his name for consideration for an appointment to the Federal Election Commission was also seen as a victory for voting rights activists. He had been one of the administration's most outspoken voices to newly regulate various aspects of voting, such as more stringent voter ID laws.

Von Spakovsky had served as a FEC commissioner after a recess appointment but could not gain Senate confirmation. Before his temporary FEC post, he was a lawyer at the Justice Department where he changed its voting rights enforcement priorities from defending minority voting rights to ensuring only people with current ID and other credentials could vote.

Election Activists Win Three Key Battles
Posted by Steven Rosenfeld on May 16, 2008 at 4:56 PM.

Voting rights activists won three big battles this week.

The Missouri state Legislature adjourned without taking up a controversial voter ID bill. The Department of Justice settled a lawsuit with Arizona that will force the state to offer welfare recipients the opportunity to register to vote. And Hans von Spakovsky, the White House's controversial nominee to the Federal Election Commission, withdrew his nomination.

The Missouri voter ID bill would have required voters show a government-issue photo ID to vote and would have required new registrants to produce proof of citizenship to complete their voter registration. Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, a Democrat, estimated more than 200,000 people could have been disenfranchised by the citizenship requirement.

The voter ID proposal, which was intended to take effect before the November election, was extremely controversial. According to voting rights activists monitoring the Missouri Legislature's final day, the criticism of the bill pressured Republican sponsors and legislative leaders to not bring up the proposal before the Missouri Legislature adjourned on Friday.

Missourians for Fair Elections reports over 4,200 calls were made to lawmakers in the past two weeks urging them to not back this legislation.

Arizona

In Arizona, which is the only state to require proof of citizenship from state residents seeking to register to vote, that requirement has lead to the rejection of 37,000 new applications since 2004, when the law took effect.

On Thursday, the U.S. Department of Justice announced it was settling a lawsuit with Arizona to bring the state into compliance with a federal law that requires certain state agencies offer public aid recipients the opportunity to register to vote.

This past January, Project Vote and Demos, two voter advocacy groups, sent a letter to Arizona Secretary of State Jan Brewer notifying her that Arizona was not in compliance with the public agency provisions of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). The letter said voter registration at the state's welfare had declined 70 percent over the past 12 years.

"This agreement ends the need for litigation and means Arizona will bring voter registration to the state's low-income communities," said Michael Slater, deputy director of Project Vote.

Washington, DC

Finally, the decision by Republican lawyer Hans von Spakovsky to withdrew his name for consideration for an appointment to the Federal Election Commission was also seen as a victory for voting rights activists. He had been one of the administration's most outspoken voices to newly regulate various aspects of voting, such as more stringent voter ID laws.

Von Spakovsky had served as a FEC commissioner after a recess appointment but could not gain Senate confirmation. Before his temporary FEC post, he was a lawyer at the Justice Department where he changed its voting rights enforcement priorities from defending minority voting rights to ensuring only people with current ID and other credentials could vote.

Republicans Are Hoping That Democrats Will Win - Then Fail
Posted by Digby, Hullabaloo on May 16, 2008 at 2:39 PM.

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:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Republicans Are Hoping That Democrats Will Win - Then Fail
Posted by Digby, Hullabaloo on May 16, 2008 at 2:39 PM.

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:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Wages of Sin, We Keep Paying
Posted by Spencer Ackerman, Attackerman on May 16, 2008 at 1:06 PM.

Amazingly, the Bush administration can’t figure out just why the Arab governments it occasionally flirts with undermining/subverting/overthrowing — and whose citizens it reserves the right to abduct, imprison, kill and certainly demonize — won’t cooperate with its proxy Iraq government!

And look at the alibi. As a wise man once said, you want it to be one way –

But U.S. and Iraqi officials dismissed Arab security concerns as a smokescreen. “If I believed the issue were purely one of security, it would be one thing,” a senior Bush administration official said. The Iraqi government has offered the Arabs space inside the fortified Green Zone, where the U.S. embassy and much of the Iraqi government is located.

The real basis for Arab reluctance, the U.S. official said, “is political. It’s a choice, an acknowledgement that there is a new Iraq, of recognizing that its political structures, its constitution, its government, is in fact legitimate.”

– but it’s the other way.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Wages of Sin, We Keep Paying
Posted by Spencer Ackerman, Attackerman on May 16, 2008 at 1:06 PM.

Amazingly, the Bush administration can’t figure out just why the Arab governments it occasionally flirts with undermining/subverting/overthrowing — and whose citizens it reserves the right to abduct, imprison, kill and certainly demonize — won’t cooperate with its proxy Iraq government!

And look at the alibi. As a wise man once said, you want it to be one way –

But U.S. and Iraqi officials dismissed Arab security concerns as a smokescreen. “If I believed the issue were purely one of security, it would be one thing,” a senior Bush administration official said. The Iraqi government has offered the Arabs space inside the fortified Green Zone, where the U.S. embassy and much of the Iraqi government is located.

The real basis for Arab reluctance, the U.S. official said, “is political. It’s a choice, an acknowledgement that there is a new Iraq, of recognizing that its political structures, its constitution, its government, is in fact legitimate.”

– but it’s the other way.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Hilarious Behind-the-Scenes Look at O'Reilly's Meltdown
Posted by ZP Heller, Brave New Films on May 16, 2008 at 11:42 AM.

Most people have seen Bill O's rant online... here's a brilliant behind the scenes look. New footage shows O'Reilly's now legendary tantrum in an unbiased, spin-free light. Did he go overboard? Or was his producer at fault? You be the judge. look.

Wonder if CBS will try to pull this one too over copyright infringement.

The Impact of Our Nation's Choices
Posted by Christy Hardin Smith, Firedoglake on May 16, 2008 at 11:31 AM.

Wednesday, John Edwards endorsed Barack Obama. There is no shortage of articles digging into the endorsement, the potential attached strings (nothing substantiated), the potential split between John and Elizabeth's support (again nothing substantiated), and what it means for the Democratic party horserace in highly broad, speculative terms.

What none of the reports really address is the substance -- the gut and heart level issues -- that Edwards spoke about, which got an incredible reaction from the Michigan crowd.

Which, frankly, is altogether too familiar in political reportage given the dismissive and superficial tone of so much of the coverage of him when he was a candidate. I, however, refuse to just let it be -- because the speech was a barn burner, and listening to it was like taking a long, cool drink of water on a parched day...and it is one that we need to hear, loud and clear.

I've attached a YouTube of the speech in its entirety. If you missed it, do take the time to watch it in full. You'll thank me later.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Chris Matthews Gives Right-Wing Radio Host a Smackdown
Posted by Brave New Films, Brave New Films on May 16, 2008 at 11:22 AM.

Radio host Kevin James on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, May 15, 2008.

Obama Stands Up to Bush, the FCC, and Big Media
Posted by Matt Stoller, Open Left on May 16, 2008 at 9:58 AM.

John Eggerton at Broadcasting and Cable has the story.

The fight over the Federal Communications Commission's Dec. 18 media-ownership vote set up a potential battle between the current president and a senator who wants to be the next one.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) Thursday urged the House to follow the Senate's lead and pass a resolution of disapproval, an unusual legislative maneuver that would invalidate the FCC's decision to allow TV and radio stations and newspapers to be co-owned in the top 20 markets, subject to some conditions.

After the Senate approved the measure, Obama, a co-sponsor of the bill, released a statement saying, "I urge my colleagues in the House of Representatives to expeditiously pass the legislation."

He framed the vote, as he has before, as standing up to "Washington special interests," a campaign theme. "Our nation's media market must reflect the diverse voices of our population, and it is essential that the FCC promotes the public interest and diversity in ownership," he said.

The FCC decision to consolidate yet more media was opposed by 99% of public comments. As Paul Rosenberg noted in this comments, this might be the single least popular decision by the Bush administration ever. But Obama, as he did with his media and tech plan, took this further, and called for diversity and representation for the public interest in media ownership.

With ownership levels for minorities and women in media in the low single digits, Obama is really saying that it's time to reshape our media system. In discussing Reagan, one of the great conservative media reformers, remember he made the following comment.

"I didn't' say I liked Ronald Reagan's policies," Obama explained. "What I said was that was the kind of working majority we need to form in order to move a progressive agenda forward."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Obama Stands Up to Bush, the FCC, and Big Media
Posted by Matt Stoller, Open Left on May 16, 2008 at 9:58 AM.

John Eggerton at Broadcasting and Cable has the story.

The fight over the Federal Communications Commission's Dec. 18 media-ownership vote set up a potential battle between the current president and a senator who wants to be the next one.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) Thursday urged the House to follow the Senate's lead and pass a resolution of disapproval, an unusual legislative maneuver that would invalidate the FCC's decision to allow TV and radio stations and newspapers to be co-owned in the top 20 markets, subject to some conditions.

After the Senate approved the measure, Obama, a co-sponsor of the bill, released a statement saying, "I urge my colleagues in the House of Representatives to expeditiously pass the legislation."

He framed the vote, as he has before, as standing up to "Washington special interests," a campaign theme. "Our nation's media market must reflect the diverse voices of our population, and it is essential that the FCC promotes the public interest and diversity in ownership," he said.

The FCC decision to consolidate yet more media was opposed by 99% of public comments. As Paul Rosenberg noted in this comments, this might be the single least popular decision by the Bush administration ever. But Obama, as he did with his media and tech plan, took this further, and called for diversity and representation for the public interest in media ownership.

With ownership levels for minorities and women in media in the low single digits, Obama is really saying that it's time to reshape our media system. In discussing Reagan, one of the great conservative media reformers, remember he made the following comment.

"I didn't' say I liked Ronald Reagan's policies," Obama explained. "What I said was that was the kind of working majority we need to form in order to move a progressive agenda forward."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

McCain the Flip-Flopper
Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report on May 16, 2008 at 8:26 AM.

Soon after the president told the Israeli Knesset that Democrats are Chamberlain-like appeasers because Obama is prepared to talk to Iran (just as Bush’s own Defense Secretary and Secretary of State have recommended), John McCain jumped on the far-right bandwagon. Aboard his campaign bus, McCain told reporters Obama’s willingness to negotiate with rival heads of state reflects “naivete and inexperience and lack of judgment.”

As it turns out, however, two years ago, McCain was prepared to go even further than Obama. While Obama is willing to try diplomacy with Iran, McCain has expressed interest in possibly even negotiating Hamas.

Jamie Rubin, a former assistant secretary of state, the State Department’s chief spokesman during the Clinton administration, and an active supporter of Hillary Clinton’s campaign, has the story.

[G]iven his own position on Hamas, McCain is the last politician who should be attacking Obama. Two years ago, just after Hamas won the Palestinian parliamentary elections, I interviewed McCain for the British network Sky News’s “World News Tonight” program. Here is the crucial part of our exchange:

I asked: “Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?”

McCain answered: “They’re the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it’s a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that.”

For some Europeans in Davos, Switzerland, where the interview took place, that’s a perfectly reasonab