PEEK

Buzz, perspectives, insight and news from AlterNet

Palin's Prayer Leader Hinted Terrorist Attack Could Make Her President
Posted by Bruce Wilson on November 16, 2009 at 7:28 PM.

In the final weeks of the 2008 presidential election, one of the religious leaders closest to Sarah Palin hinted that the Alaska governor might soon get an unexpected career boost... from a terrorist attack.

Independent Charismatic Christianity vexed the McCain campaign throughout the 2008 campaign, first in the debacle that followed John McCain's decision to accept a long-sought political endorsement from Texas megachurch pastor John Hagee, when an anti-Semitic 2005 sermon by Hagee surfaced, then through infighting between Sarah Palin and McCain campaign staff.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

O'Reilly Warns of a Coming 'Tax Revolt': 'Pelosi Will be Bobbing Up and Down in the Boston Harbor'
Posted by Alex Seitz-Wald, Think Progress on November 16, 2009 at 3:40 PM.

Glenn Beck had Fox News host Bill O'Reilly on his radio show today to promote their upcoming "Bold & Fresh Tour," which will take the two right-wing personalities around the country to preach "the truth -- straight up, whether you like it or not." When Beck brought up Dennis Miller's appearance on the O’Reilly Factor last week -- in which Miller warned of a coming "insurrection" -- O'Reilly predicted a "tax revolt" that will "get nasty" and end up with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) "bobbing up and down in the Boston Harbor."

BECK: Last week, I head you say that -- you were on with Dennis Miller. … You two were talking about an insurrection coming.

O’REILLY: Tax revolt.

BECK: He used the word insurrection. And not in a comedic way.

O’REILLY: Yeah, tax revolt. I think people, when they figure out how badly they're going to get hurt in the next few years, there's going to be a tea party on taxes and its gonna get nasty. Nancy Pelosi's going to be bobbing up and down in the Boston Harbor.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Hundreds Converge on Goldman Sachs DC Headquarters
Posted by Staff, SEIU on November 16, 2009 at 2:41 PM.

This is a press advisory from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU)

Washington, D.C. -- Today, hundreds of workers, clergy members, community leaders, and other taxpayers converged on the Washington, D.C. headquarters of Goldman Sachs to demand the bank put an end to multi-billion dollar bonuses, reject the Too Big To Fail Doctrine, and use their anticipated $23 billion bonus pool to help families facing foreclosure. Taxpayers also called on Congress to take immediate action on real financial reform.

"Lloyd Blankfein and Goldman Sachs have rightfully earned the leading role in the story of 'all that is wrong with Wall Street,'" said George Goehl, Executive Director of the National People's Action. "Now is the time for them to start making amends for past transgressions. A good first step would include showing a little holiday spirit by directing a significant portion of their estimated $23 billion-dollar bonus pool to a fund to prevent foreclosure. It's the least they could do."

Today's demonstration was the latest in a series of national mobilizations launched last month as 5,000 taxpayers from 20 states converged on the American Bankers Association convention in Chicago to demand Wall Street and big banks stop fighting reforms that would protect our families from the next economic crisis.

"Companies like Goldman Sachs seem to love their company more than their country," said Andy Stern, President of the Service Employees International Union. "And in the name of maximizing profits and their huge bonuses, they will foreclose on our homes and take jobs from our families while short selling America without a second thought. The $23 billion dollars Goldman is planning to pay out in bonuses could prevent every single expected foreclosure in America in 2010."

After sharing personal stories illustrating Goldman Sachs' continued refusal to help in America's economic recovery, taxpayers attempted to deliver a letter requesting a meeting with Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein to discuss their demands. This is the third time taxpayers have requested such a meeting and their requests continue to go unanswered as Blankfein continues his media tour preaching his firm's devotion to doing "God's work."

 

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Enough Crowing Over Carrie Prejean's Sex Tape "Hypocrisy"
Posted by Melissa McEwan, Shakesville on November 16, 2009 at 1:35 PM.

I don't care how many tapes Carrie Prejan made of herself masturbating. I don't care how many nude or semi-nude photos she shot of herself or let other people shoot of her. I don't care if she had breast augmentation surgery. I don't care what she does with her body or what she does sexually, as long as it's consensual.

And neither should anyone else who rightfully objected to her anti-same-sex marriage sentiments.

Support for same-sex marriage is rooted in a belief that people have the rights to love and fuck and spend time with whoever they want, and to do whatever they want with their own bodies. It reflects the idea that sexuality is a private matter -- not in the sense that it shouldn't be seen in public, but in the sense that any individual person's sexuality doesn't personally affect anyone else who isn't sexually involved themselves with that person.

So what difference does it make, in terms of Prejean's bigotry, that she has a sexual life of her own? None. Because denying fellow citizens equal rights is wrong no matter what.

She was wrong when she said it before anyone knew she had a "sex tape," and she's wrong now. The existence of a "sex tape" doesn't somehow make her more wrong.

I see a lot of people, including self-identified progressives, cheering the "schadenfreude" of Prejean's being revealed as -- what? -- having a sexuality, I guess. But slut-shaming Prejean for expressing her sexuality merely perpetuates a culture in which the objection to same-sex marriage is justified with distaste for the icky, icky gay sex. Entrenching puritanical narratives about "deviant" sexuality (and let's all stop and note the hilarious irony that young women who actually express the sexuality the entire culture admonishes them to express are immediately slut-shamed and accused of aberrant behavior) does not help the cause of gay rights. Or women's rights. Which are both denied on the basis of kyriarchal control of bodies that are Othered.

So if you find yourself tempted to crow over Prejean's "hypocrisy," consider that the tapes were made privately and not intended for public consumption. To make hay out of that, when we argue sexuality is a private matter, is a hypocrisy all its own.

And worse than that: To make an issue out of these tapes, to endorse or encourage their release for any reason, is to perpetuate the rape culture. Despite our collective refusal to regard them thus, celebrity sex tapes released without the participants' consent is sexual assault. Consenting to the sex act, even consenting to its being filmed, is not implicit consent that images of the act be publicly distributed.

Prejean was wrong about same-sex marriage. She's not any more wrong if she's a moral scold with an expressed sexuality of her own. And being a bigot doesn't give other people license to victimize her.

These shouldn't be controversial statements.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Congressional Puppetry: Biotech Lobbyists Ghost-Write Health-Care Reform Speeches for 42 House Members
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on November 16, 2009 at 12:30 PM.

Robert Pear, reporting for the New York Times, discovered that the impassioned rhetoric aired by a fairly large number of law-makers during the health-care debate was drafted by corporate lobbyists.

In the official record of the historic House debate on overhauling health care, the speeches of many lawmakers echo with similarities. Often, that was no accident.

Statements by more than a dozen lawmakers were ghostwritten, in whole or in part, by Washington lobbyists working for Genentech, one of the world’s largest biotechnology companies.

E-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that the lobbyists drafted one statement for Democrats and another for Republicans.

The lobbyists, employed by Genentech and by two Washington law firms, were remarkably successful in getting the statements printed in the Congressional Record under the names of different members of Congress.

Genentech, a subsidiary of the Swiss drug giant Roche, estimates that 42 House members picked up some of its talking points — 22 Republicans and 20 Democrats, an unusual bipartisan coup for lobbyists.

In an interview, Representative Bill Pascrell Jr., Democrat of New Jersey, said: “I regret that the language was the same. I did not know it was.” He said he got his statement from his staff and “did not know where they got the information from.”

Members of Congress submit statements for publication in the Congressional Record all the time, often with a decorous request to “revise and extend my remarks.” It is unusual for so many revisions and extensions to match up word for word. It is even more unusual to find clear evidence that the statements originated with lobbyists.

The piece is headlined, "In House, Many Spoke With One Voice: Lobbyists’". But it might as well have read: "Sloppy Staffers Offer Peek Into Everyday, Legal and Perfectly Ordinary Washington Corruption."

Because  what makes this a featured story -- the only thing really unusual about it -- is that "so many revisions and extensions match up word for word," which left rather "clear evidence that the statements originated with lobbyists."

Otherwise, it's dog bites man. Congressional staffers constantly rely on lobbyists for information, political help and, yes, talking-points. Advocates send lawmakers draft text to be included not only in speeches delivered on the House floor, but in legislation as well -- they do it all the time. (And I should note that it's not just corporate lobbyists pushing stuff through the worst lawmakers in Congress; labor, environmental, consumer groups and other advocates do the same thing for progressive law-makers. In this case it may be a pack of lies from a biotech firm in an effort to kill health-care, but ...)

And, of course, it's unusual for this kind of endemic distortion of the legislative process to be seen as anything but routine by the political class. So it's a story that's also note-worthy simply for the fact that the New York Times decided to treat it as such.

Anyway, a little peek into the sausage-making.

Obama Considers Illinois Prison for Guantanamo Detainees
Posted by Maya Schenwar, TruthOut.org on November 16, 2009 at 11:30 AM.

The Obama administration is eyeing a practically vacant prison in western Illinois to house terrorism suspects transferred from the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, following its closure.

Top Democrats, including Illinois Gov. Patrick Quinn and Sen. Dick Durbin, have announced their support for the plan, calling it an economic boon for the area, according to The Chicago Tribune.

Quinn called the prospect a "once-in-a-lifetime opportunity" for Illinois during a fly-around tour on Sunday.

The prison under consideration, a maximum-security facility in rural Thomson, Ill., could house 1,600 prisoners.

Bureau of Prisons official will visit Thomson this week.

Prominent Illinois Republicans have voiced vehement opposition to the Thomson proposal. Rep. Don Manzullo, who represents the district that includes Thomson, expressed strong reservations, though he admitted the economic advantages of the plan.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Guess What? Americans Don't Like Sarah Palin
Posted by Tana Ganeva, AlterNet on November 16, 2009 at 10:30 AM.

As we all know, Sarah Palin really likes ordinary, America-loving Americans. That's because her appeal allegedly lies in being one of them, even though most 'ordinary' Americans are not that rich, and she is very rich. Anyway, she loves patriotic Americans so much that she has dedicated her new book to them, as she writes on her Facebook wall: 

The book tour starts this week, and I look forward to it! I'm most looking forward to meeting many of you, shaking your hands, and telling you,"Thanks for loving America." I'll give you a scoop here and tell you what's on the book's Dedication Page – it's dedicated to you – Patriots – who love the U.S.A. as much as I do.

Really, Palin should be celebrating the America-hating, liberal media that keep that stupid thing in the news. Especially since Palin's love is kind of unrequited. According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll, a majority of Americans don't like her that much, and very few would vote for her if she absurdly ran for President. 

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

What Will Happen to Guantanamo's "Child Soldier," Omar Khadr?
Posted by Suzanne Ito, Blog of Rights on November 16, 2009 at 9:30 AM.

With [Friday's] announcement that the Justice Department will move five of the men accused of 9/11 crimes to federal court in New York, the question still remains about one of the other high-profile detainees: Omar Khadr.

The world knows Khadr as one of the child soldiers detained at Gitmo since he was 15. (The other child soldier, Mohammed Jawad, was released back to Afghanistan after the government failed to produce enough credible evidence to bring charges against him.) Khadr is accused of throwing a grenade that killed an Army medic in Afghanistan, a charge that the U.S. government itself later threw into question by accident during one of his pre-trial hearings:

During a break in the hearing, members of the press were given copies of legal motions on the issue of whether the military commission has the authority to try Khadr, given his status as a juvenile at the time of his alleged offenses. Included in those papers was a classified attachment, which, according to military commissions officials, should have been redacted, instead of released.

The significance of the document was made clear by Khadr's military defense counsel, Lt. Cmdr. William Kuebler. Asked to describe it later in the day, Lt. Cmdr. Kuebler said it dispelled what he referred to as a myth propagated by the government: that Khadr was the only person who could have lobbed the grenade that killed U.S. soldier Christopher Speer -- the basis of the most serious charge against him. The document, created in 2004, turned out to be an interview of a witness to Khadr's capture. In it, the witness describes finding two people alive in the Afghan compound in which Khadr was captured -- the witness shot and killed the first man before he saw Khadr. Then, according to Lt. Cmdr. Kuebler, Khadr, who was 15 years old at the time, "was shot on sight -- in the back -- twice -- while wounded, sitting and leaning against a wall facing away from his attackers." (emphasis ours)

Earlier [Friday], the Supreme Court of Canada heard arguments in an appeal by the Canadian government on two lower court decisions that found Khadr's rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms had been breached when Canadian officials interviewed him at the prison in Guantánamo in 2003 and shared the resulting information with U.S. authorities. Khadr's lawyers argued that Canada was complicit in his abuse and maintain that the Canadian government is obliged under international law to demand the prisoner's return. Since Khadr was only addressed in passing at Attorney General Eric Holder's news conference this morning, Canadian news outlets are reporting the possibility that Khadr could still be repatriated to Canada and tried in a Canadian court.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Christian Bootcamp Seeks to Arm Home-Schooled Youths for "Spiritual Warfare"
Posted by Eleanor Bader, RH Reality Check on November 16, 2009 at 8:40 AM.

Rev. Rusty Lee Thomas, Assistant Director of Operation Save America, is worried. According to studies by the Barna Research Group, California pollsters specializing in tracking religious and spiritual attitudes, only nine percent of teenaged Christians believe in moral absolutes. What’s more, Barna reports that the vast majority of kids raised Christian will abandon all or part of their faith by the time they finish high school. "Assembly of God leaders estimate between 65 and 70 percent will depart, while the Southern Baptist Council on Family Life estimates roughly 88 percent will leave," Thomas writes.

To remedy this, Thomas' Elijah Ministries has started the Kingdom Leadership Institute, a weeklong ideological boot camp for home-schooled Christians between the ages of 14 and 21. His recently released book, The Kingdom Leadership Institute Manual, is a roadmap for their training and a fascinating -- if twisted -- look at the concerns of far right evangelicals, complete with a game plan for action.

There's no pussy-footing in Thomas' screed. For him the battle between God and Satan is at hand, pitting True Believers against Sinners. Common ground? Impossible since there are only two sides, one resulting in heavenly salvation and the other ending with the earth’s destruction.

"Life is not a playground," he rails. "It is a war zone -- a clash of ideas, philosophies, values, and worldviews. It demands leaders who do not shrink back in [sic] the day of battle." He calls it "spiritual warfare" and repeatedly summons images straight out of the Middle Ages, with gallant Knights protecting grateful maidens, and courtliness trumping gender equity.

Contemporary equals bad, he rants. "During Colonial times, children would be up at four in the morning to help with chores; spoke only when spoken to by an adult; and by the age of seven or eight, boys had chosen their craft or trade and were ready to become apprentices. What a contrast compared to the unruliness, laziness, and lack of direction that characterizes many in this generation."  One can only wonder about the regimen imposed on the good reverend’s 13 children and two grandchildren.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

The Kingdom Leadership Institute Manual. "It is a war zone."&topic=politics">

CNN Paid Lou Dobbs $8 Million to Quit
Posted by Amanda Terkel, Think Progress on November 16, 2009 at 8:35 AM.

Although Lou Dobbs has been saying that his departure from CNN was an "amicable parting on the best of terms," the New York Post reports that CNN wanted him gone so badly that it gave him an $8 million severance package. Dobbs "had a year and a half to go on his $12 million contract." He'll be appearing on Fox News tonight to talk with Bill O'Reilly, who has called the former CNN host a "stand-up guy."

Sarah Palin's Top 10 Biggest Lies
Posted by , Media Matters for America on November 16, 2009 at 6:30 AM.

In anticipation of the release of Sarah Palin's memoir, Going Rogue, Media Matters for America has compiled a list of Palin's Top 10 falsehoods from before the book was published.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Woe, To Be a Governor
Posted by Steve Singiser, Daily Kos on November 16, 2009 at 5:33 AM.

Back in July, and using the 2009 elections as the immediate backdrop, I suggested that the greatest level of volatility in the coming election cycles would be in the gubernatorial races.

The basic thesis was that the current economic and political climate had essentially put the state's chief executives in the position of making few popular choices. The expectation was that this would transcend incumbency--even in the myriad of open seat races, the change narrative would be an enticing one.

It is now more than four months later, and the 2009 election cycle has come and gone. In the interim, little has changed to dispel the sense that the gubernatorial elections are going to be the site of the greatest turmoil.

Since then, we have had two electoral results that would seem to confirm that incumbency in the state executive's office comes with peril in this climate. The "shake up" (insert name of state capital here) meme is an attractive one, and certainly played a part in the victories of Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell (especially Christie, who was swimming upstream against the natural political tendencies of his state, plus his own campaign missteps).

While most of the traditional media (including a particularly poor analysis from the Los Angeles Times) wanted to make those elections about ascendant Republicanism, there is pretty solid evidence from the exit polling in New Jersey to suggest that an anti-incumbent mood was more prevalent than an anti-Democratic mood.

President Obama, among the electorate that voted in the Garden State this month, had a 57% approval rating. Given the partisan breakdown of the electorate (41% Democratic, 31% Republican, and 28% Independent), and a basic assumption (90% of Democrats approve of Obama, and 90% of Republicans disapprove), we find that Barack Obama's approval rating among New Jersey Independents would have been in the neighborhood of 62%.

And that segment of the New Jersey electorate went to Chris Christie by 30 points (60-30-9). In other words, there was a sizeable contingent of voters who approved of President Obama's job performance who nonetheless cast their ballots for Christie.

There is also an additional four months of polling data to reflect upon. This data also speaks to the antipathy at the state level towards the party in power.

It is rare, in the polling that is available right now (and here are a pair of excellent resources), to find an incumbent who is in comfortable position for next year's election cycle, when the majority of the nation's governorships will be up for grabs.

Indeed, a cursory glance across the nation finds just three governors who lead by ten points or more in the most recent polls released in their state. Interestingly, two of the three are Democrats (Mike Beebe of Arkansas and, extraordinarily, Deval Patrick of Massachusetts). The lone Republican is Texas Governor Rick Perry, and even in an unspectacular field he leads the leading Democratic candidate by just eleven points. Utah's newly-minted Republican Governor Gary Herbert, who just took office in August, also polled well, though the poll involving his candidacy was based on his re-elect numbers as opposed to an actual trial heat with an opponent.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

The Future of the Stupak Amendment
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on November 16, 2009 at 4:01 AM.

Earlier in the week, President Obama signaled that the Stupak amendment will have to be changed. He told ABC News' Jake Tapper that "there there needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we're not changing the status quo."

The point being, the Stupak measure would change the status quo.

Sunday, David Axelrod expressed a very similar sentiment.

Axelrod also addressed the House health care bill's Stupak amendment, which would prevent federal subsidies for abortions. Axelrod said that the president doesn't believe health care reform "should change the status quo" and that "this shouldn't be a debate about abortion" -- while also acknowledging that "the bill Congress passed does change the status quo."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Takes a Serious Contrarian to Go After Captain "Sully" Sullenberger's Heroic Image
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on November 16, 2009 at 3:17 AM.

Russ Buettner, NY Times:

In America today, the half-life of newly minted hero status seems to end the moment that Oprah’s jaw drops. No sooner does someone amaze us than someone else seeks to diminish their splendor.

But Sully?

In a new book, “Fly by Wire,” William Langewiesche takes a run at knocking down the hero rank of Capt. Chesley B. Sullenberger III, the US Airways pilot who in January glided a powerless Airbus A320 to an emergency landing in the Hudson River, according to a review published in The New York Times on Wednesday.

Mr. Langewiesche argues that Captain Sullenberger’s landing did not display “unusual skill.” Instead, he posits that perhaps the real hero was Bernard Ziegler, a former Airbus executive credited with helping the airline develop what is known as a fly-by-wire control system, which eased the difficulties of handling an aircraft.

“Like it or not, Ziegler reached out across the years and cradled them all the way to the water,” writes Mr. Langewiesche, who is himself a former professional pilot.

I can't offer a review of Langewiesche's book -- haven't read it. And while I can't see how it could be anything other than an act of unusual skill to land a loaded jetliner without thrust on a narrow river in the middle of a densely packed city without injury, I won't try to dispute his argument. William Langewiesche is a pretty brilliant writer and, as the excerpt indicates, he, unlike myself, is a former professional pilot.

But I've got to ask why? Why bother writing a book to muddy Sully's heroic image?

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Obama: Close Gitmo, Ban Torture to 'Regain America's Moral Stature'
Posted by Staff, Huffington Post on November 16, 2008 at 11:31 PM.

60 Minutes aired its interview tonight with Barack and Michelle Obama, they're first interview since Obama won the presidential election. In the interview, Obama repeated his commitment to close Guantanamo Bay and ban torture in order to "regain America's moral stature in the world."

The interview covered many other topics, including national security, the financial crisis, Obama's thoughts on Lincoln and FDR, and an update on the new First Dog.

From AP:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Thousands Rally Nationwide for Marriage Equality
Posted by Amanda Terkel, Think Progress on November 16, 2008 at 1:28 PM.

LGBT rights advocates, organized by Join the Impact, turned out in eight countries, 50 states, and 300 cities yesterday in support of marriage equality, with thousands gathering across California to specifically protest the recent passage of Prop. 8. Signs read "Are you better off now that I can’t marry?" and "The same Bible was used to justify slavery," referencing the ban’s heavy support from the Mormon church. Some pictures from today’s events:

On Putting a President's Democratic Address on Youtube
Posted by Matt Stoller, Open Left on November 16, 2008 at 12:53 PM.

Obama is now putting his weekly Democratic address on youtube.  That is pretty neat, but I want to inject a slight note of skepticism as to how important it really is.

What's innovative and interesting about political technology is not that the President-elect can use it, but that it allows for different social arrangements and ways of using power.  What's interesting about youtube is that it lets anyone have access to a TV channel.  The President-elect already has access to a real TV channel.  The essence of a social change via technology is that it will allow citizens to group with each other to speak to elected leadership in interesting ways, not that it allows yet another mechanism for a powerful President to address citizens.  I mean, many of Bush's addresses were put on youtube without him having an account, but that's not innovative, it's just what happens when the internet is mainstream.

What Obama is doing by putting various speeches on youtube has been done before with more interesting twists.  Foreign leaders put their addresses on youtube; Tony Blair congratulated his French colleague Nicolas Sarkozy upon his election over youtube, in both French an English.  It would be interesting if other foreign leaders responded to Obama on youtube, and that could potentially be exciting depending on what results. 

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Alaska Independence Party: Far-Right Nader of the North
Posted by Eli , Firedoglake on November 16, 2008 at 12:45 PM.

As Political Base points out, Mark Begich's current margin of victory in the Alaska Senate race (1,022 votes) is dwarfed by the 12,000 votes cast for the Alaska Independence Party candidate.

Given that the Alaska Independence Party are on the right-wing survivalist end of the political spectrum, that pretty much makes Bob Bird the gun-toting separatist version of Ralph Nader -- only more popular.

And lest anyone forget, this is the same party that Todd Palin belonged to for several years, and the same party that Sarah Palin gave her warm video pep talk to this year.  I wonder if that encouragement helped inspire them to that lofty vote total.  Who knows, maybe even Sarah Palin herself voted for the AIP candidate, rather than cast a vote for a convicted felon or a Democrat.

It would be irresponsible not to speculate.

Schwarzenegger Walks Back Insult Aimed at Obama
Posted by Staff, Huffington Post on November 16, 2008 at 12:30 PM.

On ABC's "This Week," California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger backpedals from his campaign-trail joke that Obama has "scrawny little arms":

McCain Adviser Admits America Is Center-Left
Posted by Amanda Terkel, Think Progress on November 16, 2008 at 12:25 PM.

As ThinkProgress has chronicled, conservative pundits and even some traditional journalists continue to insist that America remains a center-right nation. Today in a Washington Post op-ed, Hoover Institution fellow and former informal adviser to the McCain campaign Tod Lindberg rebuts this myth:

Here’s the stark reality: It is now harder for the Republican presidential candidate to get to 50.1 percent than for the Democrat. My Hoover Institution colleague David Brady and Douglas Rivers of the research firm YouGovPolimetrix have been analyzing data from online interviews with 12,000 people in both 2004 and 2008. It shows an overall shift to the Democrats of six percentage points. As they write in the forthcoming edition of Policy Review, “The decline of Republican strength occurs by having strong Republicans become weak Republicans, weak Republicans becoming independents, and independents leaning more Democratic or even becoming Democrats.” This is a portrait of an electorate moving from center-right to center-left.

Obama's White House is Taking Shape
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on November 16, 2008 at 10:22 AM.

We may not learn about Obama's cabinet choices until after Thanksgiving, but in the interim, the White House staff is clearly taking shape.

Up until a few days ago, the list was fairly brief: Rahm Emanuel will be chief of staff, Robert Gibbs will be press secretary, and David Axelrod will be a senior advisor to the president. Yesterday, the Obama/Biden team formally added two more members: Ron Klain will become Vice President Joe Biden's chief of staff, while Valerie Jarrett will serve as Senior Advisor and Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Relations and Public Liaison. (As Karen Tumulty noted, Jarrett's title suggests a "very broad troubleshooting portfolio.")

We've since learned of a few other officials in key White House posts. Phil Schiliro, a long-time aide to Henry Waxman and Tom Daschle, will be Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs. Peter Rouse, a long-time aide to Daschle and Dick Durbin, will be a senior advisor to the President. Mona Sutphen, a U.S. foreign service officer and member of Bill Clinton's National Security Council, will be a deputy chief of staff. And Jim Messina, a former aide to Sens. Max Baucus and Byron Dorgan, will also be a deputy chief of staff.

Ezra made an important point about what most of these people have in common:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Edwards Tops Iowa Independent Democratic Power Rankings
Posted by Adam Howard, AlterNet on November 16, 2007 at 1:00 PM.

While the mainstream press hammers away constantly on its Hillary vs. Barack, Barack or Hillary narrative, John Edwards has consistently and quietly maintained a strong presence at or near the top of the Iowa caucus polls. Now a new analysis from the Iowa Independent should give those that support his campaign a new reason to celebrate.

They have put together "power rankings" of all the Democratic candidates based on impression they received from "activists, everyday caucus-goers, event attendees and pundits" based on the candidates' field organization, turnout likelihood, as well as their emotional intuitive impressions of the Democratic field. Despite widespread reports that Hillary is on top with Obama closing fast. The Iowa Independent finds Edwards best positioned to win.

They say if the Democratic caucuses held tonight the results would be:

1. John Edwards -- Edwards started about a year ago with the best organization in Iowa, and most of the foundation he built here is still in place. Although concerns persist that his sharpening rhetoric may be alienating a few of his earliest supporters, his solid performance at the Jefferson Jackson dinner, his endorsement from Caucus 4 Priorities (and the potential 10,000 caucus-goers it could bring him), and his ongoing commitment to retail politicking keep him in the top spot -- for now.

2. Barack Obama -- Obama's organization was fairly inconsistent over the summer, with some counties getting a lot of attention and others getting barely any. Still, his campaign's ability to build crowds -- as evidenced by his huge and geographically diverse group of supporters at the Jefferson Jackson dinner -- are as good a measure of his strength as anything. And as Clinton continues to receive sharper attacks from Edwards and subtler attacks from Obama himself, the Illinois Senator could move up in the coming weeks -- particularly on news of his United Auto Workers endorsement. As things stand now, he would still place second behind Edwards.

3. Hillary Clinton -- Different sources tell vastly different stories about the Clinton campaign in Iowa. Some expect it to flop completely, but others point to poll numbers showing Clinton in the top spot among Democratic candidates in Iowa. All that said, her aura of inevitability has been all but shattered by increased criticism over the past few weeks, and she seems to lack significant second choice support. And her latest swing through Iowa highlighted her energy policy, something which may not resonate among working class women, which continues to be her key demographic. Frankly, although the polls show Clinton in first place in Iowa, many of us have been hard pressed to find solid Clinton supporters whose names have not already appeared on a campaign press release.

4. Joe Biden -- Biden's campaign only picked up steam during the late Fall, but one could be led to believe that he planned it that way all along. His list of legislative endorsements (including many in the Democratic leadership) is his greatest strength, because it lends him credibility that others in the so-called second tier do not have. The current situation in Pakistan highlights his foreign policy expertise, which allows him to continue to take ground from Gov. Bill Richardson. And his support comes largely from older Iowans, who are more likely to attend Caucuses than any other group.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

CNN Pressured College Student to Ask Hillary Insulting "Diamonds or Pearls" Question
Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report on November 16, 2007 at 11:00 AM.

This post, written by Steve Benen, originally appeared on The Carpetbagger Report

The very last question in last night's debate for Democratic presidential candidates was probably the dumbest of the year.

MALVEAUX: Maria, would you stand, please? Give us your full name.

Q: Maria -- (inaudible) -- and I'm a UNLV student. And my question is for Senator Clinton. This is a fun question for you. Do you prefer diamonds or pearls? (Laughter.)

CLINTON: Now, I know I'm sometimes accused of not being able to make a choice. I want both. (Laughter.)

MALVEAUX: Do we get to ask any of the other candidates or, I suppose, just Senator Clinton? (Cross talk.)

Q: It's the only thing shiny up there.

MALVEAUX: Okay, thank you so much.

BLITZER: All right, so on that note, diamonds and pearls, I want to thank all of the Democratic presidential candidates for joining us....

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Bush Stuffs Spending Bills with Earmarks for His Daddy and Wife
Posted by Satyam Khanna, Think Progress on November 16, 2007 at 7:06 AM.

This post, written by Satyam Khanna, originally appeared on Think Progress

On Monday, President Bush explained his veto of the recent Labor-HHS bill, claiming the "majority" in Congress had abandoned his "clear goals for the Congress to reform the earmarking process" and was "acting like a teenager with a new credit card."

In reality, Bush "stuffs his budget with billions for pet projects." According to Senate Democrats, Bush placed 580 earmarks worth $15.6 billion in a recent military and veterans appropriations request, along with "billions" in the energy and water spending bill:

Some presidential earmarks have obvious roots, such as $24 million for the Laura Bush 21st Century Librarian Program. The president earmarked a billion dollars for the Reading First program, which was criticized by government auditors for steering contracts to favored companies. He also sought $8.9 million for the Points of Light foundation, a pet project started by his father, former President George H.W. Bush.

Congress slashed $676 million from Bush's request for Reading First and eliminated the Points of Light funding. Bush retaliated by vetoing the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education bill.

The report showed a significant reduction in one of the largest magnets for earmarks, the Defense appropriations bill. The FY08 measure, by the group's reckoning, included 2,074 projects worth $6.6 billion. This compared to 2,822 projects worth $14.9 billion in the FY06 bill.

The group also said Democrats have made strides against earmarks in the Labor-HHS spending bill, which Bush vetoed Tuesday.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Dem Debate in Nevada: Clinton is Back, Actually She Never Went Away
Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report on November 16, 2007 at 5:26 AM.

This post, written by Steve Benen, originally appeared on The Carpetbagger Report

A couple of weeks ago, after a Democratic debate in Philadelphia, the media hype was unmistakable: Hillary Clinton had “stumbled.” She was “off her game.” She “waffled,” got “tripped up,” and “lost her momentum.” By any reasonable measure, all of this was wildly overstated — it might have been Clinton’s least impressive debate performance, but she wasn’t that bad. News outlets just needed something to talk about, and the “Clinton’s-post-debate-trouble” narrative was easy.

Similarly, those same outlets are reporting on last night’s debate from Nevada with a new narrative: “Clinton is back!” Actually, she never really went away, but apparently that’s not important right now.

To be sure, Clinton had a much better night than in Philadelphia. Two weeks ago, she was on the defensive; last night, she was on the offensive. When Barack Obama and John Edwards would challenge her, she’d return fire.

In just the first few minutes, for example, Obama said, “[W]hat the American people are looking for right now is straight answers to tough questions. And that is not what we’ve seen out of Senator Clinton on a host of issues.” Instead of defending herself, Clinton struck back: “Well, I hear what Senator Obama is saying, and he talks a lot about stepping up and taking responsibility and taking strong positions. But when it came time to step up and decide whether or not he would support universal health care coverage, he chose not to do that. His plan would leave 15 million Americans out.”

Obama, of course, insisted that wasn’t true, but the result was a substantive back-and-forth on healthcare policy. It was as if CNN organized a debate, and by accident, a debate broke out.

Soon after, Edwards took a few shots, and Clinton again returned fire: “You know, Senator Edwards raised health care again. When Senator Edwards ran in 2004, he wasn’t for universal health care. I’m glad he is now. But for him to be throwing this mud and making these charges, I think, really detracts from what we’re trying to do here tonight.”

What makes this interesting, I suppose, is that it was different. Clinton was no longer trying to stay above the fray; she was mixing it up. The media, apparently, was impressed.

But there was a limit on the audience’s tolerance for intra-party criticism. Last night we heard something unusual: booing.

This, for example, was a striking moment:

EDWARDS: Senator Clinton defends the system, takes money from lobbyists, does all those things. And my point is simply that people have — (chorus of boos) — no, wait a minute. Voters have those choices. Voters have those choices. They deserve to know that they have those choices and that there are, in fact, differences between us. But I think every one of us should be held to the same standard.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Feinstein Buckles to Grassroots Pressure, FISA Bill Passes Without Telecom Immunity
Posted by Howie Klein, Down With Tyranny! on November 16, 2007 at 5:15 AM.

This post, written by Howie Klein, originally appeared on Down With Tyranny!

Earlier this evening the House passed by a vote of 227-189 a bill that would strengthen court oversight of government surveillanceand refused the Bush Regime's and their Republican rubber stamp allies' demands that law breakers inside the big telecom corporations be granted retroactive immunity for criminal behavior. Bush, of course, has vowed to veto the bill. He may not have to.

Obstructionists in the Senate are determined to kill the bill in the Senate. Today they suffered a mini-setback when Dianne Feinstein, Bush's main Democratic ally on the Senate Judiciary Committee, grudgingly voted for a bill that doesn't allow for retroactive immunity. Corporate hacks like Mitch McConnell (R-KY) went bonkers and are promising to filibuster it. Just so you don't get the idea that Feinstein has seen the light, just before she voted to allow the bill without the retroactive immunity go to the ful Senate, she had voted against Russ Feingold's amendment to specifically kill retroactive immunity.

Just minutes before the vote, the committee had voted 11-to-8 in favor of immunity for the phone companies.

Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Cal., and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., voted with the nine Republicans on the panel in favor of preserving the immunity clause.

But in a strange twist that left many wondering what had happened, just minutes after this vote, Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, called for a separate vote to approve the bill without the section of the legislation with the immunity provisions.

The committee approved Leahy's call 10-9, along party lines.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Lou Dobbs Seriously Considering Running for President
Posted by Melissa McEwan, Shakesville on November 16, 2007 at 5:00 AM.

This post, written by Melissa McEwan, originally appeared on Shakesville

(click for larger version)

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Delta kicks woman off plane for breastfeeding
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 16, 2006 at 12:00 PM.

According to TikvahGirl (aka: Amie Newman, aka: my sister), a young mother was breastfeeding her child on a Delta plane before take off, when...

A flight attendant asked her to "cover up" and offered her a blanket - which the mother declined. The flight attendant, apparently up-in-arms over this blasphemy, called to a Delta ticket agent to remove the family (!) from the plane. The young mother, feeling extremely embarrassed at that moment, complied.

I'm thinking that instead of legislating what women can and cannot do with their own bodies in this country, we should propose a law that partition's women's bodies into sections much like what we seem to be doing with Iraqi land.

Therefore, we can enact one law that lords over a woman's uterus related to all things reproductive: pregnancy, abortion, childbirth. A woman' s uterus may be used to grow and house the pre-born but may not be emptied of its contents via an abortion.

We can then legislate women's breasts allowing for the bearing of boobs on billboards, in strip clubs and in television & print advertising - that is, for purposes solely related to ogling and superficial sexuality.

Public breastfeeding is OUT under those legal tenets. We all know how repulsive breastfeeding is, right?

Jack Abramoff's last email
Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein on November 16, 2006 at 11:35 AM.

Think Progress notes that the AP got ahold of Jack Abramoff's last email before heading off to prison.

In his final missive to friends and family, the disgraced Republican super-lobbyist stressed that it's okay if nobody comes to visit him:

In any event, please know that I certainly understand that visiting me would be a tremendous hardship and I would in no way be offended if people chose to wait until my release before getting together.

Breaking: Police 'Tase' UCLA student apparently without cause [VIDEO]
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 16, 2006 at 11:19 AM.

A report from UCLA's Daily Bruin seems to support what I was initially skeptical of, after watching the harried cell phone video to the right -- that a student was shot repeatedly with a taser by campus police in response to absolutely no threat. Zero.

The scariest part? I can't find any regulation they broke by using this "less lethal" weapon on the student.

The Bruin writes:

At around 11:30 p.m., CSOs asked a male student using a computer in the back of the room to leave when he was unable to produce a BruinCard during a random check. The student did not exit the building immediately.

The CSOs left, returning minutes later, and police officers arrived to escort the student out. By this time the student had begun to walk toward the door with his backpack when an officer approached him and grabbed his arm, at which point the student told the officer to let him go. A second officer then approached the student as well.

The student began to yell "get off me," repeating himself several times.

It was at this point that the officers shot the student with a Taser for the first time, causing him to fall to the floor and cry out in pain. The student also told the officers he had a medical condition.

New Bush appointee: Too much sex causes brain damage
Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein on November 16, 2006 at 9:27 AM.

In his ongoing quest to break the government, George Bush tapped Dr. Eric Keroack to oversee Title X funding--the only federal program devoted entirely to family planning and reproductive health.

Dr. Keroack told an abstinence leadership conference that sex causes brain damage. Seriously.

According to Dr. K's CracKpot Theory, "positive social interaction" causes the brain to release oxytocin, which enables you to fall in love. But be careful--sex with too many people is literally mind-blowing because you use up all your oxytocin. Then you can never really love anyone.

[Feministing]

The result of the GOP torture bill: More allegations of torture at Gitmo
Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein on November 16, 2006 at 9:20 AM.

A former Gitmo detainee reports that he endured systematic torture at the US facility:

Murat Kurnaz, 24, who was released in August because of lack of evidence he was involved in terrorist activities, said he endured ”many types of torture -- from electric shocks to having one’s head submerged in water, (subjection to) hunger and thirst, or being shackled and suspended.”

A burly man with long reddish hair and a thick beard stretching down to his belly, Kurnaz spoke, betraying no emotion, to Turkey’s CNN Turk television from his home in Bremen, northern Germany, in an interview aired here late Monday.

“They tell you “you are from Al Qaed”’ and when you say “no” they give the (electric) current to your feet.... As you keep saying ‘no’ this goes on for two or three hours,” he said, adding he had several times lost consciousness.

He claimed he was once shackled to a ceiling for “four or five days”. [Agence France Presse]

Heart valves grown with stem cells
Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein on November 16, 2006 at 9:06 AM.

DarkSyde spots a fascinating article about heart valves grown from amniotic stem cells.

Swiss researchers have perfected a technique for growing heart valves in the laboratory from stem cells in amniotic fluid (the fluid that surrounds a fetus during gestation).

They hope that it will one day be possible to detect a heart defect in utero, harvest some amniotic stem cells, grow a new heart valve during the pregnancy, and have a perfect tissue-matched valve ready to implant as soon as the baby is born.

Isn't that neat?

[DailyKos]

Police state roundup!
Posted by Joshua Holland on November 16, 2006 at 8:00 AM.

Let's see what we have in the hopper today …

Via the AP, here's our first taste of how the Bushies see the imperial powers vested in them by the Torture Bill, AKA the Military Commissions Act:

Immigrants arrested in the United States may be held indefinitely on suspicion of terrorism and may not challenge their imprisonment in civilian courts, the Bush administration said Monday, opening a new legal front in the fight over the rights of detainees.

In court documents filed with the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., the Justice Department said a new anti-terrorism law being used to hold detainees in Guantanamo Bay also applies to foreigners captured and held in the United States.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Olbermann & Greenwald on leaked Fox Memo [VIDEO]
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 16, 2006 at 7:27 AM.

Outfoxed director Robert Greenwald discusses the recent leaked memo that any journalist would be ashamed to be a part of. No worries, Fox doesn't have many... watch the video.

Missouri Republicans: Abortion causes illegal immigration!
Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein on November 16, 2006 at 7:24 AM.

A Republican-led legislative panel in Missouri laid the blame for the nation's illegal immigration woes on abortion. According to the legislators, we wouldn't need immigrants if every fetus were allowed to become an American worker.

As zuzu notes at Feministe the US is not in fact hurting for workers. It's hurting for decent jobs in industries that currently exploit illegal immigrants.

[Feministe]

Bush and Co. don't deserve impeachment
Posted by Joshua Holland on November 16, 2006 at 7:10 AM.

While I wouldn't oppose chimpeachment if it were to develop organically from a robust investigation into Bushco's activities, I don't support it as a goal. To impeach would be to let this crew off way too easily.

It would be a huge energy-suck with a negligible pay-off. Bush and Cheney might be indicted in the House, but as Tim Dickinson points out on the front-page, there is zero chance that Joe Lieberman and 16 other Republicans would vote a guilty verdict in the Senate.

But let's say they did. The process would drag on for more than a year, and then the only remedy that could come of it would be the Bushies' removal from office a few months before their terms end.

These guys stand accused of incredibly serious crimes, including the most serious crime according to the precedent established at Nuremberg: waging a war of aggression. I can't get behind any process that doesn't offer the possibility of prison or other real sanctions. It's a criminal prosecution for war crimes, implementing a policy of torture and violating the Constitutional rights of tens of thousands of Americans that's worth a hard fight.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Airline passenger arrested for rubber band ball
Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein on November 16, 2006 at 6:55 AM.

A young man was arrested at small airport in Southern California for trying to carry-on a rubber band ball. First security officials suspected it of being a bomb, then they decided that anyone carrying a big rubberband ball must be smuggling drugs and/or on drugs:

The cop then switched tactics and asked, "are you smuggling drugs?" I told him that was "outrageous" and produced my SIDA badge and my airline ID. I asked him if his question was serious. He started asking why I didn't have any checked luggage to which I replied, "Dude, I load bags all day. I know better than to check them." He again accused me of "smuggling something."

This had gone on for about 1/2 an hour and I knew the flight was leaving soon. I repeated, "you can have the rubber band ball. I just need to get home, so I need to get going." The LEO said, "you're not going anywhere." At that point, I knew I was in trouble.

He pulled out his pocket-sized flashlight and said, "take off your sunglasses, I think you're on drugs." I said, "what?!" He replied, "I am ordering you to take off your sunglasses." So I did. He shined the light in my eyes, and said, "Yep, you're on something. Anything you need to tell me?" I was incredulous. I said, "Look! I showed you my SIDA badge, I'm in the random drug test pool, I get tested regularly, I don't use drugs. Now or ever." He said, "I don't believe you. Turn around and put your right hand behind your back." He snapped on handcuffs and said I was under arrest for suspicion of being under the influence of a controlled substance.

CNN host to first-ever Muslim congressman: "Prove to me that you're not working with our enemies." [VIDEO]
Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein on November 16, 2006 at 6:40 AM.

Another good catch from Media Matters:

On the November 14 edition of his CNN Headline News program, Glenn Beck interviewed Rep.-elect Keith Ellison (D-MN), who became the first Muslim ever elected to Congress on November 7, and asked Ellison if he could "have five minutes here where we're just politically incorrect and I play the cards up on the table." After Ellison agreed, Beck said: "I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.' " Beck added: "I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way."

Fundamentalists embrace Quiverfull, reject birth control
Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein on November 16, 2006 at 6:25 AM.

The liberal blogosphere is buzzing over Katheryn Joyce's Arrows For the War, an intimate look at the so-called Quiverfull movement. Quiverfulls are a loosely organized Protestant subculture that rejects family planning in all its forms. Even the rhythm method is considered too interventionist.

Quiverfull wives are expected to welcome as many babies as God sends them.

"Our bodies are meant to be a living sacrifice," write the Hesses. Or, as Mary Pride, in another of the movement's founding texts, The Way Home: Beyond Feminism, Back to Reality, puts it, "My body is not my own." This rebuttal of the feminist health text Our Bodies, Ourselves is deliberate. Quiverfull women are more than mothers. They're domestic warriors in the battle against what they see as forty years of destruction wrought by women's liberation: contraception, women's careers, abortion, divorce, homosexuality and child abuse, in that order. [...] Instead of picketing clinics, Pride writes, Christians should fight abortion by demonstrating that children are an "unqualified blessing" by having as many as God gives them. Only a determination among Christian women to take up their submissive, motherly roles with a "military air" and become "maternal missionaries" will lead the Christian army to victory.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Bush is cracking vol. MCMXVI
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 16, 2005 at 12:59 PM.

Many have speculated on Bush's mental health. Is he a dry drunk, has he returned to drinking (how many adults do you know who have fallen off a bicycle and choked on a pretzel?), is he just plain old cracking up?

It's fun to think about I guess.

What's slightly different this time is the origin of the latest reports. The right wing Moonie-owned Washington Times, a fairly reliable pro-administration paper created during the Reagan presidency as a right wing counter to the Washington Post.

The WT's Insight magazine is reporting, via Terrance, that:

"President Bush feels betrayed by several of his most senior aides and advisors and has severely restricted access to the Oval Office, administration sources say. The president’s reclusiveness in the face of relentless public scrutiny of the U.S.-led war in Iraq and White House leaks regarding CIA operative Valerie Plame has become so extreme that Mr. Bush has also reduced contact with his father, former President George H.W. Bush, administration sources said on the condition of anonymity."

"… The sources said Mr. Bush maintains daily contact with only four people: first lady Laura Bush, his mother, Barbara Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes. The sources also say that Mr. Bush has stopped talking with his father, except on family occasions."

Woodwardgate
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 16, 2005 at 11:43 AM.

Well, it turns out Bob Woodward hasn't lost his secret-keeping touch. After having kept the identity of Deep Throat a secret for so long, it was a cinch to keep his involvement in Leakgate a secret -- even as he commented on it in public.

Josh Marshall writes: "From the Post account it appears that Woodward was told of Valerie Plame's identity before any other journalist by an as-yet-unnamed senior administration official who is not Karl Rove or Scooter Libby."

Yet he kept it secret from his editors and traipsed around as a critic of the investigation. Shameful. He only told his editors when he received a subpoena himself. Woodward's statement is [HERE]. (TPM)

--> Sign up for Peek in your inbox... every morning! (Go here and check Peek box).

Why women can't do combat
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 16, 2005 at 10:37 AM.

The Happy Feminist zips through argument after argument as to why women shouldn't enter combat.

Eyes may roll (and please, by all means roll them into the comments...) and questions may come as to why a woman would spend precious time and energy arguing themselves into war. Fact is, if you look at the arguments they look just like arguments against equality in just about every other cultural arena. Or, more precisely, they're thinly-veiled arguments as to why women are just plain inferior.

Some examples:

It's worse when women die or suffer hardship than when men die or suffer hardship. Not true. All human life is equally valuable. My husband's life is worth just as much as mine.

Women might get raped if they are captured during war.

Support the dupes
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 16, 2005 at 10:29 AM.

That sounds pretty fair then. Nobody would make a stink if Air America programmed 85-100% of Armed Forces Radio would they?

"On a straight party-line vote last week, Senate Republicans voted down a bill 54-44 that would have established an ombudsman function to monitor the American Forces Network," writes Bob Geiger.

Tom Harkin, who sponsored the amendment, pointed out that AFR carries our American way of life into foreign nations on the spittle-flecked cries of Rush Limbaugh, Dr. Laura, and James Dobson, while "most offer at least 85 percent conservative programming [and] many offer only the right-wing viewpoint."

"I don't care how you cut it, slice it, dice it, or excuse it, this is unfair. This is censorship. This is propagandizing our troops. They deserve better than that."

Byron Dorgan went even further: "My colleague from Oklahoma [Republican James Inhofe] says 'Well, Rush Limbaugh is balanced by National Public Radio.' How one could actually make that assertion without openly laughing is hard for me to understand."

Ultimately, a version of the amendment passed that essentially required that the Pentagon hire an ombudsman themselves... if they want to. (YellowDogBlog)

--> Sign up for Peek in your inbox... every morning! (Go here and check Peek box).

Don't be fooled
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 16, 2005 at 8:58 AM.

One of the defeatist mindsets of liberals and progressives -- which conservatives love to promote -- is that liberal values are shared only by a minority; that this country is too conservative, or stupid, or blind.

It's not. Don't believe it. Studies show time and again that most Americans, given the choice between Democratic/liberal platforms and Republican/conservative ones (provided what I just wrote has any validity whatsoever anymore...), prefer the former.

And so it is with Alito and Roe. The surfacing of Alito's clear opposition to Roe v. Wade -- that it's not supported by the Constitution -- has been downplayed by conservatives. Some warn that this single issue shouldn't be the focus of opposition to Alito, that it won't fly. Well, that flies in the face of polling.

Noting that Americans believe, 33-29% that Alito won't overturn Roe (with 38% unsure), and that a majority would oppose Alito 53-37%, were they to believe that he would overturn it, Chris Bowers writes: "Never has obfuscation become more important for a Supreme Court nominee. If the country begins to believe in large numbers that Alito would overturn Roe, his nomination is sunk." (MyDD)

--> Sign up for Peek in your inbox... every morning! (Go here and check Peek box).

Illibertarians for Alito
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 16, 2005 at 6:23 AM.

Sure there are libertarians, concedes, umm, Retardo Montalban. But many who self-identify as such, he argues, do so "often, as a means of deception: 'libertarianism' as a figleaf to cover their sincere wingnuttery. Essentially, they are Republicans. Glenn Reynolds [instapundit] is probably the most infamous example."

"True libertarianism," he continues, "is distinct from garden-variety wingnuttery in one important regard: real libertarians give a very healthy shit about civil liberties. This means that they are diehard First and Fourth Amendment advocates, a noble calling for sure. Which, in turn, makes them palatable as a political species; their civil libertarianism somewhat balancing their "principled" rotten qualities -- like, say, unhinged hatred of government social programs which alleviate, with varying degrees of success, the suffering of the poor."

The discussion is in service of understanding the curious support for Sammy Alito in "libertarian" circles. The answer: it's a stretch to be both libertarian and support Alito, whose history is decidedly slanted toward the consolidation of government power over the individual -- except when it comes to the free market.

So what's an analyst to do? Coin a term! Propertarians is the latest, to describe those whose preoccupation is not liberty so much as it is the right to make money unfettered by any government oversight.

"So it doesn't really matter if people like Glenn Reynolds dishonestly use the 'I'm a libertarian' shield against accusations of flaming wingnuttery. The 'real' libertarians are virtually identitical to him. I have no doubt if they were considering a judge who unambiguously authorised death squads and insisted that abortion was thoroughly unconstitutional but also argued that that the commerce clause was a tool of constitution-shredding socialist devils, they'd argue for the judge's swift confirmation. They are all about property, and nothing else."

Chemical Weapons in Falluja
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 16, 2005 at 6:09 AM.

Although they claim that White Phosphorous isn't technically a chemical weapon, considering the effects, it'd be difficult to make the case to any rational human being that the designation then has any meaning:

"The burns usually are multiple, deep, and variable in size. The solid in the eye produces severe injury. The particles continue to burn unless deprived of atmospheric oxygen ... If service members are hit by pieces of white phosphorus, it could burn right down to the bone." As it oxidises, it produces smoke composed of phosphorus pentoxide. According to the standard US industrial safety sheet, the smoke "releases heat on contact with moisture and will burn mucous surfaces. ... Contact ... can cause severe eye burns and permanent damage."

Gutsy Iraq vote
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 16, 2005 at 5:32 AM.

In a gutsy, finger-in-the-wind vote, the Senate resolved that 2006 "should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty." WIIIAI comments "Wow, a period of significant transition, that’s so meaningful. Not just transition, but significant transition, a period of it, in fact a full entire year of significant transitiony goodness."

Don't get me wrong, it's a good sign that the Senate even feels that it should even focus on getting out of Iraq, but you can't help but feel just a bit cynical about such milquetoasty efforts at this stage of the tragedy. But really, I've always contended that looking at politicians as if they're humans (and not totems for networks of interest groups) is the key to misunderstanding -- and thus failing at -- politics.

WIIIAI continues: "19 Senators voted against that, by the way. Evidently it wasn’t vague enough for them. Although it was vague enough that everybody could, and did, claim that their position had prevailed."

"That was after rejecting an attempt to request (three or four years late, some might say) that Bush come up with a plan for getting the US military out of Iraq at some point in the future. What, “as Iraqis stand up, we’ll stand down” isn’t enough of a plan for you people?" (WIIIAI)

--> Sign up for Peek in your inbox... every morning! (Go here and check Peek box).