PEEK

Buzz, perspectives, insight and news from AlterNet

House of Representatives Passes Health-Care Reform Bill in Historic Vote
Posted by Adele Stan, AlterNet on November 7, 2009 at 8:32 PM.

In an historic vote in the U.S. House of Representatives, a health-care reform bill containing a public health-insurance plan passed the chamber by a vote of 220-215. One Republican, Joseph Cao of Louisiana, voted with the Democrats, while 39 Democrats, including Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich, voted against H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act.

Both of the Democrats who won special elections last week, Bill Owens of New York's 23rd district, and John Garamendi of California's 10th voted for the bill.

As the time allotted for voting drew to a close, Democrats, shouting in unison, counted down the final seconds like it was New Year's Eve. Speaker Nancy Pelosi smiled broadly as she pounded the gavel and announced the result.

At a meeting with reporters following the bill's passage, Pelosi called up Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., son of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, the upper chamber's long-time champion of health-care reform. "My dad was a senator," Kennedy said, "but tonight his spirit was in the House."

Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., also played an historically symbolic role in the vote, gaveling the start of the proceedings.  Like his father before him, who was also a congressman, Dingell has introduced a health-care reform bill every year of his 54-year career in the House, and gaveled to order the 1964 proceedings for the passage of Medicare.

The bill passed in the House includes a public health-insurance plan that is one of a number of plans -- the rest offered by private and non-profit insurers -- that consumers will be able to purchase on an insurance exchange, which has been described as a sort of shopping mall of insurance policies. Lower-income citizens will be eligible for federally-financed subsidies of premiums. All Americans will be required to carry a minimum level of health insurance or face a tax penalty. Individuals earning more than $500,000 annually, and couples who earn more than $1 million per year, will face an additional tax to help finance the health-care plan.

Included in the legislation are protections against exclusion from coverage for pre-existing conditions and a prohibition on rescissions that have seen people suddenly dropped from coverage because they failed to disclose a minor condition such as acne. Women will be protected from elimination of coverage for gender-specific conditions. Young adults will be able to remain on the parents' policies until their 27th birthdays, and several discriminatory practices against LGBT people will be prohibited.

(For more on what's in the bill and likely battles to arise in a conference committee, see 5 Key Fights We Face Against the Insurance Industry by AlterNet's Joshua Holland.)

It was a week of wrangling, arm-twisting and conservaDem-whispering for House leaders as they sought to put together the 218 votes necessary to pass the bill. Originally scheduled for Friday, the vote was put off for a day as House Whip James Clyburn and Pelosi's whip team worked members of the Democratic caucus to bring more on board. President Barack Obama consequently delayed a planned Friday visit to Capitol Hill for a meeting with Democrats about the bill, instead making the trek today in a bid to sway any stragglers.

Much of the slow-down came at the hands of Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., who insisted that the bill was not strong enough in preventing the use of federal funds for abortion procedures, since the bill would permit a woman who bought private health insurance -- with her own money -- through a federally-administered insurance exchange to purchase a policy that covered abortion. With the backing of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Stupak and Joe Pitts, R-Penn., held up the bill, looking for a deal on language that would appease the church. (Both Stupak and Pitts belong to the secretive Capitol Hill religious group known as The Family.)

As of Friday night, Pelosi thought she had worked out a language compromise with the pro- and anti-choice forces, but before daybreak, the deal had fallen apart "because they can't count," Stupak said of Pelosi's negotiators during a press conference after the House vote.

Unable to deliver the compromise she thought she had forged, Pelosi allowed Stupak to bring his concerns to the floor in the form of an amendment, which passed with the votes of 64 Democrats. (More about the amendment from AlterNet here and RH Reality Check here.)

Part of Pelosi's calculus in allowing the Stupak amendment seems to be the unlikelihood that it will survive in the conference committee that will reconcile the House bill with whatever the Senate eventually passes and calls health-care reform. Certainly House Minority Leader John Boehner seemed to think so, as he made a point, during the general debate on the larger health-care bill of asking each of the committee chairmen who together crafted the Affordable Health Care Act whether they would commit to preserving the amendment when the bill is finalized in conference committee.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Anti-Woman Amendment to Health Care Passes House
Posted by Adele Stan on November 7, 2009 at 7:47 PM.

After a spirited debate on the floor of the House of Representatives, the anti-choice amendment to the Democrats' health-care reform bill offered by Representatives Bart Stupak, D-Mich., and Joe Pitts, R-Penn., passed by a vote of 240-194, with one member, Rep. John Shaddegg, R-Ariz., voting "present." Both Stupak and Pitts are members of the secretive Capitol Hill religious group known as The Family.

The House will vote shortly on the Pelosi health-care reform bill, with the amendment attached. House leaders agreed to let Stupak offer the amendment after conservative Democrats balked at voting for a health-care bill that did not pass muster with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, despite the bill's provision barring public funds from being used to pay for abortions. In order to get to the 218 votes required to pass health-care reform, House leaders felt the need to provide cover for Democrats from conservative districts.

 MORE ABOUT THE STUPAK AMENDMENT HERE

House Takes Up-or-Down Vote on Stupak Amendment, Threatening Women's Rights
Posted by RH Reality Check, RH Reality Check on November 7, 2009 at 5:00 PM.

This post is from Jodi Jacobson's blog at RH Reality Check.

House Democratic leaders will allow an up-or-down vote on the Stupak-Pitts amendment, which seeks to block even private insurance plans from funding abortion care.

In other words, this amendment, if passed and included in a final health reform bill, would block you from getting insurance to cover legal procedures in the United States of America, with premiums paid with your personal funds. Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America, the National Women's Law Center and other groups are calling for immediate action against the amendment, and you can click here to find your representative and tell them to vote no on Stupak.

The amendment, named for Representatives Bart Stupak, D-Mich, and Joe Pitts, R-Penn.  Stupak is a so-called "Democrat for Life;" Pitts has been a dogged supporter of failed abstinence-only policies, domestically and internationally, and was among those who succeeded in adding language forbidding the provision of contraceptive supplies for HIV-positive women in US global AIDS funding.

The agreement to vote on the Stupak-Pitts amendment came after 1:00 am this morning when an effort to adopt compromise language crafted by Rep. Brad Ellsworth apparently was rejected by Stupak and his supporters.  We reported on the Ellsworth Amendment here.  Rejection of the Ellsworth Amendment makes clear the agenda of Stupak's amendment is to ban abortion care in private insurance plans, because Ellsworth provided numerous protections against the use of federal funds for abortions other than those for rape, incest, and danger to the life of the mother, for all of which the law now allows federal funding.

The Hill reports that:

Liberals on the committee threatened to vote against the final healthcare bill if it included Stupak's language, warning that it would be a return to the days of back-alley abortions.

"I forsee a return to the dark ages," Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., told The Hill. "I'm 73, I've seen these dark things, they use these coat hangers and die."

"I used to think that life was black or white, but the older I get the most gray it becomes," liberal Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., told the panelists of the House Rules committee as they debated whether to allow the amendment. "I find this amendment very, very uncomfortable."

Having successfully made birth control "too controversial for health reform," Stupak, working with other "Dems for Life," the now unabashedly ultra-right Republican party and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops threatened to block passage of the health reform bill unless he got his way on the vote. His efforts are backed up by a massive organizing effort undertaken by the Catholic Bishops to mobilize ultra-conservative Catholics throughout the country. More than 85 percent of Catholics in the United States use birth control, and Catholic women have abortions at the same rate as women in the general population.

Women's rights advocates, including the speaker of the House and a majority of the Democratic caucus, support a provision in the health-care bill that would subsidize abortions for poor women who can't afford them, in keeping with current law.

"Rep. Stupak’s proposal to codify the Hyde amendment in health-care reform would force women who want comprehensive reproductive health-care coverage to purchase a separate, single-service rider," said Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. In the statement, Richards explains:

Such an "abortion rider," whereby abortion care could only be covered by a single-service plan in the exchange, is discriminatory and illogical. Women do not plan to have unintended pregnancies or medically complicated pregnancies that require ending the pregnancy. In fact, about half of all pregnancies in the U.S. are unintended, and abortion is not something that women plan to insure against. As a result, an "abortion rider" policy is unworkable. Women would not choose to purchase it, and would subsequently be unable to obtain the care they need. Proposing a separate ‘abortion rider’ represents exactly the type of government interference in the health care marketplace that conservatives purport to vehemently oppose.

For these and other reasons, "Planned Parenthood strongly opposes the Stupak-Pitts amendment which would result in women losing health benefits they have today," said Richards in a statement released early this morning. The statement continues:

This amendment would violate the spirit of health care reform, which is meant to guarantee quality, affordable health care coverage for all, by [instead] creating a two-tiered system that would punish women, particularly those with low and modest incomes. Women won't stand for legislation that takes away their current benefits and leaves them worse off after health care reform than they are today.

While Rep. Stupak claims that his amendment simply applies the Hyde amendment to health reform, nothing could be farther from the truth

In fact, "the Stupak-Pitts amendment would result in a new restriction on women's access to abortion coverage in the private health insurance market," continued Richards, "undermining the ability of women to purchase private health plans that covers abortion, even if they pay for most of the premium with their own money."

On Friday, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said passing Stupak's legislation could jeopardize passage of the bill, because abortion-rights supporters were likely to vote against a bill that includes it.

BACKGROUND on STUPAK-PITTS AMENDMENT:

The Stupak-Pitts amendment would:

• Prohibit individuals who receive the affordability tax credits from purchasing a private insurance plan that covers abortion, despite the fact that a majority of health insurance plans currently cover abortion.
• Result in a de facto ban on private insurance companies providing abortion coverage in the health insurance exchange, since the vast majority of participants would receive affordability tax credits.
• Prohibit the public option from providing abortion care, despite the fact that it would be funded through private premium dollars.

The current compromise in the bill, the Capps Amendment, already strikes the right balance between pro-choice and anti-choice interests.

It stipulates that health plans cannot be mandated to cover abortion, but they can choose to.

• If a plan chooses to cover abortion, the compromise stipulates that no federal funds can go towards abortion, consistent with current federal policy.
• It ensures state laws regarding abortion coverage are not pre-empted, so if states want to pass further restrictions on abortion coverage, they can.  This a significant win for anti-choice organizations.
• Protects conscience rights of health care providers and facilities.

The following is a list of editorials in major newspapers that have opposed Stupak-Pitts and similar proposals:

An editorial in USA Today (11/2/09): “[The Stupak amendment] goes too far. It would mark a broad new expansion in the effort to restrict access to abortion. Nearly 90% of private health insurance policies now offer abortion coverage, and almost half of women with private insurance have it. But women covered under the new system would have to find supplemental insurance or pay out of pocket for an unanticipated procedure that can cost from hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars, depending on complexity. For anyone unable to afford it, this would amount to a de facto ban.”

An editorial in the New York Times said (10/1/09):
“Conservative critics of pending reform bills want to prohibit the use of tax subsidies to buy any health insurance policy that covers abortion. Some want to require women to buy an extra insurance “rider” if they want abortion coverage, an unworkable approach given that almost no one expects to need an abortion, few women would buy the rider and, therefore, few insurance companies would even offer it.”

An editorial in the LA Times said (11/6/09):
“The real goal of abortion opponents isn't to maintain the status quo. It's to extend federal prohibitions into private pocketbooks. By restricting coverage offered through the exchange, they hope to make abortion coverage so unattractive that insurers eventually stop offering it in the market for individual and small-group policies.”

An editorial in The St. Petersburg Times said (11/5/09):
"Contrary to the claims of Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., who has been leading the antiabortion effort, the Capps amendment would not expand federal funding for abortion. Instead it would establish some basic principles to reflect the current health insurance landscape in which nearly 90 percent of private plans offer abortion coverage."

Video: Tancredo Storms Off MSNBC Set, "Insulted" by Markos Moulitsas
Posted by Adele Stan, AlterNet on November 7, 2009 at 3:24 PM.

SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEO

In a raucus Friday-night segment on MSNBC's The Ed Show, Markos Moulitsas, founder of the Daily Kos, and former Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo had at each other over Thursday's Capitol Hill rally against President Obama and the Democrats' health-care bill.

After a spirited back-and-forth over the offensive signs -- like the one snapped by Think Progress' Lee Fang that labeled as "National Socialist Heath Care" a photograph of a pile of corpses from the Dachau concentration camp, or the one captured by AlterNet that asked "KEN-YA TRUST OBAMA" -- and rhetoric from the Capitol steps, the topic came of the medical system administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs. After Tancredo characterized the Democratic health care bill as "socialism", guest host David Shuster asked, "What about the V.A.? That's single payer."

Tancredo replied that veterans complain about problems with their V.A. care all the time, and saying that they'd rather have vouchers to use to pay for private health care. Moulitsas began to laugh, and Tancredo said, "Talk to the veterans; they talked to me, and that's what they said."

"Tom, I'm a veteran," Moutitsas replied. "I did not get a deferment because I was too depressed to fight in the war I supported in Vietnam."

Tancredo was an ardent supporter of the Vietnam War, but when his student deferments ran out, he failed his physical, he said, when he told recruiters he had been treated for depression, according to the Denver Post.

"That's a cheap, rotten, stupid thing to say," Tancredo charged. With that, he demanded an apology from Moulitsas, saying he wasn't going sit there and let " you try to insult me that way." When Moultisas refused to apologize, Tancredo pulled out his earpiece and left the set. Guest host David Shuster, who opened the show with a passionate commentary about the rally and, especially, the Dachau sign, invited Tancredo to return to the show.

VIDEO AFTER THE JUMP

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

The Ugly Politics of Mass Killings
Posted by Steve M., No More Mister Nice Blog on November 7, 2009 at 2:13 PM.

FUNNY THING ABOUT RIGHT WINGERS

So far, I haven't heard anyone on the right saying that the authorities shouldn't charge Malik Nidal Hassan with a hate crime because doing so would be a totalitarian, Orwellian criminalization of a thoughtcrime. But surely they'll want to make that point firmly and decisively in the days to come ... right?

****

And I'm confused. Right-wingers (NewsBusters in particular) have told us for years that the "liberal media" doesn't like to acknowledge certain demographic information about certain suspects in horrible crimes ... but right now CNN is prominently highlighting a convenience-store surveillance video showing Hasan in a traditional Middle Eastern robe and skullcap (the story is headlined "Fort Hood Suspect Seemed 'Cool, Calm, Religious'"), while the front pages of Talking Points Memo and the Huffington Post prominently feature stories that claim Nidal shouted "Allahu akbar!" before shooting (a claim made by Fort Hood's commanding officer in an interview on the allegedly arch-liberal NBC). How can this be? Where's the liberal cover-up? And if there's no cover-up, gosh, why isn't NewsBusters heaping these news outlets with praise?

(The same right-wingers, of course, went to great pains to make the case that James von Brunn, the man charged with shooting up the Holocaust Museum, was a liberal. But our side, naturally, is the guilty side.)

Palin Getting Paranoid? Alaska Quit-Bull Bans Laptops, Cell-Phones During Speech
Posted by Staff, AlterNet on November 7, 2009 at 11:05 AM.

CNN:

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is set to deliver remarks at a Wisconsin Right to Life event Friday evening, one of the few speeches the former Republican presidential nominee will have given since she resigned the governorship last summer.

But Palin appears to be doing her best to keep a low profile on this trip: no press will be allowed into the Milwaukee auditorium where she will speak and those who have paid the $30 admittance fee are unable to carry in cell phones, cameras, laptops, or recording devices of any kind.

Wisconsin Democratic Party Chairman Mike Tate told the Wisconsin Radio Network he finds all these restrictions "bizarre."

"You know, for someone who claims to be a rogue and isn't afraid of what other people think it really is sort of hypocritical to not let the media, the press cover your event."

Pat Boone Wants to Rid the White House of "Vermin"
Posted by David Neiwert, Orcinus on November 7, 2009 at 9:32 AM.

Well, we've known for some time that Pat Boone has gone wingnutty, but his latest column for the wingnutty WorldNetDaily is one of the most vile pieces of eliminationist rhetoric to come down the pike in awhile:

In time, it seems to happen to all older houses, no matter how well tended they may be.

All manner of parasites, vermin, roaches, rats, worms and termites find their way into the building. Long before they're detected, they infiltrate the walls, the floors, the roofs – and then chew their way into the structure, the supporting beams and the very foundation of the house itself. Silently, surreptitiously, whole communities of invaders make places for themselves, hidden but thriving, totally unknown by the homeowner.

Then, in time, tell-tale signs are seen. Little droppings, discolored trails, proliferating piles of residue appear in corners, on tabletops, little hanging sacs from ceilings – alarming evidence that the grand old dwelling has been invaded. Decidedly unwelcome creatures have made this place their home, and by their very existence will eventually destroy the house and bring it to ruin.

What can be done, when you learn that your house has already been invaded?

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

If Tea-Baggers Are Such Populists, Why not Vent Fury Over Flu Shots Going to Wall Street While Kids Go Without?
Posted by Jill C., Brilliant at Breakfast on November 7, 2009 at 4:12 AM.

Instead of going to Washington and mindlessly parroting what right-wing talk show hosts tell them, much of which is flat-out wrong, perhaps the teabaggers who marched on Washington would be better served directing their outrage at this:

Today, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) asked Health and Human Service (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to investigate why the Center for Disease Control (CDC) approved the distribution of the H1NI vaccine to Wall Street firms at a time when the vaccine is unavailable to most Americans.

 

Recent news reports indicate 13 companies, including Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and Time Warner, have been cleared to receive the vaccine.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

(VIDEO) More Torture by Taser: Cops Zap Man Offering No Resistance
Posted by Digby, Hullabaloo on November 7, 2009 at 12:00 AM.

Police officers commonly say that tasers are needed to get people under control for their own and everyone else's safety. And they insist they they don't use it as a form of punishment.

A Free Gift From the Folks at MoveOn.org
Posted by Isaac Fitzgerald, AlterNet on November 7, 2008 at 3:00 PM.

A little gift for Obama supporters, or anyone who is interested in having a memento, from the folks over at MoveOn.org. Click here to find out how you can get one of these, for free:



(I wonder if they would have given out a sticker of McCain if he had won ...)

Why Is Everyone Blaming Palin, and Not McCain, for the MCCAIN Campaign's Loss?
Posted by Melissa McEwan, Shakesville on November 7, 2008 at 11:40 AM.

...that in response to the Great Blame-the-Dumb-Slutathon of 2008, there are a good few people who are calling out McCain campaign staffers as hypocrites (see Campbell Brown here, for example), but McCain himself is largely being exempted from criticism.

If what the staffers are now saying about Palin is true (and I'm not convinced it is, but it is certainly being reported that way), it means that the man who ran a campaign under the slogan "Country First" while traveling on the "Straight Talk Express" told the nation with reckless disregard for the potentially disastrous consequences that a patently and dangerously unqualified candidate was prepared to be president in his stead, if necessary.

And if what the staffers are now saying about Palin is not true, it means that the man who told us over and over and over that he is a man of honor and integrity is letting his former running mate be smeared in a pathetic bid to save his own tattered reputation.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

50-50 Chance of Al Franken Becoming Senator Franken
Posted by Attaturk, Firedoglake on November 7, 2008 at 9:34 AM.

Since the polls closed in the Land of 10,000 lakes (and millions of suffering Viking fans) the distance between Norm Coleman and Al Franken has gone from 725 to 590 to 336 to 236 and the recount has not even started yet. Yet Norm Coleman desires the whole thing to be over calling on Franken to not ask for the votes to be reviewed.


At this rate, Franken may be ahead before the recount starts.

Those results must be certified as official by Nov. 18, he said, so county auditors are "really furiously working right now to make sure everything's completely accurate."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

GOP to Public: 'We're Utterly Lost, Do You Have Suggestions?'
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on November 7, 2008 at 9:23 AM.

Given this week's results, it stands to reason that those in positions of power in the Republican Party are in a tough spot. Worse, they have to figure out a way forward without any real ideas or policy solutions that Americans might like.



So, in an exercise that seems rather sad, the RNC is turning to the rank and file, hoping they might have some ideas on how the party can pull itself out of its ditch. (via the "Rachel Maddow Show" from last night)

Republicans are trying to figure out what went wrong, so they've decided to listen up by inviting supporters to weigh in with their views on the election outcome and where the party should go from here.

Republican National Committee Chairman Robert M. (Mike) Duncan said today the party will be creating a Web site to gather feedback from GOP voters.

"In the coming weeks the RNC will launch a new online initiative called 'Republicans for a Reason," Duncan said at a National Press Club gathering. "It will provide voters a forum to speak their mind; to tell us why they are Republicans; to tell us how we may have let them down this year; and what we can do to restore their confidence in our party."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Campbell Brown Rips McCain Aides for Blaming Palin for McCain Loss: 'You Picked Her'
Posted by Satyam Khanna, Think Progress on November 7, 2008 at 8:48 AM.

Recently, former McCain staffers have been leaking embarrassing information about Gov. Sarah Palin's cluelessness on foreign policy and her unprofessional behavior. Top aide Steve Schmidt wouldn't say whether she was a good VP choice. Yesterday, CNN's Campbell Brown excoriated these aides, noting that they were the ones who vetted Palin and trumpeted her candidacy:

BROWN: To those McCain aides who say she is the reason they lost this election... can I please remind you of one thing: you picked her. You are the ones who supposedly vetted her, and then told the American people she was qualified for the job. You are the ones who after meeting her a couple of times, told us she was ready to be just one heartbeat away from the Presidency. ... If Sarah Palin is the reason some voters chose Barack Obama, that is no one's fault but your own.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Will Obama Bring "Only Technical" Changes to Iraq?
Posted by Raed Jarrar, Raed in the Middle on November 7, 2008 at 8:37 AM.

I didn't find this in the English media, but Arab media (including Al-Jazeera) reported today:

Iraqi Presidency Council said in its first reaction to Barack Obama winning the U.S. presidential election: there is only one U.S. policy in Iraq, and the changes that may occur during Obama's time "would be only technical."

Does Giuliani Agree With Pat Robertson's Views on 9/11?
Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report on November 7, 2007 at 3:00 PM.

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

By some measurements, TV preacher Pat Robertson is perhaps weaker when it comes to terrorism than any prominent American in public life. If he were a liberal, Robertson probably would have been run out of the country by now.

Just since Sept. 11, 2001, Robertson has blamed the terrorist attacks on Americans, and agreed that we "deserved" to be attacked. He's argued that federal judges are more dangerous than "a few bearded-terrorists who fly into buildings," dismissing the seriousness of jihadists that many conservatives threaten the future of Western civilization. Robertson has even gone so far as to openly invite a terrorist attack on the State Department. I know the right likes to carelessly throw around words like "treason" and "traitor," but when it comes to terrorism, it's safe to say Pat Robertson probably isn't on our side.

And yet, Rudy Giuliani couldn't have been more pleased to stand with the crazed televangelist this morning, and accept his endorsement.

Greg Sargent talked with one of Robertson's religious-right cohorts -- who aren't nearly as impressed with the pro-choice, pro-gay serial adulterer -- who raised the right question.

"9/11 is what Rudy's campaign is fundamentally based on," Charmaine Yoest, a vice president at Family Research Council Action, told us. "This does beg the question -- does Rudy agree with Robertson's comments about 9/11?"

Yoest also added that it should be asked whether Rudy agrees with Robertson on a whole host of other issues, such as Robertson's defense of China's one-child policy.

Good questions. Will anyone else ask them?

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Republicans Keep Kucinich's Impeachment Resolution Alive
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on November 7, 2007 at 2:30 PM.

Back in April, Dennis Kucinich announced that he would file articles of impeachment against Dick Cheney.

The story was largely ignored at the time, the leadership wanted nothing to do with it and the resolution was on a fast-track to nowhere.

Until yesterday, that is, when a frustrated Kucinich used a privileged resolution to force a vote on the matter. This was when the 'serious' members of the party -- those who understand that protecting America's ability to wage trumped-up wars unchecked was more important than petty partisanship -- were supposed to step in and join a loyal GOP in tabling the motion.

But something interesting happened along the way. First, there was much more support for the measure among rank-and-file Democratic lawmakers than anyone had expected. What was supposed to attract the dozen or so legislators who make up the infamous "far left" of the party garnered support from 86 Democrats.

But it got stranger still. As the vote to table the motion dragged out, one-by-one Republicans started switching their votes an keeping the resolution alive. According to Raw Story, this was a calculated move to force the issue to a vote, a move that the GOP believed would hurt the Dems. Raw Story quoted Georgia Republican Jack Kingston explaining the maneuver to Roll Call:

"We don't wish to save the Democrats from themselves when their left wing exposes themselves," Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) told Roll Call, noting that Democratic leaders were trying to draw as little attention as possible to the impeachment issue by voting to table the resolution. "When there's an opportunity to show their strong left base, it's important for it to be seen," he added.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Americans Have Become Too Fat for Disneyland Rides
Posted by Bryan Young, Huffington Post on November 7, 2007 at 2:00 PM.

This post, written by Bryan Young, originally appeared on The Huffington Post

I've been to Disneyland quite a few times in my day and I've been on most of the rides more than a few times each. Everyone who's been there more than once has probably been on the ride "It's a Small World" and has afterwards had that silly song stuck in your head for the next decade.

Well, visitors for the next 10 months or so won't be able to have that pleasure. The ride, which has remained virtually unchanged since it's construction in 1964, has been closed for renovation. Not because it needs to be hipper or cooler. It needs a massive overhaul because overweight and obese Americans have killed it. When the ride was originally installed the flume and boats were built to accommodate average-sized Americans and in the intervening 40+ years, the average-sized American has ballooned in weight, causing the boats to bottom out and stop the entire works until Disney employees can help the overweight offenders off the boats and out the emergency exits. The boats and the ride have been in faithful service with no changes until now and America's expanding waistline is the culprit. (It's reported that the drop in Pirates of the Caribbean has the same problem, but it's not as frequent as the Small World stoppages and I could find no evidence of that ride being further revamped any time soon.)

This is just one example of how America is being forced to change under the buckling knees of the Obesity epidemic we find ourselves in the midst of.

Killer at Large is the name of the film we've spent the last year putting together to show you and the rest of America exactly why it is we're getting so darn fat. We've been able to get interviews with experts in every field of this epidemic to illustrate the causes, effects and possible solution to this problem.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Teens Who Sexually Assaulted Girl, Filmed It and Distributed It On DVD, Won't Serve Jail Time
Posted by Ann Bartow, Feminist Law Professors on November 7, 2007 at 1:00 PM.

This post, written by Ann Bartow, originally appeared on Feminist Law Professors

Full story here. One quick excerpt:

A DVD of the attack - which was titled 'C**t the Movie' - was distributed throughout the community, the court heard.

The 16-year-old who filmed the DVD and the two youths - both 17 - who were involved in the sexual assault each received 18-month youth supervision orders and had convictions recorded against them.

A 16-year-old boy was the only youth to avoid a conviction and was placed on a 12-month probation order after the judge found he did not directly engage in the sexual or physical assaults and had good insight into his offending.

The judge said the victim had organised to meet two of the boys at a Werribee train station on the day of the attack and had no idea a group of at least 11 boys was meeting her there.

He said the girl sustained significant emotional and psychological trauma from the incident and this was compounded by the filming and distribution of the DVD.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Bush's Kid Brother Neil Under Investigation for Misusing Federal Funds
Posted by Howie Klein, Down With Tyranny! on November 7, 2007 at 12:00 PM.

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

I'm trying to remember which Bush brother was the bank-robber. It was Neil, wasn't it? Let's see... Google... "Bush" plus "Silverado"... Yes indeed. It took me right to a Washington Post story from 2003 entitled The Relatively Charmed Life Of Neil Bush-- Despite Silverado and Voodoo, Fortune Still Smiles on the President's Brother. Oh, I had forgotten he's also a sleazy pervert.

Ah, it's nice to be Neil Bush.

When you're Neil Bush, rich people from all over the world are eager to invest money in your businesses, even though your businesses have a history of crashing and burning in spectacular fashion.

When you're Neil Bush, you'll be sitting in a hotel room in Thailand or Hong Kong, minding your own business, when suddenly there's a knock at the door. You answer it and a comely woman strolls in and has sex with you.

The inspector general of the Department of Education has said he will examine whether federal money was inappropriately used by three states to buy educational products from a company owned by Neil Bush, the president's brother.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Even Fred Thompson Doubts He'll Be President
Posted by Pam Spaulding, Pam's House Blend on November 7, 2007 at 7:04 AM.

This post, written by Pam Spaulding, originally appeared on Pam's House Blend

Even Fred Thompson doubts he'll be president. Gotta love this one. What will the Freepers say? They hang on every word uttered out of the Law & Order actor's mouth because he's the "real Reagan Republican" and the savior of conservative values. To Fred it's beginning to sound like running for prez is an extended performance he's already wearying of.

Trying to encourage his studio to hurry up so an interview could start, Carl Cameron of Fox News said into his microphone: "The next president of the United States has a schedule to keep." Standing beside him, a deadpan Mr Thompson interjected: "And so do I."

As some Thompson aides looked bemused and others cringed, a taken-aback Mr Cameron, Fox's chief political correspondent, exclaimed: "You can't do that kind of stuff!"

...Having entered the 2008 contest in September, more than six months after all his rivals, Mr Thompson, 65, has kept a light schedule, delivered rambling speeches and shown little fondness for the glad-handing and back-slapping that is the very stuff of US politics.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

GOP Mayoral Candidate In Child Sex Sting Loses Election
Posted by Paddy , Brave New Films on November 7, 2007 at 6:37 AM.

This post, wrottem by Paddy, originally appeared on Cliff Schecter's Brave New Films Blog

Truthfully, it's starting to get mundane. The big news will be when a GOP'r doesn't get caught with his hand in some kids' .......

Fla. mayor facing sex charge loses election

MASCOTTE -- (AP) -- The mayor of this Central Florida city lost a bid for reelection Tuesday, hours after he was released from custody on molestation charges.

Jeff Krull, 66, received 31.64 percent of the votes, compared to the 68.36 percent challenger Feliciano ''Felix'' Ramirez received, according to the Lake County Supervisor of Elections.

(snip)

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Chertoff Defends Crony Subordinate Who Endorsed Racist Halloween Costume
Posted by Amanda Terkel, Think Progress on November 7, 2007 at 6:36 AM.

This post, written by Amanda Terkel, originally appeared on Think Progres

Julie Myers, head of Homeland Security's immigration division, has come under intense criticism for awarding "Most Original Costume" to an employee "who dressed in prison stripes, dreadlocks and dark makeup for a Halloween gathering at the agency." Myers was part of a three-judge panel that awarded the prize.

Today, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff appeared on MSNBC and said that he had put the employee who wore the costume on "administrative leave." He added that he has "zero tolerance" for discriminatory acts. But when it came to Myers, Chertoff refused to condemn her and indicated that she would face no punitive action:

CHERTOFF: First of all, I've directed that the individual who came up with this idea be put on administrative leave and we take some kind of disciplinary action. [...]

We have to make it clear to our own employees and to the public at large that we are totally neutral when we enforce the law and we don't tolerate any ethnic discrimination.

So that's a very strong message I've reinforced. Assistant Secretary Myers apologized for the fact that the incident occurred and has contacted both people inside the department and outside the department to make amends.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Pat Robertson Endorses Rudy Giuliani
Posted by Paddy , Brave New Films on November 7, 2007 at 4:31 AM.

This post, written by Paddy, originally appeared on Cliff Schecter's Brave New Films Blog

Wow. Talk about hypocrites.

Pat Robertson is supposed to be having a press conference at 930a EST to announce his support of Guiliani per MSNBC, not online yet.

This just proves they really don't have any core values and they'll just throw any morals under the bus to make sure they keep power. Rudy Giuliani, pro-choice, pro-gay, thrice married with all sorts of dubious connections the Evangelical choice. Hope the real Christians take this as a wake-up call.

**UPDATE**

Found it at the WaPo-

Pat Robertson To Endorse Giuliani

Pat Robertson, one of the most influential figures in the social conservative movement, will announce his support for Rudy Giuliani's presidential bid this morning in Washington, D.C., according to sources familiar with the decision.

Pat Robertson's endorsement of Rudy Giuliani is a significant blow to Mitt Romney, who has worked hard to court evangelical leaders. Robertson's support was coveted by several of the leading Republican candidates and provides Giuliani with a major boost as the former New York City mayor seeks to convince social conservatives that, despite his positions on abortion and gay rights, he is an acceptable choice as the GOP nominee.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Voters reject gay marriage and abortion restrictions
Posted by Ann Friedman on November 7, 2006 at 11:30 PM.

Both good and bad outcomes on various ballot initiatives.

First off, there's that overturned South Dakota abortion ban. It also looks like both California and Oregan will reject parental notification for abortion. And Missouri, Nevada, Ohio and Montana voted overwhelmingly to raise the minimum wage. Plus, Missouri looks likely to approve stem-cell research.

However, seven states (Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, Wisconsin) banned same-sex marriage. At this writing, Arizona was leaning that way, too. Arizona also made English its official language. And Michigan voted to restrict affirmative action.

UPDATE: Now it looks like Arizona will reject the gay marriage ban. Awesome.

Exclusive video: Dems' react to victory!
Posted by Joshua Holland on November 7, 2006 at 10:36 PM.

Updated: Olbermann: Webb Declares Victory [VIDEO]
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 7, 2006 at 10:34 PM.

Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews miss Democrat Jim Webb's declaration of victory by moments -- one of the three races necessary for Dems to take the Senate -- and banter about the agony candidates experience when they lose by a razor-thin margin, as it appears George Allen has.

Matthews: Any mistake you made could've been decisive. That had you done one thing more... or one thing less, like not said the word "Macaca"...

Olbermann: ... Or said it just once, rather than twice...

UPDATED with clip of Webb declaring victory...

South Dakota votes to preserve women's rights
Posted by Deanna Zandt, Ann Friedman on November 7, 2006 at 8:33 PM.

Deanna:

By a 55-45 margin, South Dakotans struck down the abortion ban that left no exceptions for rape, incest or a woman's health. I'll refer to Jessica at Feministing to echo my more visceral emotions at the moment. Hurray!!

Ann:

I give the anti-choicers only a few days before they start pushing for a ban with rape and incest exceptions... which is, unfortunately, much more likely to be approved.

But for now, let's celebrate the fact that a direct challenge to Roe has been averted. This is good news.

White House so dejected they're ordering Chicken Tenders [VIDEO]
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 7, 2006 at 7:19 PM.

Whose worse: the White House ordering chicken tenders or Brit Hume?

Watch the video...

PA voter trashes electronic voting machine
Posted by Joshua Holland on November 7, 2006 at 6:37 PM.

AP:

A would-be voter in Pennsylvania was arrested Tuesday at a polling place in Allentown after smashing an electronic voting machine with a paperweight, according to poll workers.

Authorities didn't know what caused the outburst.

"He came in here very peaceably and showed his ID, then he got on the machine and just snapped," volunteer Gladys Pezoldt told the Morning Call of Allentown.

Updated, FINAL: Race to replace Mark Foley a nail-biter ...
Posted by Joshua Holland on November 7, 2006 at 6:00 PM.

With three jurisdictions reporting (out of 8), Republican Joe Negron leads Dem Tim Mahoney by less than 1500 votes for the House seat vacated by Mark Foley, who resigned in the masturgate scandal.

Negron's name isn't on the ballot -- all those people are checking "Mark Foley" on whatever voting device they're using.

Results here.

OK, Mahoney's pulled ahead.

Update: Mahoney wins a squeaker, 50.6% to Negron's 49.4%.

US News: Late deciders break for Dems
Posted by Joshua Holland on November 7, 2006 at 5:31 PM.

Here:

More evidence of a big Democratic surge. Fox News's commentator panel led by Brit Hume, which is considered mostly right of center, has reason to be skeptical of this perception of Democratic gains. But the Fox panel, which includes Fred Barnes, Bill Kristol, Mort Kondracke, Juan Williams, and Hume, is now saying the exit polls and their analysis suggest what Barnes calls "a good Democratic night."

The conservative commentators warned viewers to beware of a Democratic bias in exit polls, but they conceded that things look very good for the Dems.

Fifty-seven percent of late deciders, the Fox exit polls show, are breaking for the Democrats, and 39 percent for Republicans. This is a very important harbinger.

Updated: Bellwether races!
Posted by Joshua Holland on November 7, 2006 at 5:24 PM.

Again, grain of salt, not all precincts reporting, etc. But these results, from CNN, are what analysts are looking at to see whether tonight will feature a wave:

In Kentucky's 3rd Congressional District, incumbent Republican Rep. Anne Northup was trailing Democratic challenger John Yarmuth by 3 percentage points, 51 percent to 48 percent with 71 percent of precincts reporting.

In Indiana, the focus was on three races.

With 21 percent of precincts reporting in Indiana's 8th Congressional District, Rep. John Hostettler, the Republican, trailed Democrat challenger Brad Ellsworth 65 percent to 35 percent.

In Indiana's 2nd District, GOP incumbent Rep. Chris Chocola and Democrat Joe Donnelly were splitting the vote 50-50 with 5 percent of precincts reporting.

And in Indiana's 9th District, GOP incumbent Rep. Mike Sodrel was knotted with Democrat Baron Hill at 48 percent.

AP: one third of evangelicals voted for Dems ...
Posted by Joshua Holland on November 7, 2006 at 5:04 PM.

Via Talkingpoints Memo:

Those early exit polls also showed that three in four voters said corruption was very important to their vote, and they tended to vote Democratic. In a sign of a dispirited GOP base, most white evangelicals said corruption was very important to their vote — and almost a third of them turned to the Democrats.

Early exit polls look good for Senate ...
Posted by Joshua Holland on November 7, 2006 at 4:54 PM.

These are almost meaningless, but they're nice to look at:

Via ThinkProgress:

VIRGINIA
D: 52
R: 47

RHODE ISLAND
D: 53
R: 46

PENNSYLVANIA
D: 57
R: 42

OHIO
D: 57
R: 43

NEW JERSEY
D: 52
R: 45

MONTANA
D: 53
R: 46

MISSOURI
D: 50
R: 48

MARYLAND
D: 53
R: 46

TENNESSEE
D: 48
R: 51

ARIZONA
D: 46
R: 50

So much for that rock-solid embargo on the exit polls. And leave it up to ThinkProgress to leavee out the Connecticut Senate race. But if this were to hold, it would be a 51-49 Dem Senate.

CNN exit poll smashes conventional wisdom ...
Posted by Joshua Holland on November 7, 2006 at 4:47 PM.

All of the pre-election polls suggested that the most important issues to voters were Iraq and the economy, with immigration fourth or fifth and terrorism below that.

CNN's exit poll shows the following:

The exit polls showed that 42 percent of voters called corruption an extremely important issue in their choices at the polls, followed by terrorism at 40 percent, the economy at 39 percent and the war in Iraq at 37 percent.

"Is this a one-issue race? It is not," [CNN political analyst Bill] Schneider said.

South Dakota anti-choice campaign broke the law
Posted by Ann Friedman on November 7, 2006 at 4:45 PM.

Campaign finance reports from South Dakota show that the abortion ban campaign has cost a total of around $4 million -- $2.2 million spent by the coathanger club, and $1.8 million spent by pro-choicers.

The abortion-banners have been chirping that most of the money they've used to produce lying ads has come from inside the state. Included in their filing is a report of $750,000 from an anonymous donor via a shell organization in South Dakota. That's right. More than a quarter of the anti-choice funds have come from a single undisclosed source, who made a donation to Promising Future, an organization recently set up by Republican legislator Roger Hunt.

Now Hunt is in some trouble over failing to disclose who funds the shell corporation. Failure to properly file a campaign finance report is a class 2 misdemeanor.

Local progressives are thinking the anonymous donor is Steve Kirby, a wealthy anti-choicer who ran a failed campaign for South Dakota governor. He gave huge amounts of money to the initial push to pass the abortion ban, but his name shows up nowhere on the VoteYesForLife campaign finance filing.

Ms. Magazine reminds us that the campaign has been in trouble over its funding before. Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington (CREW) filed a complaint against lead abortion-banner Leslee Unruh's crisis-pregnancy center and the Abstinence Clearinghouse for using federal dollars to campaign for the abortion ban. The South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families has also filed a complaint against Hunt and the recipients of his anti-choice charity for failure to reveal the donors.

In other South Dakota election day news, subscribers received today's Sioux Falls Argus Leader wrapped in VoteYesForLife campaign materials.

Hello, Speaker Pelosi! Dem House Majority Could Be 30-plus
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 7, 2006 at 4:31 PM.

For the first time since 1994's "Republican revolution" the Democrats have taken control of the House of Representatives. Dozens of competetive races have yet to be decided but, according to NBC, the Democrats may wind up with a 30-seat lead or more.

Nancy Pelosi is likely to become the first female Speaker of the House, replacing embattled Bob Hastert, and it remains to be seen whether a Pelosi-led House will try to impeach the President.

Conyers and other House Democrats have expressed some interest. According to the Washington Post: "[they] have called for impeachment hearings into allegations that Bush misled the nation about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction and that he violated federal law by approving warrantless wiretaps on Americans."

Pelosi has said that she supports investigations but doesn't see impeachment as a goal. Of course, that was before the election when the threat of impeachment would have been a powerful rallying cry for Republicans.

A number of upsets are sprinkled atop the Democratic takeover. Just moments ago, for example, Republican darling Melissa Hart was defeated by Democratic nobody, Jason Altmire, in Pennsylvania. Republicans Anne Northrup, Shelley Sekula-Gibbs (Tom DeLay's replacement), and Connecticut's Chris Shays were all favored to win their races as well.

***

The Democrats needed to "net" 15 seats of the 97 House races and 6 of the 17 Senate races.

As of 11:09pm EST, The House of Representatives is a Democratic body:

1. Kirsten Gillibrand defeated John Sweeney in NY
2. Democrat Ron Klein defeated Clay Shaw in Florida
3. Timothy Mahoney defeated Joe Negron to take Mark Foley's seat
4. Democrat Gabrielle Giffords defeated Randy Graf in Arizona
5. Charles Taylor defeated by Democrat Heath Shuler in North Carolina
6. Republican Raymond Meier went down to Mike Arcuri in New York
7. Baron Hill defeated Mike Sodrel, Republican of Indiana
8. Christopher Carney leads Donald Sherwood in Pennsylvania
9. Dem Joseph Sestak beat Curt Weldon also in Pennsylvania
10. New Hampshire Dem Paul Hodes beat Charlie Bass
11. Ohio's Zachary Space is way ahead of Republican Joy Padgett
12. Dem Chris Murphy beat Nancy Johnson in Connecticut
13. Democrat Joseph Donnelly beat incumbent Chris "count" Chocola in Indiana
14. Democrat John Yarmuth upset incumbent Anne Northrup in Kentucky
15. Democrat Brad Ellsworth is the projected winner in Indiana's 8th District, sending the number to 14

Voting Troubles of the rich and famous
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 7, 2006 at 3:20 PM.

If celebrities and politicians are having trouble at the polls, think of what it's like for Tom, Dick and Sari... Regarding the voter ID issue responsible for most of the below problems, it's the fruit of a Republican effort to make voter fraud a bipartisan issue.

Though at least 11 states passed the laws, a bipartisan report will show that the Republican complaints are without substance... after the election. And despite the fact that some states, like Georgia, struck down the ID laws, posters requesting ID have been spotted (image right).

Here's a running tally:

Chelsea Clinton via CNN:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

UPDATED: GOP says: Dems are winning
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 7, 2006 at 1:24 PM.

From a chart that "GOP insiders are using a cheat sheet," things are looking good for Democrats. Of course, things looked good for Kerry too, so this is meaningless except as a gentle suggestion.

I'm not sure what the quantifiable difference between "most likely gone" and "expect to lose" is, but each one of those categories, according to the National Review, has 8 races each. That's 16 seats with a bluish hue.

But here's my favorite part: all the "open" labels. "Open," often refers to seats vacated in shame and ignominy -- see DeLay and Ney...

Eight in the most likely gone category: PA-7, Weldon, OH-18, Ney open, IN-8, Hostettler, CO-7 Beauprez open, AZ-8, Kolbe open, NY-24, Boehlert open, PA-10, Sherwood, CT-4, Shays.

Eight in the expect to lose most of these unless something changes: TX-22, DeLay open, NC-11, Taylor (chart notes unfavorable trend in this race), IN-9, Sodrel, IN-2, Chocola (chart notes a favorable trend), FL-16, Foley open, OH-15, Pryce, PA-6, Gerlach, NH-2, Bass (unfavorable trend).

Poll worker assaults voter
Posted by Melissa McEwan on November 7, 2006 at 11:02 AM.

Kentucky:

A poll worker at the United Auto Workers hall on Fern Valley Road was arrested after he was accused of assaulting a voter, said Lt. Col. Carl Yates, a spokesman for the Jefferson County Sheriffs' Office.

The worker, whose name has not been released, has been charged with interfering with an election and fourth-degree assault, said Yates, who had not other details.

Paula McCraney, a spokeswoman for the Jefferson County Clerk, said the poll worker was accused of choking and pushing the voter out of the door. Election officials called the police and when an officer arrived, the voter wanted to file charges, McCraney said.

"That about tops off the day," McCraney said.

OLBERMANN: Vote. [VIDEO]
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 7, 2006 at 9:45 AM.

Just the conclusion of Olbermann's latest Special Comment:

Mr. President, there is no other conclusion we can draw as we go to the polls tomorrow.

Sir… you have been making this up as you went along.

This country was founded to prevent anybody from making it up as they went along.

Those vaunted founding fathers of ours have been so quoted-up, that they appear as marble statues: like the chiseled guards of China, or the faces on Mount Rushmore.

But in fact they were practical people and the thing they obviously feared most, was a government of men and not laws.

They provided the checks and balances for a reason.

No one man could run the government the way he saw fit — unless he, at the least, took into consideration what those he governed saw.

A House of Representatives would be the people's eyes.

A Senate would be the corrective force on that House.

An Executive would do the work… and hold the Constitution to his chest like his child.

A Supreme Court would oversee it all.

Checks and balances.

Where did that go, Mr. Bush?

And what price did we pay because we have let it go?

Saddam Hussein will get out of Iraq the same way 2,832 Americans have, and thousands more.

He'll get out faster than we will.

And if nothing changes tomorrow, you, Sir, will be out of the White House long before the rest of us can say… we are out of Iraq.

And whose fault is this?

Not truly yours. You took advantage of those of us who were afraid, and those of us who believed unity and nation took precedence over all else.

But we let you take that advantage.

And so we let you go to war in Iraq. To… oust Saddam. Or find non-existant Weapons. Or avenge 9/11. Or fight terrorists who only got there after we did. Or as cover to change the fabric of our Constitution. Or for lower prices at The Texaco. Or… ?

There are still a few hours left, before the polls open, sir, there are many rationalizations still untried.

And whatever your motives of the moment, we the people have, in true good faith and with the genuine patriotism of self-sacrifice (of which you have shown you know nothing)… we have let you go on…

Making it up.

As you went along.

Un-checked… and un-balanced.

Vote.

Bruising Vets Ad on Fox [VIDEO]
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 7, 2006 at 8:48 AM.

This ad from VoteVets.org has been playing on Fox and CNN. It's just what 16 U.S. intelligence agencies recently concluded, but it feels so radical...

FBI investigating Allen-Webb race
Posted by Melissa McEwan on November 7, 2006 at 7:45 AM.

A dirty race to the end:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is looking into the possibility of voter intimidation in the U.S. Senate race between Sen. George Allen, a Republican, and Democratic challenger James Webb, officials told NBC News.

State officials alerted the Justice Department on Tuesday to several complaints of suspicious phone calls to voters who attempted to misdirect or confuse them about election day, Jean Jensen, Secretary of the Virginia State Board of Elections, told NBC’s David Shuster.

...State Democratic Party counsel Jay Myerson said in a written statement issued by the Webb campaign that he believed Republicans are behind an orchestrated effort to suppress votes for the Democratic challenger.

Republican officials, including the executive director of the Virginia Republican Party, have told NBC that the GOP and Allen campaign are focused on mobilizing voters and have not discouraged anyone from voting.

Voting means voting problems
Posted by Melissa McEwan on November 7, 2006 at 6:48 AM.

Ohio: "Reporting from Summit County, where we use optical scan machines: my husband and I were in line at 6:30 a.m. when the polls opened so we were the 14th & 15th people in our precinct (8-C) to vote. Unfortunately, the optical scanner wouldn't accept any ballots. I hung around until 7:30 a.m. to see if they got it working and when I left it was still down. Of course, it took all 4 of the octogenarians staffing the precinct table to try to 'fix' the problem so the line was backed up out the door & into the parking lot, where voters were treated to a light morning drizzle. Sure hope my vote gets counted. And I hope not too many people had to bail out of the line in order to make it to their jobs on time."

Missouri: "Secretary of State Robin Carnahan raised concerns about potential voter confusion in Tuesday's elections, citing her own experience casting an absentee ballot as an indication that some poll workers may wrongly be asking voters for a photo identification. Carnahan told The Associated Press on Monday that a worker at the St. Louis Election Board asked her three times to show a photo identification when she voted absentee last Friday -- despite a Missouri Supreme Court ruling striking down the photo requirement"

Ohio again: "Similar problems in Hamilton County to those reported in Summit County. Even though my partner changed his registration to our new address and even though he voted in the same precinct last election with no problem, because his driver's license had our old address, the pollworkers forced him to vote a provisional ballot. This precinct is smack dab in the middle of the congressional district where . . . Jean Schmidt should lose to Victoria Wulsin, but turnout will matter. The lines were long, with people standing in the rain, and the pollworkers seemed ill equipped to handle the process. Could be a long day in Ohio again."

Florida: "Just in case you're keeping tabs, I wanted to tell you that my wife tried to vote in our precinct in Tampa and was not on the list. After several tries to find out why, she was told that the voter database was 'cleaned' and there must have been a mistake. I'm trying to find out who 'cleaned' it."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Updated Rankings
Posted by Melissa McEwan on November 7, 2006 at 6:38 AM.

Cook Political Report: Democratic gain of 20-35 seats in the House, 4-6 seats in the Senate and 6-8 seats in the governor's races.

Evans-Novak Political Report: Democratic gain of 19 seats in the House, two Senate seats and five governorships. "It is a sign of Republicans' sorry state that, at this point, this is actually a very favorable outlook for them."

Rothenberg Political Report: Democratic gain of 30-36 seats in the House and 4-7 seats in the Senate.

(Via Political Wire)

Updated: AlterNet Tee-Vee …
Posted by Joshua Holland on November 7, 2006 at 6:32 AM.

Update: You can watch Josh live via the Young Turks.

As part of our Super Action Team … er … Election '06 coverage, I'll be hosting a one-hour web-cast via The Young Turks at 5 pm Eastern time. You can stream audio and video here, and you can call in and tell us what's going on in your neck of the woods or just let me know how deeply I've offended your sensibilities over the years. Call: (323) 866-8201.

But wait! There's more!

It won't just be me gabbing for an hour with random callers (thank God). I'll have guests.

• I'll be discussing how (or whether) a Dem majority will shift the debate on Iraq with one of my favorite members of Congress, Washington's Jim McDermott, The Man Who Was Right About Iraq At Every Turn
• I'll be talking about why Bush's "Rodney Dangerfield" economy probably doesn't deserve much respect with everyone's favorite economist, Dean Baker
• Joe Conason will give us a preview of how the Dem establishment and the right will likely spin a big win by progressive Democrats if it should come to pass
• And we may have a surprise guest (meaning someone who hasn't returned my call yet, but might)

The Times' Adam Nagourney throws GOP a bone...
Posted by Melissa McEwan on November 7, 2006 at 5:48 AM.

Yesterday at Shakespeare's Sister, we were wondering how long it would take before we started hearing that if the Democrats don't achieve a massive victory, it's really a win for Republicans. Well, the voting hasn't even begun in earnest, and enter Adam Nagourney with "For Democrats, Even a Gain May Feel Like a Failure."

In most midterm elections, an out-of-power party picking up, say, 14 seats in the House and five seats in the Senate could call it a pretty good night.

But for Democrats in 2006, that showing would mean coming up one seat shy of taking control of both the Senate and the House. And it would probably be branded a loss -- in the case of the House, a big one.

...Some Democrats worry that those forecasts, accurate or not, may be setting the stage for a demoralizing election night, and one with lasting ramifications, sapping the party's spirit and energy heading into the 2008 presidential election cycle.

"Two years ago, winning 14 seats in the House would have been a pipe dream," said Matt Bennett, a founder of Third Way, a moderate Democratic organization. Now, Mr. Bennett said, failure to win the House, even by one seat, would send Democrats diving under their beds (not to mention what it might do to all the pundits).

"It would be crushing," he said. "It would be extremely difficult."

[Charlie] Cook put it more succinctly. "I think you’d see a Jim Jones situation -- it would be a mass suicide," he said.

FB-I don't know...
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 7, 2005 at 1:04 PM.

One of the many remaining mysteries in the Niger/yellow cake/Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame/Scooter Libby/Iraq War/Cheney etc scandal is who forged the documents claiming that Saddam tried to buy nuclear material -- the claim that helped launch a thousand ships?

As the trail of evidence leads to Italian intelligence and a businessman named Rocco Martino, you'd think that the FBI might take a moment to question the man.

They did not. In fact, they used this Harriet Miers-like reasoning: "Because there was no apparent violation of U.S. law, the bureau couldn't compel him to talk."

I'm not sure whether it's deception at the heart of this lame explanation or whether they're so accustomed to "making people talk" they forgot to just ask (like people gathered outside a bathroom who never just try the knob...) but the fact is, as Josh Marshall points out, Martino spoke to 60 Minutes twice last year. Not exactly a recluse.

Marshall (who spoke with Martino himself) is not subtle:

"The Bureau has stated publicly that they have closed the investigation and that they did so after determining that there were no political motives behind the hoax, only a desire to make money. They made that determination without figuring out who forged them or even talking to the guy at the center of the story. And the reasons they're giving for not talking to him are, frankly, bogus."

"None of that adds up."

"Something's wrong."

Nike's jingoistic ad
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 7, 2005 at 11:02 AM.

A new Nike ad appearing in Sports Illustrated gets all Rockets Red Glare and Bombs Bursting in Air to sell the idea that Americans are gung ho for soccer:

We live in a proud nation of more than 17,000,000 players of this game. We outnumber Holland's total population. We are twice the size of Portugal's population. By sheer numbers alone, we are going to sweep over most of the globe.

So Says This American Game.

Our men's national team ranks in the top ten of the world. Less than 20 short years ago, even microscopic island nations drooled rivers at the opportunity to dribble around us; to make us wish we never gained independence from England. They laughed at us.

...

And no matter how much France looks down on us, or Brazil doubts us, or England mocks us; no matter what the odds, or the situation, or the game, the American people have this uncanny, gloriously stubborn belief that if we want something badly enough we will achieve it. This is the desire that coursed through the veins of our revolutionaries in 1776 and of our hockey team in 1980. Our country finds a way to win.

So Says This American Game.

This is soccer. A game for the flag-waving, tax-paying, apple-pie-eating, Star-Spangled-Banner-singing, red-blooded American.

So Says This American Game.

Rove and PBS
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 7, 2005 at 9:36 AM.

It's not the least surprising, is it? Rove turning up in intimate correspondence with yet another crooked official, that is.

This time it's Ken Tomlinson, the man who slunk out of his position as head of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting last week after a government report revealed that his efforts to bring "balance" to PBS were actually an effort to NOT do so. To make it another right wing bullhorn, in fact.

It gets worse.

Tim Karr writes:

"He’s now under a spotlight at the State Department, related to allegations that he spent federal money for personal needs, improperly used board money and board employees to further his political meddling at the CPB and hired ghost employees or improperly qualified employees. If the accusations are substantiated, they could involve criminal violations..."

"The report is now in the hands of Board Chairwoman Halpern, Vice Chairwoman Gay Hart Gaines -- both substantial money donors to GOP candidates -- and President Harrison -- a former GOP chairwoman. There’s little doubt that such GOP loyalists would seize any opportunity to strike damning evidence from its pages and insulate from legal jeopardy their close allies within the White House."

Cheney, slightly less popular than child abuse
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 7, 2005 at 8:32 AM.

Cheney's approval rating of 19% is, according to Bob Harris, "two points less popular than cheating on your spouse and seven points behind corporal punishment in schools..."

Note to Cheney: If you don't strenuously push for torture and then use the faulty intelligence gained by said torture to fool the American people into sending their children and spouses to die in a war, your ratings might -- might -- improve.

Harris gleefully continues:

"that's down in what can be politely called lunatic territory. As I've been pointing out for years, twenty or thirty percent of Americans believe any insane thing you can imagine.

Dick Cheney is now 18 points behind the number of people who believe alien beings have secretly contacted the U.S. government.

Scottie McClellan, however, can still spin things: Bush only trails the aliens by two points.

Chicken Little = Bush
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 7, 2005 at 6:12 AM.

Spoiler alert: If you plan on seeing Chicken Little and don't want the plot revealed, go to another post!

Michael Berubé is "blown away" by Chicken Little, calling it "a powerful allegory for our times" following in the footsteps of a spate of recent films that: "[deal] with the trauma of a son who isn’t adequately recognized or supported by his accomplished, well-respected father."

After a flukey success, Chicken Little -- along with a cabal of misfits -- begins to hallucinate that the sky is falling. Berubé explains that: "he experiences a complete psychotic break, and begins to believe he has obtained material evidence that the sky is, in fact, falling. The delusion builds until he is fantasizing a full-scale attack on his homeland, involving fearsome weapons of mass destruction..."

The film itself follows the cabal into the fantasy, with others following along, and we never return to reality. I won't give away the "post-postmodern postscript" but it is eerie.

Berubé is pleased by the clarity of vision this allegorical blockbuster provides but after reading Lawrence Wechsler's essay in November's Harper's I'm somewhat less optimistic.

In Valkyries Over Iraq, Wechsler proposes that there is no such thing as an anti-war war film. That, as with an anti-porn film that illustrates its point utilizing pornography, the very depiction itself is titillating and thus, works on some level to promote interest in, and exciting associations with, the subject.

By way of illustration, he notes that in Sam Mendes' Jarhead, marines screen an ironically-meant scene from Apocalypse Now -- an ostensibly antiwar film -- to get pumped for battle.

Sure, Chicken Little presents a slightly different scenario in terms of the contrast of image and intention but i'd gamble that the "take away" for the majority will be less a sense of foreboding than either a respect for the power of the wounded individual to change reality or perhaps just a bland deference to power. (Michael Berubé)

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

GOP's Virginia election strategy
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 7, 2005 at 5:31 AM.

If there's a Virginia Republican reading this, I'd honestly love to hear your take on Kilgore's dirty tricks.

First Virginia voters get something in the mail called the "Official Democrat and Progressive Voter Guide," unfavorably comparing Democratic Gubernatorial candidate Tim Kaine to former Republican Russ Potts on Choice, Gays and Guns, hoping to peel off the votes of progressives disillusioned with the party.

Except the pamphlet was paid for by Jerry Kilgore, the Kaine's Republican opponent.

Now, Virginia voters are receiving automated phone calls ("robocalls") from something called Honest Leadership for Virginia PAC that states: "I’m Tim Kaine and I want you to know where I stand on the issues."

So what's wrong with that? Well, like the above pamphlet, the source is a pro-Kilgore organization. In this case, it's Kilgore's #1 donor, at nearly $3 million.

This may be a good time to revisit the stunning -- but underplayed -- revelation that Kerry had, and has serious doubts, about the legitimacy of the 2004 election [HERE]

(DailyKos / RaisingKaine)

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