PEEK

Buzz, perspectives, insight and news from AlterNet

Catholic Church Threatens to Stop Taking DC's Money if Officials Don't Bow to its Demands on Same-Sex Marriage
Posted by Melissa McEwan, Shakesville on November 12, 2009 at 5:44 PM.

God is love, bitchez:

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn't change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care. 

Under the bill, headed for a D.C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians.

Fearful that they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, church officials said they would have no choice but to abandon their contracts with the city.

"If the city requires this, we can't do it," Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said Wednesday. "The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that's really a problem."

Just so we're all on the same page, the Catholic Church doesn't want to extend partner benefits to same-sex married couples, because they view homosexuality as a sin. The Catholic Church also believes that all of its employees are sinners, by virtue of its doctrine viewing all humans as sinners. But they're not arguing that they shouldn't be compelled to extend benefits to those sinners, nor would they argue that providing healthcare coverage to people whose bad health habits they regard as sinful (gluttony! sloth! lust!) is a tacit endorsement of those sins. It's a special argument reserved especially just for the very special case of gay people and their specialized sin.

Catholic Charities, the church's social services arm, is one of dozens of nonprofit organizations that partner with the District. It serves 68,000 people in the city, including the one-third of Washington's homeless people who go to city-owned shelters managed by the church. City leaders said the church is not the dominant provider of any particular social service, but the church pointed out that it supplements funding for city programs with $10 million from its own coffers.

"All of those services will be adversely impacted if the exemption language remains so narrow," Jane G. Belford, chancellor of the Washington Archdiocese, wrote to the council this week.

Ah, it reminds me of those lovely words spoken by the Savior during his Sermon on the Mount: "And lo I beseech you to fuck over the homeless if the gays get too uppity."

Councilperson David Catania, who sponsored DC's same-sex marriage bill and chairs the Health Committee, sniffed at the church's threat: "They don't represent, in my mind, an indispensable component of our social services infrastructure." Councilperson Mary Cheh was even less generous, saying the church's behavior was "somewhat childish."

News Flash: Latest Right-Wing Conspiracy Theory About Obama Just as Silly as Previous Ones
Posted by Adam Shah, Media Matters for America on November 12, 2009 at 3:57 PM.

A post by RedState.com's Erick Erickson that Rush Limbaugh is hyping falsely claims that a memorandum from the federal Office of Personnel Management (OPM) will "purge the federal government of Republican civil servants" and "forc[e]" former Bush administration political appointees who currently have positions in the federal civil service "out of their jobs."

In fact, the OPM memo does nothing of the sort. It merely beefs up current OPM rules aimed at preventing political appointees from "burrowing in" to the civil service, thereby receiving the job security benefits that civil servants -- but not political appointees -- receive. While the memo states that agencies must seek permission from OPM to hire people as civil servants if they have been political appointees "within the last five years," nothing in the memo creates authority for anyone to fire current federal employees. Therefore, the OPM memo does not "purge" anybody.

Transgender Asylum-Seeker Caught in Immigration Detention Hell
Posted by Staff, RestoreFairness.org on November 12, 2009 at 3:18 PM.

Courage comes in many different forms. For Esmeralda a transgender asylum seeker from Mexico who faced horrific circumstances in immigration detention, it came in the form of seeking justice. Kept in a segregated cell with other transgender detainees, Esmeralda never realized that her experience in detention would match the trauma of discrimination she had faced back home. But her story is also one of hope for change.

Esmeralda: A Transgender Detainee Speaks Out from Breakthrough on Vimeo.

While the Obama administration has pledged to reform the detention system, its promises do not go far enough. Spread over a patchwork of more than 500 county jails, privately run prisons and federal facilities, immigration detention is a $1.8 billion business estimated to hold 442,941 detainees in custody in 2009 alone.

Transferred far away from their homes and families, stories are rife of how detainees are denied visitation, access to lawyers, medical care, and are subject to physical and verbal abuse. Many vulnerable people, including asylum seekers, pregnant women, children, lawful permanent residents and even U.S. citizens are among those detained.

Listen to Esmeralda’s voice of courage and take action now to fix a broken detention system.

Hey, I've Got a "Moral Objection" to Health Insurance Covering Viagra
Posted by Digby, Hullabaloo on November 12, 2009 at 2:00 PM.

I have a moral objection to paying for any kind of erectile dysfunction medicine in the new health reform bill and I think men who want to use it should just pay for it out of pocket. After all, I won't ever need such a pill. And anyway, it's no biggie. Just because most of them can get it under their insurance today doesn't mean they shouldn't have it stripped from their coverage in the future because of my moral objections. (I don't think there's even been a Supreme Court ruling making wood a constitutional right. I might be wrong about that.)

Many of the men who are prescribed this medication are on Medicare, so I think it should be stripped out of that coverage as well.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Right Swoons Over Bush's Widely Publicized "Unpublicized" Visit to Fort Hood
Posted by Steve M., No More Mister Nice Blog on November 12, 2009 at 1:04 PM.

There's some buzz in the right-wing blogosphere in response to this post on a PUMA blog (yes, PUMA blogs are still around) and this one by Jerusalem Post columnist and editor Caroline Glick, both praising George W. Bush for his "unpublicized" trip last week to see wounded Fort Hood soldiers.

An excerpt from Glick's post:

Missing George W. Bush

A couple of days ago I heard the news that George and Laura Bush paid a private visit to the wounded soldiers at Fort Hood. They specifically requested that the base commander not inform the media of their visit. They came. They comforted the wounded soldiers and the Fort Hood community for a couple of hours. And then they left. And they never had their pictures taken saluting the troops or holding their hands.

When I heard the news, I felt this pain that hasn't gone away. It's a pain that I have been feeling fairly often since last November....

When I heard the news, I was struck by the fact that I heard the news. Isn't it odd how fast word of this "private" visit got around -- on Fox News the next morning, and ultimately all over the media? Darn that base commander, or whoever it was, who informed the press of the visit even though Bush specifically requested that it not be publicized!

A cynic, of course, would say that there's an effort in Bushworld to sell him as a guy who not only visits troops but shuns any publicity for those visits -- and what do you know, there was a story publicizing Bush's aversion to publicity in the Bush-friendly Washington Times last December, just about when Bushies were devoting considerable energy to making the case in the media for his "legacy":

EXCLUSIVE: Bush, Cheney comforted troops privately

For much of the past seven years, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have waged a clandestine operation inside the White House. It has involved thousands of military personnel, private presidential letters and meetings that were kept off their public calendars or sometimes left the news media in the dark.

Their mission: to comfort the families of soldiers who died fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and to lift the spirits of those wounded in the service of their country....

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Rep. Steve King Calls Obama Administration the 'Gangster Government.'
Posted by Faiz Shakir, Think Progress on November 12, 2009 at 12:00 PM.

Rep. Steve King (R-IA), one of the right wing’s most shameless hate-mongers, has propagated all sorts of baseless attacks on Obama. For example, he has said Obama will make America a “totalitarian dictatorship,” that Obama was raised by polygamists, and that “radical Islamists” would be “dancing in the streets” if Obama was elected. In an interview with the Washington News Observer, King offered his latest diatribe, calling Obama’s team of advisers the “gangster government”:

Valerie Jarrett is a product of Chicago politics. This is power politics through Rahm Emanuel and Barack Obama, son and daughter of Saul Alinsky, linked up with Mayor Daley, the one that actually hired Michelle Obama and put her into that link, which may have well been the link that put Barack Obama into that machine. The Chicago Machine, we know what it is. Someone called it gangster government. In Chicago, you have gangester government and Valerie Jarrett’s been in the middle of that. She’s been brokering power for a long time.

Watch it:

King’s attack on Valerie Jarrett comes on the heels of Glenn Beck’s repeated screeds against her on his show.

GOP Lawmaker Cao: Obama Administration 'Has Been Tremendous' For New Orleans on Katrina Recovery Effort
Posted by Ben Armbruster on November 12, 2009 at 11:00 AM.

Last month, President Obama visted New Orleans for the first time since taking office and touted his administration’s focus on assisting the area’s still on-going recovery effort four years after Hurricane Katrina. “I’m pleased to report that we’ve made good progress,” he said. “We’ve got a long way to go, but we’ve made progress.”

But conservatives such as Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) criticized Obama’s visit calling it a “drive-through daiquiri summit,” while others “criticized the president for not touring the battered wetlands.”

Yesterday during an interview with Rep. Joseph Cao (R-LA) — the lone Republican to vote for the House health care bill last week — Washington Times radio channeled the GOP criticism. “He didn’t even stick around very long during his trip,” the host said. But Cao defended what the administration has done for the area:

CAO: Well, I just want to set the record straight, that even though the President only visited New Orleans once since his election, it was a brief stay, but this administration has been tremendous for the people of the 2nd district. Secretary Napolitano has been down here three or four times, the secretary of HUD, the secretary of Education, they have been down here numerous times. [...]

So I guess for me, it’s not that important to have the visit of the President, its much more important for me that I have a good working relationship with the administration and have the commitment…from the administration to push all the recovery issues of the 2nd District forward and they have been doing that in the last 9 months.

Listen here:

Paul Rainwater, the executive director of the state-run Louisiana Recovery Authority, agrees with Cao’s approach. “I would say it’s more important to have your cabinet secretaries down here,” he said last month. Indeed, the White House said there were 22 visits by senior administration officials to the area from March to August, 13 of them by cabinet secretaries.

ACORN Suing U.S. Gov Over Defunding Law Pushed by GOP
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on November 12, 2009 at 9:51 AM.

Remember that whole 'separation of powers' dealio? Congress writes the laws, and the courts punish those who break 'em. Neat system; worked OK so far.

If Congress passes a law punishing someone for doing something it thinks wrong, it's usurping the role of the courts, and the Constitution frowns on it! Legislators aren't empowered to punish wrong-doers, both because the "Founders" appreciated the value of a good trial and because they understood that politicians are often motivated by considerations other than the rule of law (shocking, I know!).

So they prohibited the passage of "bills of attainder" -- laws singling out specific groups or individuals for retribution. Which is double-plus good today, when our Congress includes frothing-mad right-wingers shouldering massive grievances and not a few members who are dumb-as-the-proverbial-box-of-rocks.

Speaking of which, you'll recall that the GOP pushed hard back in September to pass a bill that prohibited any federal funding from going to ACORN, the right-wing bogeyman-of-the-day [correction: the bill passed in the House but is still in committee on the senate side). Perhaps sensitive to the Constitutional issue, they wrote the law so broadly that it could apply to just about any contractor, and some suggested at the time that in theory it could, if applied consistently, lead to the entire military-industrial-complex being "defunded." Proponents said it passed Constitutional muster because it applied to everyone.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Obama, Democrats Face Liberal Fundraising Boycott
Posted by Ari Melber, The Nation on November 12, 2009 at 9:31 AM.

Politico's lead story today tracks how both progressive and conservative activists are using intramural fundraising threats to challenge the party establishment.

For Democrats, the fight is about accountability for campaign promises. For Republicans, sophisticated grassroots fundraising is a tool in the ideological squabbles over new congressional candidates and party leaders. The story suggests conservative strategists have led the way:

For months, most of the action was on the Republican side, where conservative activists targeted the National Republican Senatorial Committee for its recruitment of moderate candidates and the National Republican Congressional Committee for its role in supporting a liberal GOP nominee in an upstate New York special election. But now Democratic officials are also feeling the lash, with the [DNC] coming under fire for allegedly not working hard enough on a recent Maine ballot initiative to repeal same-sex marriage and the [DCCC] taking flak for supporting incumbents who voted against the health care bill. In each case, activists have dispensed with the pleasantries and gone straight to the committees' wallets--a move guaranteed to raise alarms at party headquarters.

Actually, liberal online activists have been using donor strikes for a long time, around issues ranging from torture to campaign finance reform to health care. (And since Democratic candidates rely more on low dollar online donations than the G.O.P, these efforts can get more traction on the Left.) What's different now, however, is that the current wave of strikes and rumblings on gay rights might turn into an ad-hoc, financially relevant coalition.

Unlike other donor strikes by a single blog or organization, the "Don't Ask, Don't Give" campaign is swiftly attracting allies and attention in the political media -- including that lead Politicoarticle today. (Obama's top aides pay attention to Politico, even though they claim otherwise, as David Plouffe's new bookrevealed.) Some of the allies are explicitly striking for gay rights, like blogger and pundit Jane Hamsher, The Stranger's Dan Savage and blogger Pam Spaulding, while others are pushing strikes against Democratic Party committees based on broader grievances about Democrats voting against core party priorities, such as health care. Daily Kos blogger Markos Moulitsas recently told his readers to "skip any donations to the DCCC," in retaliation for the House Dems who tried to scuttle health care reform. (See more from my colleague Ari Berman on those "Just Say No Democrats.")

In all the progressive debates about the Obama era, from wonky panels to the Sunday shows to local coffee shops, the atavastic question is how to support The President and push for bolder reform. Fundraising activism is only one tool -- not even viable for most citizens -- but it increasingly looks like a way to amplify policy pressure and get Washington's attention between elections.

With research by Shakthi Jothianandan

Rick Perry 'Hell Bent' on Pleasing Right-Wing Base
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on November 12, 2009 at 8:48 AM.

PERRY 'HELL BENT' ON PLEASING RIGHT-WING BASE.... It's funny to think about now, but Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) used to be a Democrat. In 1988, he even endorsed Al Gore's presidential candidacy. It was just two decades ago.

Now, however, Perry isn't just a right-wing Republican, he's proving to the state party's base just how radical he can be. In the midst of a gubernatorial primary, Perry feels the need to say truly insane things, which this year has included talk of secession and crypto-confederate notions of "nullification" of federal laws.

Yesterday, the governor went even further, going full-on crazy to impress the Tea Party crowd.

Texas GOP Gov. Rick Perry accused President Barack Obama on Wednesday of "punishing" Texas and being "hell-bent" on turning the United States into a socialist country. [...]

Perry ... accused the Obama administration of intentionally dumping illegal immigrants from other western states in Texas, recalling a conversation he had with local officials notifying him that illegal aliens that were caught in Nogales, Arizona were being dropped off by federal authorities in Presidio, Texas.

"Friday a week ago, I got not a phone call from Washington, not a letter from Washington and as a matter of fact, I don't think any member of our congressional delegation was even notified. The first time we were contacted was by the superintendent of the school and the county judge of Presidio County," Perry said.

"They said, 'do you all know what's fixin' to happen?' I said, 'well, no. What's going on?' They said 'the government has just called us and said for us to get ready for an influx of illegal aliens who were captured illegally crossing the border.'"

"It's called the alien transfer-and-exit program," Perry told the crowd, "trucking them from Nogales, past El Paso down to our western border in Presidio."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Pentagon Paying Taliban Who Are Killing US Troops
Posted by Bruce Wilson, Talk To Action on November 12, 2009 at 8:44 AM.

"It is an accepted fact of the military logistics operation in Afghanistan that the US government funds the very forces American troops are fighting." - Aram Roston, The Nation

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

FOX News' Hannity Sort of Apologizes for Falsified Rally Report
Posted by Adele Stan, AlterNet on November 12, 2009 at 6:38 AM.

SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEO

Caught (dare we say it?) red-handed -- by those pinkos at The Daily Show -- falsifying a Hannity show report about last week's Tea Party rally on Capitol Hill, FOX News host Sean Hannity issued a grudging apology last night.

On the November 5 edition of his show, Hannity interviewed Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who had convened a Capitol Hill rally of Tea Party activists to rail against health care and hate on the president that very day. I was there, and would estimate crowd to have been about 5,000. Not bad for a Thursday afternoon.

Not enough for Bachmann and Hannity, apparently. Bachmann claimed that between 20,000 - 45,000 for her three-hours-hate at the Capitol while Hannity showed as evidence footage from the 912 march -- a much larger event that drew about 70,000 -- passing it off as B-roll from the Thursday rally.

Someone on Jon Stewart's staff was watching Hannity that night. Busted! (And in a most delightful way -- see video below the jump).

Last night, Hannity issued a grudging apology. Here's the transcript, via The Brad Blog:

HANNITY: Finally tonight...Although it pains me to say this, Jon Stewart, Comedy Central - he was right.

Now, on his program last night he mentioned that we had played some incorrect video on this program last week while talking about the Republican Health Care rally on Capitol Hill.

He was correct, we screwed up - we aired some video of a rally in September, along with a video from the actual event. It was an inadvertent mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. So Mr. Stewart, you were right… we apologize… and by the way, I want to thank you, and all your writers, for watching.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

No Actual Poll Results in First 8 Paragraphs of AP Poll Analysis
Posted by Jed Lewison, Daily Kos on November 12, 2009 at 4:00 AM.

Why Is Obama Caving to Fox?
Posted by Adam Bink, Open Left on November 12, 2009 at 1:00 AM.

Well, that was quick. Yesterday was the announcement that White House interim Communications Director Anita Dunn, who started this fight with FOX, would be leaving. Today is this:

President Obama will give an interview to Fox News' Major Garrett, Drudge reports.

The interview will take place in China next week and comes just one day after it was reported that Obama Communications Director Anita Dunn the so-called general in the administration's war against Fox News will be stepping down.

[...]

Fox News executive Michael Clemente met recently at the White House with Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, and since then the tensions between the two parties have cooled; senior adviser David Axelrod granted an interview to Garrett last week.

In response, Glenn Beck cackles and calls Anita Dunn a Communist. So, heckuva job, White House! Things have really changed.

I don't have any place to speculate that Dunn was forced out or this is some gesture to FOX or whatever, but it certainly doesn't look good. And how exactly have tensions cooled? Like I wrote back when this first started, this is akin to spanking FOX, sending them to their room, and expecting things to change. They are, and always will be, either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party (and those aren't even mine, those are Dunn's words, speaking for the White House!). They were before Obama came. They will be after Obama leaves. This is a long-term issue, which doesn't justify the White House's "FOX is being mean to us so we spanked them and they'll do better" mindset.

And by the way, what about the rest of us out here? FOX's hosts will continue to smear ACORN, Alan Grayson, Democrats in Congress, SEIU, and on and on and on. Even if the White House argues that FOX will play nice with them from now on, the rest of us still get thrown under the bus.

So I said it before, and I'll say it again. This was a job half-assed.

Faux New York Times Issue Inspires Hope, Declares Iraq War Over
Posted by Justin Krebs, Open Left on November 12, 2008 at 3:42 PM.

This morning, a bunch of people got punked, receiving forwarded articles pronouncing: "Ex-Secretary Apologized for WMD Scare."

Following a day in which Bush expressed regret over "Mission Accomplished" and "Dead or Alive," it seemed plausible that Condi Rice was trying to protect her legacy too.

But when, on my way into the subway, I got handed a paper copy of the New York Times declaring "Iraq War Ends" [dated July 4th, 2009], I knew it was a prank.

A prank ... except that wasn't really tricking anybody (we generally knew the war wasn't over, universal healthcare hadn't yet happened and Bush wasn't standing trial for war crimes).

A satire...except it wasn't really funny.  The reactions on the subway weren't laughter.

It was a parody ... that elicited hope.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Busted: AIG Caught Living High on the Hog with Taxpayers' Money (Again)
Posted by Ben Armbruster, Think Progress on November 12, 2008 at 3:16 PM.

Last month, a House committee discovered that just one week after the federal government bailed out insurance giant AIG, company executives went on $500,000 retreat to a luxury resort. Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) asked in astonishment, "Have you heard of anything more outrageous?"

But yesterday, just as the federal government agreed to increase its bailout package to AIG, ABC News's Brian Ross reported that the company's executives gathered last week at a posh resort in Phoenix for a business conference, complete with "cocktail parties, limousines, and dinner out at a top restaurant." AIG "instructed the hotel to keep its involvement secret, no signs with its name allowed." Watch the report:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Sarah Palin Just Can't Stop Attacking Obama
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on November 12, 2008 at 1:52 PM.

There are plenty of reasons to be glad the presidential election is over, but one of my favorites is that we won't have to hear the same tired smears against Barack Obama. By the time 2012 rolls around, his Republican detractors will be attacking him for developments over the next four years, not talking about flag pins, Britney Spears, spreading the wealth, and Bill Ayers.



But some folks apparently aren't quite ready to move on just yet. Consider this exchange between CNN's Wolf Blitzer and Sarah Palin that will air this afternoon:

BLITZER: [D]uring a campaign, every presidential campaign, things are said, it's tough, as you well know, it gets sometimes pretty fierce out there. And during the campaign, you said this, you said: "This is not a man who sees America as you see it and how I see America." And then you went on to say: "Someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect that he is palling around with terrorists who would target their own country."

PALIN: Well, I still am concerned about that association with Bill Ayers. And if anybody still wants to talk about it, I will, because this is an unrepentant domestic terrorist who had campaigned to blow up, to destroy our Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol. That's an association that still bothers me. And I think it's still fair to talk about it.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Prop 8 Allows Mormons to Tell Other People Their Marriages Are F*&^#$ Up (for a Change)
Posted by Katie Halper, KatieHalper.com on November 12, 2008 at 1:16 PM.

After decades of being persecuted for their nontraditional marriages, Mormons were thrilled to organize their members to support Proposition 8, a California amendment which stripped gays and lesbians of their right to wed, a right which the California Supreme Court had granted. The Church of Latter Day Saints, renounced polygamy in 1890, but they continue to worship a text which exalts it and follow a religion which breads fundamentalism. The Mormons feared that, if not stopped, equal rights would creep into other states. Spokesman Mike Otterson said "If same-gender marriage is approved in California...other states will follow suit." The Church issued a letter, which was read in every congregation, urging members to donate their "means and time" to pass Prop 8. The Yes on 8 campaign estimates that up to 40 percent of its donations come from Mormons. And so, the people who had insisted that marriage is between a man and a woman and a woman and a woman ... would not stand for a marriage between two men or two women.


In the letter grounded their argument in their founding texts, saying "Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and the formation of families is central to the Creator's plan for His children." I wonder why they didn't quote their Prophet Brigham Young, who said "Marriage is a civil contract. You might as well make a law to say how many children a man shall have, as to make a law to say how many wives he shall have. It would be as sensible to make a law to say how many horses or oxen he shall possess, or how many cows his wife shall milk." Perhaps Mormons will next campaign for an oxen-based amendment.


Anti Prop 8 activists are fighting to repeal the Church's tax exempt status, which is a good move because, for Mormons, there is a holy alliance between the IRS and God.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

VideoTheVote Releases Footage of Major Problems on Election Day
Posted by Staff, Video the Vote on November 12, 2008 at 12:59 PM.

Video the Vote has released a series of video reports about the 2008 election. The reports highlight machine breakdowns, registration problems, and other voting issues. While the meltdowns that marred 2000 and 2004 did not occur this year, these reports illustrate that significant changes still need to be made to the electoral process.


Registration problems suggest need for overhaul of registration system Numerous voters were unable to cast ballots because of registration problems, suggesting the need to rethink registration nationwide. Their experience is a sharp contrast to a video from North Dakota, which shows what voting looks like in the only state without registration.



Students face unnecessary obstacles to voting Student voters turned out in record numbers in 2008. But on their way to the polls they faced numerous obstacles: misleading information from election officials, problems registering at college addresses, long lines, and even a deceptive text message telling them to vote on November 5.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Obama's Transition Leader Sketches Out Vision for Assertive Presidency
Posted by Sam Stein, Huffington Post on November 12, 2008 at 12:12 PM.

On Wednesday, major Democratic officials, including the co-chair of Barack Obama's transition team, released a comprehensive outline for the incoming administration that could go a long way in determining aspects of the president-elect's agenda.



John Podesta, who heads Obama's transition effort, and Mark Green, a long-time New York Democrat who advised the Clinton transition in 1992, have completed a 300,000-word project titled, "Change For America: A Progressive Blueprint For the 44th President," that charts out a governing path for the next Democratic president.



Podesta, who recused himself from the work after he was appointed to his current post, offers glimpses of his transition priorities in the book's introductory pages. Writing in some ominous terms about a future Democratic government, he emphasizes that the next president-elect (he penned this before Obama's election) must move aggressively on his agenda "regardless of the environment," or face a revolt from voters.



"[I]f the president and his administration do not take the time upfront to develop a clear and coherent blueprint for action -- and find ways to move this agenda regardless of the environment -- then they will quickly find the windows of opportunity shutting before their eyes and will face increased public frustration and disappointment," he writes.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Obama Wants Lieberman to Stay ... But at What Cost?
Posted by Jane Hamsher, Firedoglake on November 12, 2008 at 11:31 AM.

Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2009.


According to Greg Sargent, Howard Fineman is reporting that Obama has now expressed his clear support not only for Joe Lieberman staying in the caucus, but for retaining his Chairmanship of the Department of Homeland Security Committee.

While it's one thing for Obama to personally forgive Lieberman for the race baiting and other gutter tactics that he engaged in on McCain's behalf during the campaign, it's quite another to let the chairmanship of such an important committee, which Lieberman has used for years to prevent Senatorial investigation into no-bid contracts and contractor abuse within the Department of Homeland Security, to serve as an olive branch.

That's an awfully high price for a lot of reasons.

Since its inception, the Department of Homeland Security has been one of the most corruption-riddled arms of the government, able to hide its affairs from the prying eyes of the public under the guise of "national security."   Here's Richard Clarke from his book Your Government Failed You (p. 212):

As soon as it was obvious that a big new federal department was going to be created, the major Defense Department contractors and systems integrators saw a new opportunity, or perhaps a new prey. The contractors are known as "Beltway bandits," because of their elaborate corporate facilities in the Washington suburbs along the Beltway highway and because of their frequent cost overruns on DOD contracts. Suddenly former government officials working for the big contractors were asking to see me and anyone else they knew at the White House. Their purpose was always the same. They had come to explain that they were now the vice president for homeland security of their company. I asked one such visitor, whom I had known for years, "What the hell do you know about homeland security?" Helaughed and admitted, "Nothing, but neither does anyone else."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

'Center-Right' Is Wrong: Mitt Romney Gives Obama Terrible Advice
Posted by Digby, Hullabaloo on November 12, 2008 at 11:12 AM.

Well, it's been proven. The country is definitely center-right:

In a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Tuesday, 59 percent of those questioned think that Democratic control of both the executive and legislative branches will be good for the country, with 38 percent saying that such one-party control will be bad.

"That much good will from the public opens a window of opportunity for the Democrats," CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said. "But the public expects results and may not listen to excuses for very long if a Democratic Congress and a Democratic White House can't get their act together in time."

The poll also suggests that the public has a positive view of the Democratic Party, with 62 percent having a favorable opinion and 31 percent an unfavorable opinion.

That is not the case for the Republicans, with a majority, 54 percent, having an unfavorable view of the GOP and 38 percent holding a positive view.

"The public has a positive view of the Democratic Party, while the GOP 'brand' is hurting. Overall views of the Democratic Party have gone from 53 percent favorable in October to 62 percent favorable now; the GOP overall has seen a 5-point drop in its favorable rating," Holland said. Video Watch how pessimistic the nation is »

The 62 percent figure is the "the highest opinion of the Democrats in at least 16 years, since before Bill Clinton got elected," said Bill Schneider, a CNN senior political analyst.

"When has the Republican Party image ever been that bad? Answer: when the Republican Congress impeached President Clinton at the end of 1998," Schneider added.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

America is Now 'Post Racial?' Don't Be Ridiculous
Posted by Dom Apollon, ColorLines RaceWire on November 12, 2008 at 10:42 AM.

If you're like me, you justifiably shed tears at the incredible symbolic power unleashed this week when Americans chose Barack Hussein Obama to be our 44th president. Moreover, his victory speech rightfully reminded us after eight years in the Bush wilderness that indeed "our union can be perfected." That there is genuine "hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow," and the progress we can make for our children in the next 100 years of American history.



I must admit, though, by the next day I felt rather daunted by the enormity of that task. So I was relieved to discover through the searingly insightful analysis provided recently by some conservatives that, as far as continued progress in racial justice is concerned, we are finally off the hook.







Yes indeed, with Obama's election, "America has completed its evolution into a racial meritocracy," wrote Phillip Morris of the Cleveland Plains Dealer. Our country, according to Jonathan Kay of the National Post, "has finally become a fundamentally post-racial society," where in fact, Laura Hollis tells us at townhall.com, "racism is dead."



But if you are still mired in white guilt, or are one of those stubborn "race-obsessed" types who doesn't believe that the remaining racial chasms in education, income and wealth, health care, criminal justice enforcement, yackety schmakety blasé blah can't entirely be explained by, well, minority laziness and lack of initiative, don't fret.



I'm developing a handy guide to help you navigate the new world that awaits you at the stroke of noon on January 20, 2009. I'm calling it, "How You Can Learn to Stop Making Excuses, Throw Away All Your Race Cards and Accept That We Are Living in a Post-Racial Society."




It will be a pocket-sized book full of quotes from those who have evolved to a pure state of total colorblindness. These quotes will remind readers of the inexhaustible cure-all that was the 2008 presidential election.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Bush Reportedly Liked Oliver Stone's 'W.'
Posted by Amanda Terkel, Think Progress on November 12, 2008 at 9:41 AM.

The White House has been tight-lipped about its response to Oliver Stone's movie "W." and has generally refused to comment on it. When ABC News offered 25 loyal Bushies the chance to screen the film, all except Scott McClellan declined. But actor Josh Brolin, who portrayed the President in the film, said that Bush actually saw the film and enjoyed it:

"I heard recently that Bush saw the movie and liked it very much," the 40-year-old actor told CNN during a media event last Sunday for the upcoming drama "Milk." Brolin stars as Dan White, who shot and killed openly gay San Francisco city supervisor Harvey Milk (played by Sean Penn) and Mayor George Moscone in 1978. [...]

"Karl Rove slammed the movie, and Bush liked the movie, go figure," Brolin said.

President Palin? That's the Next 'Open Door' She Wants to 'Plow Through'
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on November 12, 2008 at 8:37 AM.

Christopher Orr noted that as recently as Friday, Sarah Palin told reporters that she's ready to get back to the people's business. "[E]very day is a full day here in the governor's office," Palin said. "It's gonna be busy days here just like it was busy days on the trail, being the governor full-time in addition to being a candidate. Now, of course, we get to concentrate just on one of those."



While I don't doubt that Palin is ready to focus her energies on one of the responsibilities, I'm not sure it's the one she was elected to do.



A couple of nights ago, for example, was the first of a two-part interview with Fox News' Greta van Susteren, during which the Alaska governor talked about her clothes, her reported ignorance, her perspective on the political landscape, and her future plans.

Ms. Palin directed most of her media criticism at liberal bloggers, whom she twice called, "those bloggers in their parents' basement just talkin' garbage."

But she had a kind word for President-elect Barack Obama, who she said called her during the campaign to wish her luck.

"He was cool," Ms. Palin said, with almost a giggle. "He said, 'good luck, but not that much luck.'"

On the question of whether Ms. Palin will run in 2012, she answered, "This is what I always do. I'm like, O.K., God, if there is an open door for me somewhere, this is what I always pray, I'm like, don't let me miss the open door. Show me where the open door is. Even if it's cracked up a little bit, maybe I'll plow right on through that and maybe prematurely plow through it, but don't let me miss an open door. And if there is an open door in '12 or four years later, and if it is something that is going to be good for my family, for my state, for my nation, an opportunity for me, then I'll plow through that door."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Traitor Joe: A Few Things Democratic Senators Should Keep in Mind About Lieberman
Posted by Jane Hamsher, Firedoglake on November 12, 2008 at 7:34 AM.

As the members of the Senate contemplate whether or not to retain Lieberman, they should remember he made an ad for Republican Susan Collins and raised money for her in her race against Democratic House member Tom Allen.


Lieberman and Collins were extremely chummy:



Lieberman was raising money for Collins as early as July 2007. He also campaigned for Norm Coleman in his race against Al Franken.



Here's Lieberman on Glen Beck's show, saying he "fears" that "America will not survive" if the Democrats get 60 seats in the Senate (per Think Progress):

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

The GOP Asked People Online How to Rebuild ... The Results are Interesting (and Sometimes Hilarious)
Posted by Steven Reynolds, The All Spin Zone on November 12, 2008 at 6:12 AM.

The GOP gives a party on the internet and asks for suggestions on how to rebuild itself. No screaming Christian conservatives responded. The site was overwhelmed by the Ron Paul wing of the GOP. Well, there's also a Todd Palin fan in the top ten ideas, too. What a funny list, and it shows such incompetence by the GOP planners, too.



Rebuild the Party is a forum where they are seeking ideas on how to rework conservative ideas so as to, well, rebuild what is broken ... the Republican Party. They've finally allowed their folks on the internet to have their say. Republican constituents can also vote on the best ideas out there. So what are they saying, you might ask? Or, rather, what are they voting for in the realm of ideas? Let's see, we've got a top five thing going here, I think. From ideas.rebuildtheparty.com:



10. Step Away From the Drug War with 503 votes.
Evidently the libertarian wing of the Republican Party has spoken. The writer suggests that the Republican Party should be about FREEDOM! I think he's channeling Braveheart or something.



9. Embrace the FairTax as sponsored by Rep John Linder with 516 votes.
This author got the John McCain tax message.

8. Step away from the religious right with 636 votes.
Hey, it's a guy posting on a Republican web site who listens to me, a smart Republican who knows exactly what has ruined the Republican brand, the hate of the social conservatives. I think I'm going to teach him to say Radical Right Wing Conservative Clerics.

7. Enact The Fair Tax HR-25 3 with 775 votes.
These fair tax guys are really the radical fiscal conservatives, the Ron Paul types, don't you think? They want to tax consumption. I'll bet they don't call for taxes on internet porn and plastic sex dolls, though.

6. Small "c" Conservatives with 973 votes.
One more in the top ten deciding he's had it with the religious right. I have to say I don't disagree all that much with small "c" conservatives, as long as their goal is bringing more freedoms and rights to our citizens.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Obama's $12 Million (Lobbyist Free) Transition
Posted by Sam Stein, Huffington Post on November 12, 2008 at 6:02 AM.

At a briefing before well over 100 reporters, John Podesta, the co-chair of Barack Obama's White House transition, announced three priorities for the interim period and laid out just how comprehensive the effort would be.



The transition team will operate off a budget of $12 million ($5.2 million has been appropriated by Congress, the rest will be raised separately through individual donations of under $5,000), employ 450 people and operate out of offices in Washington D.C. and Chicago. Already, Podesta reiterated, the team has granted 100 interim security clearances.



As for the priorities -- they resembled the same major interests Obama announced repeatedly on the campaign trail.



• The team, Podesta said, would be "laying the groundwork in stabilizing the economy and putting Americans back to work."

• They "also will be engaged as is required and necessary in national security issues that remain constant throughout the transition."

• And, of course, there is "the task of building a government."



Podesta called for an accelerated process when it comes to appointing potential cabinet members, saying that past "expedited" efforts by president-elects were not fast enough for this go-around. As such, he called on both parties in Congress, the current administration and relevant agencies to work together to help get a team in order, quickly.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

U.S. Senator Keeps Using Racially Loaded Language
Posted by Ben Armbruster, Think Progress on November 12, 2008 at 5:26 AM.

In last week's election, Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss (R) received more votes than his Democratic challenger Jim Martin but fell 0.2 percent short of the 50-percent-plus needed under Georgia law to win the election. Both candidates are expected to be headed for a runoff election next month.

Last night on Fox News, when asked why he wasn't able to "close the deal" with Georgia voters on election day, Chambliss said that because of Barack Obama, there was a "high percentage of minority vote" and that his campaign wasn't "able to get enough of our folks out" to vote:

COLMES: Why do you think you've been unable...[to] close the deal with the people of Georgia in terms of what happened on Election Day?

CHAMBLISS: Well, listen, we have, for the first time in the history the our state, a 30-day advanced vote period, and let's give the Obama people credit. They did a good job of getting out their vote early.

There was a high percentage of minority vote, and I am tickled to death that as many Georgians as did examined their right to vote. That's what make our election process the envy of the whole free world, but we weren't able to get enough of our folks out on Election Day.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Can Obama Change Government Policy and Convince Us to Change Ourselves?
Posted by Arianna Huffington, Huffington Post on November 12, 2008 at 12:00 AM.

''On or about December 1910," Virginia Woolf wrote, "human character changed.'' We can be much more specific: "On November 4, 2008, just after 11 pm Eastern, America changed" (human character remains rather intransigent).



The change was driven by two things: our country's remarkable capacity for regeneration, and Barack Obama's remarkable ability to tap into the better angels of our nature.



You know something extraordinary is happening when even Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, and Joe Lieberman trip over themselves -- and their hastily discarded invective -- to say nice things about Obama and the "tremendous signal" sent by his election.



Sure, it's easy to see their encomiums as purely tactical attempts not to be on the wrong side of history, but they are more than that. They also demonstrate how certain moments and certain individuals are able to bring the best out in people -- even people who have shown us some of the worst aspects of human character. Because, hard though it may be to accept, the best and the worst reside in each of us, side-by-side.



As Alexander Solzhenitsyn put it: "The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart." And the greatest leaders are those who inspire us to reside on the good side of Solzhenitsyn's line.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

US Building Military Base On Top Iraqi Oil Platform
Posted by Paddy , Brave New Films on November 12, 2007 at 2:00 PM.

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

(click for larger version)

U.S. Digs In to Guard Iraq Oil Exports

Long-Term Presence Planned

KHAWR AL AMAYA OIL TERMINAL, Iraq -- The U.S. Navy is building a military installation atop this petroleum-export platform as the U.S. establishes a more lasting military mission in the oil-rich north Persian Gulf.

The U.S. Navy is quietly building a new military installation atop Khawr Al Amaya, one of two Iraqi export terminals.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

GOP House Speaker: "I'll Sell My Soul to the Devil"
Posted by Howie Klein, Down With Tyranny! on November 12, 2007 at 1:00 PM.

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

Do you think Republican politicians take $100 bills to sell out their constituents' interests? Or do you think that's too crass and exaggerated and the bribery is more subtle? If you tapped on door #1, you'd be the winner-- although not of the $100 bills. According to today's Washington Post they all went to Alaska politicians last year when they were in Juneau setting taxes-- or lack there of-- for the oil industry.

Ted Stevens tries real hard to portray himself as the slightly whacky old uncle who brings home lots of goodies. He does bring home lots of goodies-- and some even make their way down the chain to benefit normal Alaskans. Most however go no further than the homes of his family and closest associates-- and to those, like oil services executive Bill Allen, who have spent untold amounts bribing him and Congressman Don Young over the years. And although Stevens and Young may be the senior crooks in Alaska politics, you would be hard put to find an Alaska Republican politician who wasn't on the take-- and on tape being on the take.

The FBI has some great tapes. And with the Writers Guild strike looking like it may last a long time, we may have to depend on them for entertainment. In fact only the most creative-- in a childish kind of way-- would come up with lines like these Republican legislators. Pete Kott, the former Speaker of Alaska's House of Representatives bragged to Stevens' Veco pal Allen (as Allen was counting out the cash), "I had to cheat, steal, beg, borrow and lie. Exxon's happy. BP's happy. I'll sell my soul to the devil." Yes, we know; that's a basic tenet of the contemporary Republican Party "philosophy" but what the rest of us are worried about is that crooked Republican pols are selling out our children and grandchildren for their self-enrichment. When FBI agents broke into Speaker Kott's home they found tens of thousands of dollars-- in neatly stacked hundred dollar bills. They also have tapes of him complaining he mixed up the viagra and pain killers-- drugs-- that were part of his package of bribes.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Why Are White Supremacists So Attracted to Ron Paul?
Posted by Pam Spaulding, Pam's House Blend on November 12, 2007 at 12:00 PM.

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

This can't be a plus for the upstart GOP candidate.

Stormfront.org, a white supremacy web site, as well as others, such as WhiteWorldNews.com, have actively supported Paul's bid for the presidency, including directing donors to his campaign. Stormfront has also endorsed Paul for president.

"Once in a great while a presidential candidate is presented to us. A candidate who not only speaks to us, but for us...I am supporting Ron Paul in his run for the presidency," the Stormfront endorsement says. The endorsement praises Paul's plans to reduce taxes, close the borders and eliminate trade deals, such as NAFTA.

"Whatever organization you belong to, remember first and foremost that you are a white nationalist," the endorsement continues. "Put your differences with one and other aside and work together. Work together to strive to get someone in the Oval Office who agrees with much of what we want for our future. Look at the man. Look at the issues. Look at our future. Vote for Ron Paul 2008."

...On the Vanguard News Network , convicted bomber and neo-Nazi Todd Vanbiber posted his support for Paul, saying, "I think I'm going to get in touch with the local Paul people and see if I can help. I am serious about this shit."; Vanbiber was convicted and spent 5 years in a Florida prison for planning to bomb over a dozen Orlando locations.

* "Opinion polls show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."

* "We are constantly told it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

* "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males who have been raised and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

How Bad Is Bush's Failure in Pakistan? It's Absolute
Posted by Cliff Schecter, Brave New Films on November 12, 2007 at 11:00 AM.

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

This from The Washington Post:

For nearly four years, under the banner of the "war on terror," Bush has refused to demand access to Khan, the ultranationalist Pakistani scientist who created a vast network that has spread nuclear know-how to North Korea, Iran and Libya. Indeed, Bush has never seriously squeezed Musharraf over Khan, who remains a national hero for bringing Pakistan the Promethean fire it can use to compete with its nuclear-armed nemesis, India. Khan has remained under house arrest in Islamabad since 2004, outside the reach of the CIA and investigators from the International Atomic Energy Agency, who are desperate to unlock the secrets he carries. Bush should be equally adamant about getting to the bottom of Khan's activities.

Bush's sluggishness over Pakistan-based proliferation, even as he has funneled about $10 billion in military and financial aid to Musharraf since Sept. 11, 2001, is even harder to explain when one considers the damage Khan has done to the world's fragile nuclear stability. Khan used stolen technology and black-market sales to help Pakistan obtain its nuclear arsenal, setting the stage for a possible atomic showdown with India. He played a pivotal role in helping Iran start what we increasingly fear is a clandestine nuclear-arms program, allowing Tehran to make significant progress in the shadows before its efforts were uncovered in 2002. He gave key uranium-enrichment technology to North Korea. And if all this weren't enough, he was busily outfitting Libya with a full bomb-making factory when his network was finally shut down in late 2003. Khan has been held incommunicado ever since, leaving the world with new nuclear flashpoints -- and some burning, unanswered questions about his black-market spree.

The most urgent line of inquiry -- particularly given Bush's bellicose statements about the threat posed by Iran's nuclear ambitions -- centers on what exactly Khan provided to the Iranians over 15 years of doing business with them. He could help answer the questions on which war may depend: Is Iran trying to get the bomb? If so, how close is Tehran to obtaining it? Or are the mullahs simply pursuing a civilian nuclear capacity?

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Clinton Campaign Caught Planting Questions at Iowa Town Meetings
Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein, Majikthise on November 12, 2007 at 6:02 AM.

This post, written by Lindsay Beyerstein, originally appeared on Majikthise

Hillary Clinton's campaign admitted Friday to planting a question at a town meeting in Newton, Iowa:

SIOUX CITY, Iowa -- Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton's campaign admitted Friday that it planted a global warming question in Newton, Iowa, Tuesday during a town hall meeting to discuss clean energy.

Clinton campaign spokesman Mo Elliethee admitted that the campaign had planted the question and said it would not happen again.

On this occasion a member of our staff did discuss a possible question about Senator Clinton's energy plan at a forum," Elliethee said. [FOX]

One day after Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign confirmed that a staffer planted a question for the presidential candidate at a recent campaign stop, another person has come forward with a similar story.

Geoff Mitchell, a minister who recently moved to Hamilton, Ill., from Iowa, told ABC News that he was approached this spring by Clinton's Iowa political director Chris Haylor to ask Clinton a question about war funding. [ABC]

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Norman Mailer Brawled With Bush to the Bitter End
Posted by John Nichols, The Nation on November 12, 2007 at 6:00 AM.

This post, written by John Nichols, originally appeared on The Nation

There is much, much to be said of Norman Mailer, Pulitzer Prize-winning author and world-class rabble-rouser who died Saturday at age 84.

But the pugilistic pensman would perhaps be most pleased to have it known that he went down swinging. The chronicler of our politics and protests in the 1960s with two of the era's definitional books--1968's Armies of the Night and Miami and the Siege of Chicago, did not rest on the laurels--and they were legion--earned for exposing the dark undersides of the presidencies of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.

He went after George Bush with a fury, and a precision, that was born of his faith that all politicians--including 1969 New York City mayoral candidate Norman Mailer - had to be viewed skeptically. And, when found to be lacking, had to be dealt with using all tools available to a writer who had pocketed two Pulitzers, a National Book Award, a George Polk Award, a Medal for Distinguished Contribution to American Letters from the National Book Foundation and a global prominence rarely accorded the pushers of pens.

Mailer did not hesitate to suggest that Bush and his compatriots were setting up "a pre-fascistic atmosphere in America" and he saw the war in Iraq as an imperialistic endeavor destined--as all such attempts are--to diminish democracy at home.

"Iraq is the excuse for moving in an imperial direction," Mailer wrote on the eve of the conflict. "War with Iraq, as they originally conceived it, would be a quick, dramatic step that would enable them to control the Near East as a powerful base -- not least because of the oil there, as well as the water supplies from the Tigris and Euphrates rivers--to build a world empire."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Iraq Vets Banned From Veteran's Day Parade
Posted by Steven Reynolds, The All Spin Zone on November 12, 2007 at 5:55 AM.

This post, written by Steven Reynolds, originally appeared on The All Spin Zone

Iraq veterans are banned from marching in Veterans Day Parades. Who the heck do these people think they are supposed to be honoring? If they can't honor Iraq War Veterans, then they need to quit the job of running these parades.

They had a Veterans Day Parade in Long Beach Saturday, and some veterans groups against the War in Iraq applied to join in the parade, presumably to honor their brothers who have died. Alas, politics got in the way. Evidently they no longer allow veterans to participate in Veterans Day Parades unless they are 100% behind the idea of war, no matter the circumstance. From the Press-Telegram:

Iraq veteran Jason Lemieux might not be marching in the 11th annual Long Beach Veterans Day Parade on Saturday. The Marine, who served three tours of duty in Iraq and is now against the war, was hoping to march as a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War, a national organization that calls for immediate withdrawal of troops in Iraq.

The group's application, however, was rejected last month because of its political views, parade coordinators said.

"I wanted to march like the rest of the Iraq veterans," said Lemieux, a 24-year-old Anaheim resident. "I served my country. I'm a veteran of a foreign war. I think I deserve that respect."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Paul Krugman Destroys David Brooks In Debate Over Reagan's Racism
Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report on November 12, 2007 at 5:39 AM.

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

It's rather unusual for high-profile columnists at the same newspaper to engage in a public quarrel, but the NYT's Paul Krugman and David Brooks have been going at it, slyly.

In a recent column about race and politics, Krugman noted the Republican Party's use of the Southern Strategy to pit whites and blacks against one another. It's a point Krugman also emphasized in his brilliant new book, "The Conscience of a Liberal."

Republican politicians, who understand quite well that the G.O.P.'s national success since the 1970s owes everything to the partisan switch of Southern whites, have tacitly acknowledged this reality. Since the days of Gerald Ford, just about every Republican presidential campaign has included some symbolic gesture of approval for good old-fashioned racism.

Thus Ronald Reagan, who began his political career by campaigning against California's Fair Housing Act, started his 1980 campaign with a speech supporting states' rights delivered just outside Philadelphia, Miss., where three civil rights workers were murdered.

Today, I'm going to write about a slur. It's a distortion that's been around for a while, but has spread like a weed over the past few months. It was concocted for partisan reasons: to flatter the prejudices of one side, to demonize the other and to simplify a complicated reality into a political nursery tale.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

NY Times wouldn't know a populist...if one got elected
Posted by Joshua Holland on November 12, 2006 at 6:17 PM.

Robin Toner and Kate Zernike had an almost incomprehensible article on Sunday in the New York Times.

Incoming Democrats Put Populism Before Ideology

Many in the class of 2006, especially those who delivered the new Democratic majorities by winning Republican seats, show little appetite for that kind of ideological crusade. ...[T]hey say they were given a rare opportunity by voters, many of them independents and Republicans, who were tired of the partisanship and gridlock in Washington.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Impeaching Bush [VIDEO]
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 12, 2006 at 4:30 PM.

Four-term congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman, who played a key role in the impeachment of Richard Nixon, isn't surprised that top Democrats aren't leading the way on impeachment.

According to her, after the election of 1972: "Nobody -- no Democrat was pushing for it. And, in fact, as the revelations came out, it still wasn't on the table. It took the American people, after the Saturday Night Massacre [Nixon's firing of the prosecutor investigating him], sending a clear message to the Congress..."

Her point: It didn't come from congress in 1973, it won't come from congress now:

It’s understandable that congressional leaders, members of Congress, will be very reluctant to take this enormous step to protect our Constitution and our democracy. But the American people still -- we have a democracy. You saw what happened at the polls. Members of Congress will get it, if the American people want it.