Gop Senator: McCain Betrayed Republican Principles
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on November 15, 2008 at 10:33 AM.

As Republicans continue to search for answers to explain what happened in this year's elections, South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint (R) stepped up to become the first high-profile Republican official to blame John McCain for his defeat.



That, in and of itself, is not a bad idea, but DeMint's reasoning was all wrong.

"McCain, who is proponent of campaign finance reform that weakened party organizations and basically put George Soros in the driver's seat," DeMint said. "His proposal for amnesty for illegals. His support of global warming, cap-and-trade programs that will put another burden on our economy. And of course, his embrace of the bailout right before the election was probably the nail in our coffin this last election. And he has been an opponent of drilling in ANWR, at a time when energy is so important. It really didn't fit the label, but he was our package."

[...]

"Americans do prefer a traditional conservative government," he said. "They just did not believe Republicans were going to give it to them."

I don't think so. First, what did George Soros have to do with the election? Second, McCain gave up on his own immigration policy long before voters went to the polls. Third, McCain's cap-and-trade proposal didn't include a cap. McCain supported the bailout and opposed ANWR drilling, but so did his Democratic opponent.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Bob Herbert Slams David Brooks' Revisionism of Reagan's Racist Legacy
Posted by Amanda Marcotte, Pandagon on November 15, 2007 at 2:00 PM.

This post, written by Amanda Marcotte, originally appeared on Pandagon

Bob Herbert joins in the spanking of David Brooks for trying to whitewash over Ronald Reagan's racist legacy, particularly his non-subtle signaling of support for the murders of 3 civil rights workers in Neshoba County, Mississippi in 1964. Reagan opened his campaign for President there in 1980 with a lot of loaded language about "states' rights", the rallying cry for the Confederacy to paper over the fact that they were separating in an attempt to escape an impending ban on slavery. "States' rights" then became the battle cry for those who didn't appreciate the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and were casting around for code language to oppose it without making directly racist statements. Sayeth Herbert:

The murders were among the most notorious in American history. They constituted Neshoba County's primary claim to fame when Reagan won the Republican Party's nomination for president in 1980. The case was still a festering sore at that time. Some of the conspirators were still being protected by the local community. And white supremacy was still the order of the day.

That was the atmosphere and that was the place that Reagan chose as the first stop in his general election campaign. The campaign debuted at the Neshoba County Fair in front of a white and, at times, raucous crowd of perhaps 10,000, chanting: "We want Reagan! We want Reagan!"

Reagan was the first presidential candidate ever to appear at the fair, and he knew exactly what he was doing when he told that crowd, "I believe in states' rights."

Emphasis mine. Brooks is playing off the fact that, from our vantage point, those murders happened a long time ago, and don't loom so large. In 1980, however, the murders had only happened 16 years before. The cases were still open. (No action was taken against the murderers until 2005, 41 years after the murders and 25 years after Reagan gave his nod of approval.) To put that into perspective, it would be like Rudy Giuliani kicking off his campaign in Jasper, TX with a speech about how he wants to "clean up" the nation like he cleaned up New York. No one would be under any illusions that barely concealed racist messages were being sent out.

The notion that there's some deep philosophical underpinnings to the "states' rights" argument--that many people actually have a fervent belief that state authority should override federal authority, even (and especially) when it comes to questions of basic human rights--is so transparently false that the only people I've ever seen fiercely defend it where more defending their right to be giant racists without having to defend racism directly. Not that there's no support from a few ideological libertarians who believe their own bullshit for actual state sovereignty on issues not relating to oppressing racial minorities, women, or gays, but it's pretty meager and certainly not the same as the Republican base that licks Reagan's ass. The federal "partial birth abortion" ban is a perfect example--anti-choicers run around bleating about states' rights strictly because they have traditionally thought that the states were more likely to pass abortion bans than the federal government. But the second that wasn't so, the solid commitment to states' rights flew out the window.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Newsweek Caves to Right Wing Pressure, Hires Karl Rove as Election Contributor
Posted by Faiz Shakir, Think Progress on November 15, 2007 at 1:00 PM.

This post, written by Faiz Shakir, originally appeared on Think Progress

Earlier this week, Newsweek announced that it is hiring DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsas as a contributor for the 2008 presidential campaign, offering occasional opinion pieces. Markos said, "Newsweek is 'balancing' me out with someone that should make heads on our side explode."

Now we know who. Newsweek has announced it is hiring Karl Rove to become a Newsweek contributor. From a Newsweek press release:

"Newsweek has a long tradition of asking practitioners and opinion-makers to offer our readers the benefits of their experience in occasional opinion essays," said Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham. "Whether one agrees or disagrees with Karl, there is no arguing that he has been a critical player in the political world with insights and experiences that we think will give our readers something unique."

The right wing has been up in arms, claiming Markos' hire is an example of liberal bias in the media. Last night on Hannity & Colmes, NPR's Juan Williams claimed journalism is being hijacked by angry, offensive individuals making "extreme statements":

All you've got to do is shout, say something on the blog that offends and attacks the other side, and suddenly, you have the credentials, and you're said to be a journalist.

Watch the video to your right.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Gonzales Forced to Beg for Money for His Legal Defense
Posted by GottaLaff , Brave New Films on November 15, 2007 at 12:00 PM.

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

Poor Alberto Gonzales. He's gotten himself into so much hot water that he's felt it necessary to create a trust fund to help pay for his legal expenses. That scamp. Always into mischief.

If he did commit perjury, if he did he improperly tamper with a congressional witness, then he's a gen-u-ine stand out!

The establishment of a legal-defense fund for the nation's former chief law-enforcement officer illustrates the potential peril confronting Gonzales, one of a handful of attorneys general to face potential criminal charges for actions taken in office.

Forget about Paddy's frozen toes and my out-of-work, picketing writer. Gonzo needs your money NOW!

David Leitch, a Gonzales friend and general counsel at Ford Motor, wrote in an e-mail solicitation to potential contributors last month that Gonzales is "innocent of any wrongdoing" but does not have the means to pay for his legal defense after a career spent mostly in public service.

Tsk, tsk! Do you feel his pain? Then GIVE! Show your compassion!

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Saudi Arabia to Punish Survivor of Gang Rape with 200 Lashes and Prison Term
Posted by Melissa McEwan, Shakesville on November 15, 2007 at 11:00 AM.

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

Yes, you read that right. A woman who was raped by six armed men is being punished by our BFF Wahhabists in Saudi Arabia. Huzzah for our awesome ally!

The 19-year-old Shiite woman was originally sentenced to receive 90 lashes for "being in the car of an unrelated male at the time of the rape," but after the woman had the unmitigated temerity of not unquestioningly submitting to being tortured as punishment for "getting herself raped," judges on Saudi Arabia's Higher Judicial Council more than doubled her punishment for "her attempt to aggravate and influence the judiciary through the media."

Her lawyer, human rights activist Abdul Rahman al-Lahem, has been banned by the court from further working on her case, had his law license revoked, and been "summoned by the ministry of justice to appear before a disciplinary committee in December" after he appealed the original verdict--not only because his client was sentenced to receive lashes, but because her Sunni rapists were sentenced to shockingly paltry sentences of one to five years.

On appeal, the court increased their sentences to two to nine years. And they gave the women they raped 110 more lashes and a prison term.

This case is so horrendous, it makes any commentary about victim-blaming superfluous. If you don't get why it's heinous, I don't think anything I could say will convince you.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

McCain Trying To Raise Money Over Hillary "Bitch" Flap
Posted by Cliff Schecter, Brave New Films on November 15, 2007 at 6:54 AM.

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

Here they go again with their made up cries of left-wing media bias. This from an email from McCain's folks:

The CNN Network, affectionately known as the Clinton News Network, has stooped to an all-time low and is gratuitously attacking John McCain for not defending Hillary Clinton enough when a South Carolina voter used the 'B' word to describe her when John McCain stopped into a luncheon yesterday at the Trinity restaurant in Hilton Head, SC.

A voter used a word that I would not have used to describe Senator Hillary Clinton and asked the Senator how he was going to beat her. Senator McCain first responded by saying that he respected Senator Clinton, as he has said repeatedly throughout the campaign. Then, focusing on the question, he pointed to the new Rasmussen national poll showing that he is the only Republican candidate who can beat her in a general election. No other Republican candidate beat Clinton in the poll.

As an independent news agency, CNN owes John McCain an apology because of the outrageous behavior of their network host Rich Sanchez. Liberal bloggers and their friends at CNN went on the attack yesterday and continued their attacks through the night. They said the McCain campaign was over because of the statement of one, lone voter in South Carolina. Well friends, we are on a comeback, we are the only campaign that can defeat Hillary Clinton and CNN knows it. We are not going to let Senator Clinton's friends in the liberal blogosphere and on CNN try to destroy our campaign. Senator McCain is a fighter and he is not going to back down to CNN.

That's right, that damn "liberal" CNN is responsible for this!

You know, the one that has Glenn Beck in primetime. And Nancy Grace. And the channel that let Bob Novak be ubiquitous on the air for years, sometimes hosting as many as four different shows a week. And hired Bill Bennett and J.C. Watts as contributors. Not to mention Bay Buchanan (is she still there, I have no idea to be honest).

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Pat Robertson Faces Fundamentalist Backlash for Endorsing Giuliani
Posted by Pam Spaulding, Pam's House Blend on November 15, 2007 at 5:55 AM.

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

(click for larger version)

Imagine -- Pat Robertson has sold out to GOP standard bearer of the Homosexual Agenda! Who knew?

One California-based family advocate reacted to that announcement, saying he believes the televangelist sold out the pro-family community by endorsing a candidate who has advocated the transsexual, bisexual, and homosexual agenda.

Now another conservative in the Golden State, Wiley Drake, pastor of the First Southern Baptist Church of Buena Park, is criticizing Robertson for endorsing the former mayor of the Big Apple. Drake argues that Christians cannot support a candidate who favors special rights for homosexuals and who is pro-abortion.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Police Shoot Unarmed 18-Year-Old Black Man in Brooklyn Twenty Times
Posted by Gabriel Thompson, RaceWire on November 15, 2007 at 5:54 AM.

This post, written by Gabriel Thompson, originally appeared on RaceWire

On the same day that ColorLines and The Chicago Reporter published a special joint investigation into fatal police shootings across the country, the New York Police Department shot to death an unarmed 18-year-old Black man in a public housing development in Bedford-Stuveysant, Brooklyn.

The mother of the deceased, Khiel Coppin, had called 911 and reported a domestic disturbance, and police reported that on the call they overheard a man saying he had a gun. When the NYPD arrived, Coppin climbed out of a first-floor window and was shot at twenty times by five officers. Thirteen bullets found their target, and after Coppin fell to the ground the police handcuffed him. The only object found on Coppin was a hairbrush, and he was pronounced dead at a local hospital.

An angry crowd immediately protested the shooting outside the development. The New York Times reported that one woman shouted a message to the police: "You need training--this is absurd!" Another outraged man told the cops: "I'm not trying to start a riot. I'm just saying it's not right."

The community's nearly instantaneous transformation from shock to anger can be best explained not just by the shooting of Coppin--details of which are still emerging--but also by the death of another unarmed Black man, Timothy Stansbury, in 2004. The 19-year-old Stansbury was climbing the stairs of the Louis Armstrong Development, three blocks from Coppin's apartment, when he met Officer Richard S. Neri Jr. Officer Neri was conducting a routine patrol of the complex with his gun drawn, loaded, and his finger on the trigger (despite the fact that he wasn't responding to a specific threat). When he met Stansbury he fired a fatal bullet through his chest. Neri was later acquitted by a grand jury, stating that he had been "startled."

Eyewitness accounts raise serious questions about the behavior of the police yesterday. As the Times reports: "Two bystanders who said they had seen the shooting said that Mr. Coppin was not armed, but was carrying a hairbrush when he climbed out the window and that he dropped it when the firing began. The two witnesses also said they both heard one officer yelling for the shooting to stop."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Dems Set To Kill Feinstein Censure Resolution
Posted by Max Follmer, Huffington Post on November 15, 2007 at 5:00 AM.

This post, written by Max Follmer, originally appeared on The Huffington Post

California Sen. Dianne Feinstein and the state's Democratic Party pushed back Wednesday against a proposal by a coalition of progressives to censure the four-term senator for her recent votes siding with the Bush Administration, dismissing the proposal as a distraction put forth by activists who did not speak for the majority of Democrats in the Golden State.

Feinstein's office defended what they called her record of standing up to Bush, citing her role in recent probes into allegations of partisan firing at the Justice Department, as well as her votes against the Supreme Court nominations of Chief Justice John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

"She led the Judiciary Committee investigation into [former Attorney General] Alberto Gonzales and the firing of the U.S Attorneys," said Feinstein spokesman Scott Gerber. "What Sen. Feinstein is going to continue to do is fight for this issues that are important for all Californians."

On Monday, a coalition of progressive Democrats said they would ask the California Democratic Party to censure Feinstein at its executive board meeting this weekend, citing her recent votes in favor of confirming Attorney General Michael Mukasey and controversial appeals court judge Leslie Southwick.

They argued that in backing the Bush Administration's nominees, Feinstein had lost touch with the core principles of her party's base.

State party insiders Wednesday predicted the censure resolution would almost certainly be swiftly defeated when the party gathers in Anaheim, outside Los Angeles.

They said its supporters made up a small minority of Democrats with a big bullhorn, and dismissed the censure as a mere distraction for party members focusing on recapturing the White House in 2008.

"It is going to be thrown out and rejected," said Bob Mulholland, a veteran party strategist in Sacramento. "Sometimes people can't anticipate or can't understand the big picture."

State Democratic Party Chairman Art Torres did not return messages seeking comment. But his spokesman Roger Salazar told the Sacramento Bee, "this party supports our Democratic senator and will continue to do so...Period."

Rick Jacobs, founder of the Courage Campaign, one of the progressive organizations backing the censure resolution, said such statements sent the wrong message to California Democrats.

"I'm concerned that party employees don't want to hear from party members," Jacobs said. "I think such statements send a message that is very simple: that we will make the decisions and you shut up and do as your told."

Democratic Party rules are stacked against any censure resolution, and the reaction of party leaders had been widely anticipated.

Yet the mere existence of a movement to censure a veteran politician who enjoys high approval ratings - 70 percent of Democrats approved of Feinstein's job performance in an October KABC/SurveyUSA poll - indicates the deep anger felt among grassroots activists over her recent statements and votes.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Borat getting sued by Gypsies & frat boys... [VIDEO]
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 15, 2006 at 12:24 PM.

Who isn't suing Borat? That might be a shorter post.

Let's see, first there was the nation of Kazakhstan itself, unwittingly paving the way for Borat to become the most successful comedy in history by threatening a lawsuit in 2005 before throwing cash at a NY Times ad to counter the propaganda.

More recently, the residents of the town used to depict Borat's home are suing as well:

"We want to sue them. They made the world laugh at us," said Marin Marcel, a 34-year-old Roma Gypsy, who along with his neighbors carves out an income by working in local quarries and picking forest fruit. "They taped us without paying us money!"

Whether they're suing for humiliation compensation or just general compensation is unclear. However, they do claim to have received only $5-$7 per day each, which does sound a bit low, even for a depressed economy.

Finally, there's the case of the frisky frat boys: "Do not let a woman EVER, ever, make you who you are!").

Two of the three frat boys, who get drunk with Borat in a trailer and manage to actually give the most unappealing demographic sliver America has to offer an even worse reputation [YouTube vid right], are claiming that, according to TSG: "[the] crew got him and his pals drunk and encouraged them to engage in "behavior that they otherwise would not have engaged in."

The Smoking Gun notes that Justin Seay, one of the two "John Does" ought to have deleted his MySpace page before filing:

On his MySpace page, Seay lists "gettin' drunk and havin' a good time" as one of his interests, along with NASCAR and "pretty much any typical guy stuff."

Be that as it may, the main point here is that whether he gets drunk regularly or not, Seay, and the other boys -- as was the excuse with Mel Gibson's rant -- were somehow saying things, and acting in ways, they wouldn't, given a chance to sober up.

Come on.

Drunk makes you do things you otherwise probably wouldn't -- why else get drunk? -- but it doesn't make you an anti-semite and misogynist. It just outs the behavior you're rather too cowardly to engage in on camera... or in front of a Jewish police officer.

But let's entertain the notion for a moment that frat boys may be too weak to handle their liquor without turning into misogynistic sewer-rats. Is it fair to assume that after a few dry months they'll be ingesting The Feminine Mystique and burning their 40+ mags?

Leaked Fox Memo...
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 15, 2006 at 10:22 AM.

There's simply too much Fox fun to be had these days.

First, the most serious. According to right wing news source, World Net Daily, Palestinian militants were paid $2 million for the release of 2 Fox reporters:

A spokeswoman for Fox News Channel told WND she could not provide an official statement about whether Fox was aware of money paid to free its two employees.

A source at Fox told WND many parties were involved with the freedom of Centanni and Wiig, including the U.S. government, and that it was possible money was paid.

John Aravosis writes:

Excuse me? Someone, on behalf of FOX News, reportedly gave terrorist organizations $2m that the terrorists now say they used to buy weapons to kill Israelis? FOX says "it's possible" money was paid to terrorists? And the Bush administration, they were heavily involved in this effort to free the FOX reporters - were they aware that someone was paying off terrorists? Were they the ones who arranged the payment? This is abominable if true.

The State Dept. claims it didn't do it, so who did?

The money was reportedly distributed to a number of groups associated with armed opposition to Israel, on which, one of the groups claimed, all their booty was spent: "He said the money was used to purchase weapons," and that: "This does encourage people to continue kidnappings."

***

Elsewhere in the Fox world, the Huffington Post has obtained what appears to be an internal Fox memo urging reporters to, among other things, "be on the lookout of a ny statements from the Iraqi insurgents, who must be thrilled at the prospect of a Dem-controlled congress."



Then, according to NewsHound Judy:

During the "Live Desk" show that aired the same day as the memo, MacCallum claimed without providing any details or sources that there were "some reports of cheering in the streets on the behalf of the supporters of the insurgency in Iraq, that they’re very pleased with the way things are going here and also with the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld."

***

Finally, the War on Christmas is getting off to an early start this year, beating the War on Thanksgiving to the punch.

According to Nico, Bill O'Reilly praised Wal-Mart's pandering to the markets in the name of Jesus, for its return to "Merry Christmas," from "Happy Holidays" of yesteryear.

Gawker, however, notes that O'Reilly may have a full-blown Civil War on his hands, as his employers at News Corp have once again scorned the baby Jesus in favor of ecumenism for their "Holiday Party":

Olbermann on Coulter's Anthrax boy [VIDEO in Two Parts]
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 15, 2006 at 8:17 AM.

Olbermann covered the story we featured on PEEK yesterday concerning the right wing ties of the faux anthrax mailer. Briefly, Chad "Katherine Harris is a remarkable lady!" Castagana is accused of sending white powder to Jon Stewart (the wrong one...), David Letterman, Nancy Pelosi, Keith Olbermann himself, and others.

They appear to be politically motivated, as he's a serial poster on right wing blogs. The question: how much responsibility do right wing talkers claim for their bombast and violent sentiments? Comic book bonehead or not, Ann Coulter talk the talk of violent action.

Watch the video in two parts... transcript below:


OLBERMANN: Federal authorities still expect the preliminary hearing for Chad Conrad Castagana to continue day after tomorrow. He was arrested over the weekend, accused of mailing at least 13 threatening letters, maybe 17, filled with white powder to the likes of Senator Chuck Schumer, Speaker presumptive Nancy Pelosi, Viacom Chairman Sumner Redstone, David Letterman, Jon Stewart and me.

Our third story in the COUNTDOWN, more details tonight, some from an FBI affidavit obtained by "Radar Online" magazine about the suspect. According to that affidavit, on the same day Castagana was picking up the envelopes and stamps at the post office for some of his terroristic threats, he purchased a $15 money order and had it made out to Friends of Katherine Harris. The money order, in fact, may have provided some of the trail that agents needed to trace the threatening letters back to Castagana. The affidavit also describes him as a 39-year-old white man who lives with his parents in Woodland Hills in Southern California. It includes details of some of the notes Castagana sent with the white powder. One message, intended for Comedy Central's Jon Stewart, but sent to the wrong Jon Stewart read, quote, "Do you know Alan Berg? You should. Death to demagogues."

That reference is unmistakable, as the FBI affidavit notes. Alan Berg was the talk radio host murdered by white supremacists in 1984.

There are also references to poison and demagogues. Quote, "all of you are poisoning the well." One to David Letterman that read, quote, "Your kind are the real poison." The messages intended to Viacom Chair Redstone and Congresswoman Pelosi cannot be repeated on this broadcast.

Castagana has also been identified as a gushing online admirer of Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin and Laura Ingraham. And the Web site RawStory reports that many bloggers believe he is also a contributor, under a different name, to the conservative Web site FreeRepublic. In fact, the name used is supposed to be Marc Costanzo.

Joining me now, John Cook, senior writer for "Radar Online" who has been covering all this since the news of the arrest broke on Sunday. Thanks for your time tonight, John.

JOHN COOK, "RADAR ONLINE": Good to be here, Keith.

OLBERMANN: The details of the letters I think we pretty much got.

Explain, if you can, what the link is to the right-wing blogs and what the relevance of that link is.

Full transcript after the jump...

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

UPDATE: GOP resuscitates racist Lott [VIDEO]
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 15, 2006 at 8:03 AM.

According to Hotline, Trent Lott is set to become the Senate Minority Whip.

In 2002 Trent Lott was one of the earliest casualties of blogger vigilance, when his praise of the racist, segregationist presidential candidacy of Strom Thurmond was picked up and amplified by the blogs. The corporate media simply couldn't ignore it.

It's not as if it were an isolated gaffe. As Wikipedia points out:

As a Congressman, he voted against renewal of the Voting Rights Act and opposed the Martin Luther King Holiday. Lott also maintained an affiliation with the Council of Conservative Citizens, which is described as a hate group by the ADL, NAACP and SPLC.

Or, if you prefer, watch PTV's and one of my favorite bloggers, Terrance Heath of Republic of T's, Video to the right.

After enough people noticed Lott's remark and it became a political liability, then -- and only then -- did the president and republican leaders speak out against the Mississippi senator, forcing him to resign his position as Senate Majority Leader.

They replaced the bigot with a failure, Bill Frist, while Lott will now become second in command to the post he once resigned in shame and ignominy. Frist will return to making ill-advised video diagnoses in Tennessee.

Quote(s) of the day
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 15, 2005 at 1:50 PM.

The first of the quotes, via David Edward, is: "While the Democrats are focused on the misuse of intelligence that mislead us into the war Bush is focused on how to mislead us out of war..."

And the second: "If we were wrong about why we went in; we have to be wrong about why we are leaving. Otherwise, John, it sends the enemy the message that America lacks the will to remain incorrect." [VIDEO HERE]. (BradBlog)

Invest with the Senate!
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 15, 2005 at 12:22 PM.

Blogenfreude writes:

"You will all recall that Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader and video diagnostician, is currently being investigated by the SEC for insider trading. Frist apparently lied about the reason he sold his stock at the top of the market."

"But Bill is but one thread in a much larger investment tapestry."

A New Yorker piece cites a study that places Frist's "good fortune" into context and perhaps gives a little insight into how eager the rest of the senate will be to clamp down on the Majority Leader.

"[the study] looked at six thousand stock transactions made by senators between 1993 and 1998. Over that time, senators beat the market, on average, by twelve per cent annually."

Now, when a "genius" mutual fund manager beats the market by 2-3% per year, how is it that our elected representatives beat the market by 12% -- on average? I guess that's why they're senators, huh? Smart folks.

Smart folks like these would probably use a word like perspicacious or shrewd. I might use a word like unethical or scummy, but what do I know, I'm just a rube with a BA who's never held public office. (Agitprop)

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

Republican revolt
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 15, 2005 at 11:03 AM.

Let's see, where have we seen this before?

Jazz writes: "the Senate Republicans will put forward a shocking new idea... the President should spell out an exit strategy for Iraq and tell us how long it will be before Iraqi troops can control their own country and our troops can come home." Sounds just like the Democrats' plan, but whatever.

With a couple of successes under their belts in recent elections and the polls heavily favoring Democrats, senate Republicans are doing an about-face on the single most unpopular issue: the Iraq War.

The polls are even worse than the single one echoed time and again, the president's sinking approval ratings -- people want leaders who expressly disagree with Bush. The Wall St. Journal reports that Republicans have lost their edge on their "strengths": "voters no longer prefer Republicans to Democrats on handling taxes, cutting government spending, dealing with immigration and directing foreign policy."

Jazz goes on:

"So, the GOP, who for years now has been chanting like Bush worshiping zombies, 'Setting a timetable for withdrawal would send the wrong message to our enemies' has apparently noticed their national poll numbers circling the bottom of the crapper faster and faster and just remembered that a lot of them are up for election next year. Wonderful. Whatever it takes to get the job done and get us the hell out of that disaster in the sand."

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

Sayonara to Habeas Corpus?
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 15, 2005 at 8:27 AM.

Katherine and hilzoy have written thirteen posts on Lindsey Graham's amendment to limit Habeas Corpus which would allow the administration to simply classify any non-citizen as it pleases and detain them indefinitely without any means to challenge their detention.

Thirteen posts may leave you saying to yourself, as Katherine puts it,

"'are you nuts?!!? You think I have time to read thirteen posts on this?' Well. If there is not enough time for you to even read all these posts -- how in the hell is one hour on Thursday, and maybe a few more hours tomorrow, enough time for the Senate to deliberate on this bill?"

And it's not even a bill focusing on defense or liberties or any of the subjects germane to the discussion of a foundational idea of our democracy -- it's a spending bill with a Constitution-attacking amendment tacked on.

Noting that, having made backroom deals, a number of Democrats are along for the ride, Digby writes: "They're playing politics with habeas corpus for Gawd's sake. This isn't some fucking highway bill or a farm subsidy. It's the very foundation of our system of government and the single most important element of liberty. If the state can just declare someone an 'unlawful combatant' and lock them up forever, we have voted ourselves into tyranny."

If you're not big on abstractions consider this; one nation's "enemy combatant" is another's "boys and girls in uniform." Granted, not every nation is bound to observe the laws and liberties of the others but so long as the United States holds foreigners without legal recourse, it provides enemies with political and moral fodder for defending their own indefinite detention of Americans.

Lest you think that all detainees are ipso fact terrorists, here's a case of an innocent man detained.

ACTION: Key senators provided by tristero [HERE] and contact info for all senators [HERE]. (Obsidian Wings / Digby)

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

Arianna and Chalabi...
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 15, 2005 at 6:27 AM.

After a Chalabi talk (at which she wasn't permitted to ask a question once it became apparent who she was), Arianna Huffington was asked to join Chalabi's entourage for sushi in the city.

Her account of dining with Chalabi isn't exactly what you might expect. It leaves you with that eerie understanding of how people are less than rational creatures prone to fantasy and foolishness based on appearances, charm and breeding. That we -- and large-scale situations -- are more complex than our slogans suggest.

Don't get me wrong. His actions are still criminal and our support for him outrageous, but the picture you begin to get is one of a man, as Huffington puts it "of pure will." She's lifted it from the screenplay of an upcoming movie, though it happens to apply beautifully.

The whole quote is this: "Men of pure will operate beyond the realm of judgment...They are like forces of nature...feral and oblivious. They have the morality of an avalanche." Read the whole account [HERE]. (HuffPost)

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

Rome redux
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 15, 2005 at 5:51 AM.

"Does the Republican Palace resemble the Coliseum, or do some of our soldiers just have a gladiator complex?" writes Shakespeare's Sister. ABC is reporting, online (and not on TV so far as I can tell) that Iraqis were beaten and shoved into lion cages in order to squeeze confessions out of them.

Not sure if I have to point out the irony that Saddam Hussein's main palace, at which these alleged activities took place, is called the Republican Palace.

Makes you wonder if the president's protestations that we don't torture people are, at least in part, responsible for the fact that Americans simply don't trust him (from Gallup via Carpetbagger):

A 53% majority say they trust what Bush says less than they trusted previous presidents while they were in office. In a specific comparison with President Clinton, those surveyed by 48%-36% say they trust Bush less.

(Shakespeare'sSister)

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

Big Ape
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 15, 2005 at 5:29 AM.

I know this is a departure but DANG! if that isn't a big ape. The contextless picture (left) may do it no justice but that's an artist rendering of a 10-foot-tall ape, Gigantopithecus blackii, that didn't go extinct until about 100,000 years ago.

Since humans (who don't believe in I.D.) had already been around for a million years (give or take), that means they lived side by side. "Nervous ones, I would imagine," adds Plegmund.

Gigantopithecus was an herbivore, partial to bamboo, according to scientists. Experts point to this as one more reason why cheeseburgers are the only thing standing between human beings and total extinction. (Monkeyfilter)

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