Packed Supreme Court Likely to Allow MORE Corporate Money in Politics
Posted by Dave Johnson, Campaign for America's Future on November 2, 2009 at 2:12 PM.

The Supreme Court may decide as soon as tomorrow on the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case involving a corporate-funded anti-Hillary smear ad. It is likely the conservative-dominated activist court will overturn precedent and rule in favor of removing restrictions on corporate spending in elections, with terrible consequences. The 5-4 ruling will say that large companies injecting vast sums to sway election results is “free speech.” Imagine, vocal cords on a Cayman Islands post office box!

Common Cause has a report out, titled, Corporate Democracy: Potential fallout from a Supreme Court decision on Citizens United. "Lifting the ban on corporate political spending could unleash a flood of money into the political system and further diminish the public’s voice," the report says.

Really, imagine regular people trying to run for office while competing with the massive aggregated financial power of the biggest corporations. And imagine what will happen to anyone who dares to try to go up against their interests when they are able to openly spend any amount needed to get their way. I have come up with some examples of what to expect:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Rape Victim Confronts Vitter Over Vote for Impunity for Contractors
Posted by Amanda Terkel, Think Progress on November 2, 2009 at 1:06 PM.

In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones’ Halliburton/KBR co-workers gang-raped her while she was working in Baghdad. The company then detained her in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and “warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she’d be out of a job.” (Jones was not an isolated case.) Jones was prevented from bringing charges in court against KBR because her employment contract stipulated that sexual assault allegations would be heard in private arbitration only.

Last month, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) proposed an amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts if companies “restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court.” Although the amendment passed, 30 Republican senators voted against it.

One of the Republicans singled out for especially harsh criticism following the vote was Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), who has a track record of siding against women’s rights. The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein reports that at a town hall meeting this past weekend, a constituent confronted Vitter about his vote. The woman, a rape victim, demanded that he explain why he opposed Franken’s amendment. Vitter refused to give her a straight answer:

WOMAN: It meant everything to me that I was able to put the person who attacked me [behind bars]. And what allowed me to do that was our judicial process. I showed up in court every day to make sure that happen

VITTER: And I’m absolutely supportive of any case like that being prosecuted criminally to the full extent of the law. [...]

WOMAN: But how can you support [a law] that tells a rape victim that she does not have the right to defend herself?

VITTER: Ma’am The language in question did not say that in any way shape or form.

WOMAN: But it is unconstitutional to have a law that says a woman does not have a right to defend herself.

Vitter then tried to deflect blame to the Obama administration, saying that it was also against the amendment. When the woman replied, “But I’m not asking Obama. I’m asking you,” Vitter retorted, “Do you think he’s in favor in rape?”

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

GOP Loon Goes Off the Rails: Health Reform Greater Threat than Terrorism
Posted by Faiz Shakir, Think Progress on November 2, 2009 at 11:12 AM.

Few Republican congressional members have served as a greater fount for hyperbolic and uninformed ranting about health care reform as has Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC). As ThinkProgress previously documented, Foxx has claimed Democratic reforms would mean seniors are “put to death by their government,” that health reform is a “distraction,” and that “there are no Americans who don’t have health care.” She was at it again today on the House floor, arguing that health reform is a greater threat to our country than “any terrorist right now in any country”:

Everywhere I go in my district, people tell me they are frightened. … I share that fear, and I believe they should be fearful. And I believe the greatest fear that we all should have to our freedom comes from this room — this very room — and what may happen later this week in terms of a tax increase bill masquerading as a health care bill. I believe we have more to fear from the potential of that bill passing than we do from any terrorist right now in any country.

Civil War Today: Obama Highly Popular Everywhere Outside of Old South
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on November 2, 2009 at 10:31 AM.

I've spent far too much time in the South and been acquainted with far too many Southerners -- a number of liberal-minded folks among them -- to get into the stereo-typical South-bashing popular in some liberal quarters.

Yet, I must say, when I see results like these it does cause me to pause and wonder again why the North fought so hard to stay married to these people (I know -- we were an emerging power-couple and clung to the relationship for the money and influence):

BARACK OBAMA

The gap between opinions in the South and the rest of the country is nothing short of striking. According to the numbers in this poll question on Obama, it's greater than the divide that exists between whites and blacks or young voters and senior citizens.

Anyway, this comes via Oliver Willis, who adds:

President Obama is overwhelmingly popular in every region of the country except for the south. I am surely this is all entirely due to his economic policies and his radical social agenda and not any other thing at all, certainly not the color of his skin no way sir.

NY-23: GOP Rips Scozzafava ... Will She Switch Parties?
Posted by Kos , Daily Kos on November 2, 2009 at 10:29 AM.

I'll have more on this race later today, but one of the argument I made in my supposed "endorsement" of Republican Dede Scozzafava was the potential for her to switch parties and be a better Democrat than the pretend "Democrat" on our party's ballot line.

Ahem:

Two senior Democrats with ties to the White House praised Cuomo’s role in the operation, saying they were confident Scozzafava was on board after learning that she told Cuomo: "You're going to be the next governor of New York."

Also critical was Silver’s assurance, in a phone conversation with Scozzafava, that the state Assembly Democratic caucus would embrace her if she chose to switch parties, now viewed as a real possibility after her endorsement Sunday of Owens.

"Real possibility" indeed, given the vitriol Republicans are sending her way:

The reaction from the state party to the Scozzafava endorsement was swift and unsparing.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

McCain Adviser Who Attacked Dems' Health Reform Now Facing Insurance Nightmare
Posted by Igor Volsky, Think Progress on November 2, 2009 at 8:35 AM.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a senior policy adviser to Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) presidential campaign, “remains unemployed — and his COBRA health coverage is running out,” the Washington Post reports. “Irony of ironies, it gets worse. Holtz-Eakin, who is about to start shopping for insurance on the individual market, is 51. And he has one of those pesky ‘preexisting conditions’ that insurance companies often cite in denying coverage”:

Holtz-Eakin said he’s been paying about $1,000 a month to extend the private health insurance he received on McCain’s campaign through the government’s COBRA program, but that will expire in a few months. This is the first time in his life he has not had employer-provided health coverage. “I worry about where I go next in the way many Americans do,” he said.

During the campaign, Holtiz-Eakin fervently defended McCain’s proposal to shift more Americans out of their employer-sponsored coverage and into the individual health insurance market. “The key to real reform is to restore control over our health-care system to the patients themselves,” Holtz-Eakin said in August. “Instead of only getting it in the employer market, you would get it regardless of your source of insurance. And you get the same amount whether you’re rich or poor, $5,000 for every working family.”

Will GOP Bigs Inch Left Next Year to Contain Tea-Party Revolt?
Posted by Steve M., No More Mister Nice Blog on November 2, 2009 at 5:51 AM.

Following up on my last post: yes, obviously I agree to a great extent with Frank Rich, whose column today on the NY-23 congressional race describes the modern GOP as a "cult" in which moderates are pitilessly purged. But I don't really agree with this:

The right's embrace of [litmus-test wingnut Doug] Hoffman is a double-barreled suicide for the G.O.P.... It's still conceivable that the Democratic candidate could capture a seat the Republicans should own. But it's even better for Democrats if Hoffman wins. Punch-drunk with this triumph, the right will redouble its support of primary challengers to 2010 G.O.P. candidates they regard as impure....

The more rightists who win G.O.P. primaries, the greater the Democrats' prospects next year.

 

I lumped a lot of people together in my last post -- Michelle Malkin, Fox News -- but I think there are different strategies at work here. Malkin and some others (e.g., the Club for Growth) are going to stay pure in their wingnuttery long past 2010. But I think Fox and some others are going to pivot slightly to ther left after 2010. That's because 2010 and 2012 are going to be very different.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

White House Visitors-Logs-Gate Sets Right-Wing KeyStone Cops Running
Posted by Roy Edroso, Alicublog on November 2, 2009 at 4:42 AM.

As you may have heard, the presentation of White House visitor logs for January-July led to some humorous gun-jumping by the usual gang of idiots.

The White House release is incomplete at this time, which I can't approve. (More names are expected later this year.) But I'm heartened that its content suggests the Administration knows how to drive its opposition nuts on purpose.

The White House went out of its way to alert readers that some names recorded in the logs were not those of the people you might think they are -- the visitors Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers, for example, were not the famous preacher and radical, respectively.

Some nonetheless scream the news about Ayers and Wright without the explanation, Atlas Shrugs and Don Surber ("A vote for Obama was a vote for Ayers") prominent among them.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »