Momentum is building against the confirmation of George W. Bush's nominee to the position of Attorney General - and you can help. Click here to write your U.S. Senators now. Alberto Gonzales was so evasive and uncooperative during his Senate confirmation hearing that several previously-supportive members of the Judiciary Committee changed their minds. Ultimately, all eight Committee Democrats voted against Gonzales' confirmation, and his support in the full Senate appears to be slipping as a result. The full Senate vote - the one that will decide whether or not Alberto Gonzales becomes our nation's chief law-enforcement officer - is likely to take place this Thursday, February 3rd. Write both your senators now to let them know you don't want an Attorney General who has failed to show independence, provided legal justifications for torture, and waffled and dodged when asked about his positions on basic principles of human rights and the rule of law. Click this link to take action: http://www.pfaw.org/pfawDo what they tell you to do. End torture and US support of it now. Your actions are important and meaningful. Take a stand now.|W|P|110723400063392467|W|P|A final plea for a NO vote on Gonzales|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com/general/default.aspx?oid Want more reasons to write? Consider the record:=16842&action=1516 Alberto Gonzales should not be the Attorney General of the United States of America. Write your U.S. Senators today - click here. Then, tell your friends to write their senators, and have them tell their friends to do the same. It will be very difficult to stop Gonzales' confirmation, but we must try to get as many votes against him as possible over the next few days. A large number of "no" votes will be a powerful repudiation of his policies and will encourage members of Congress to hold his past and future actions up to greater scrutiny and accountability.
"To that end, House Democrats have put forward our New Partnership for America’s Future, which reaffirms our dedication to six core values for a strong and secure middle class: national security, prosperity, opportunity, fairness, community, and accountability."Look at the left sidebar and you'll see an image with the words "New Partnership for America's Future." The link (via that image) will take you directly to the House Democrats website where you can explore analysis and commentary and those six core values. The focus Pelosi's speech was Social Security, and rightly so. Sure, I would've liked to see coverage of more issues, but this isn't the Democrats' SOTU, it is a pre-buttal and an attempt to draw from the SOTU. On Social Security, Pelosi articulated a good message. Some excerpts below:
"The President talks about a crisis, but according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Social Security will be solvent for nearly 50 years. Democrats see strengthening Social Security as the cornerstone of independence for our seniors and for people with disabilities. President Bush sees undermining Social Security as the cornerstone of his 'ownership society.' . . .We believe any consideration of Social Security must adhere to three key principles. First, Democrats insist that changes to Social Security not add to the deficit. Any plan for Social Security needs to begin by paying back the money that has been borrowed from the trust fund, just as President Clinton did in the late 1990s. . . .Second, Democrats insist any change in Social Security not begin by slashing benefits. The average Social Security check today is $950 a month. That is not a great deal of money for those who depend on that check to pay for food, rent, heat, and medicine. . . .Third and finally, any change to Social Security must be fair. The president has suggested a two-tiered system that treats current retirees differently from younger workers. President Bush likes to say that young people have the most to gain under his plan, but the truth is that young people have the most to lose. Social Security will be there for today’s young people, unless the President gets his way."The formation of three key elements of effective results on Social Security is an excellent strategy. By essentially laying out the terms necessary for bipartisan cooperation on any possible reforms, Democrats have begun to restrict the framework of debate on this pivotal domestic issue. With the release of the GOP playbook for Social Security, Democrats need to study it quickly and create a strategy to combat the talking points, constituent letters, and prepared speeches that the GOP has provided Congressional Republicans. Moreover, the formation of online advocacy points would be a really effective way of promoting the Democrats' message via the netroots. The online community is already seeing the results of actions like that via the new Senate Democrats website, and particularly their communication chamber, which has been affectionately named "The Stick" (Senate Democratic Communication Center or SDCC). For Social Security talking points specifically, check out this post from a couple of weeks ago outlining what I consider to be the most important talking points for both Democrats and the foes of privatization. Emphasis on the six core values for Democrats is an effective way of putting a message out to values voters: We are your party. They don't have to be moral values, but they need to be the values of fairness, accountability, and the others Rep. Pelosi mentioned. President Bush and the GOP leadership have appealed to some of these values, but trashed others. Where is the accountability in the Bush Regime? National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice screwed up big time with her advocacy for war in Iraq and her false claims about WMDs. And what does this screw up get her? A promotion to the highest position in the Cabinet, Secretary of State. Accountability is correcting mistakes. One form of it, in this case, would be to get rid of Rice. But Bush did it. And where is the fairness? The Bush Taxcuts helped the wealthiest 1% of Americans. I'm sure that many of them voted for him then, but what did it do to help you, the average American? Let's be clear on this, it didn't help my family, and we are middle class. In fact, it probably hurt us. I know my family isn't the worst story, however. There are tons more out there. Helping the rich while ignoring the rest isn't fairness, it is kissing butt to get bigger campaign contributions. The only downside to Pelosi's speech is her speaking style. We need a flamboyant and energetic speaker to be leading House Democrats, and unfortunately she isn't one of those people. Not that I can blame her, though, because Sen. Reid is the same way quite often. For those of you interested, Representative Pelosi's remarks in their entirety can be found here. Senator Reid's remarks were quite articulate, and a lot less verbose than Rep. Pelsosi's. Yet, it still carried the same weight and importance that her remarks did. The emphasis of Reid's comments were strategies for the War on Terror, and particularly the situation in Iraq. Reid's remarks carried the tone of a leader, the tone of someone strongly in opposition yet dedicated to solving the problems the majority caused. He first addressed the current troop situation.
"President Bush needs to do much more to live up to his obligations as Commander-in-Chief in this new term. That starts with no longer sending our troops into battle without the weapons and equipment they need. Because this Administration's policies have left our troops stretched too thin and shouldering too much of the burden, we need to add to our troop levels so that our fighting force has enough soldiers to do the job in both Iraq and in the War on Terror. That means increasing our Army and Marines by forty thousand troops over the next two years. America will never be truly secure if we do not honor those we ask to serve."Reid then went on to mention a new GI Bill for the 21st century, a bill that would help returning soldiers re-enter the world with the stable and solid ground that is so needed. Veterans issues was a topic also brought up by Sen. Reid. Providing them with the benefits they deserve needs to be a big focus for the government of this nation. What struck me the most about Reid's speech was the scathing rhetoric Reid used to describe the gap between President Bush's words and his actions.
"I think all of us appreciated the President's words in his Inaugural Address about spreading freedom and democracy. That has always been the Democratic vision of historic leaders like Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John Kennedy. But there is a gap between this President's words and his deeds. There is a gap between saying we will "seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions" and an Administration that gives the National Endowment for Democracy only one-third of one percent of what we give millionaires in tax breaks. There is a gap between saying we are a global leader and standing on the sidelines as new international institutions and alliances take shape without us. There is a gap between saying to reformers that "the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors" and an Administration that stands by in virtual silence as Saudi dissidents disappear. And nowhere is the gap between rhetoric and reality greater than in Iraq."Senator Reid's point is this: How can you promise all of these things in words while your actions undermine their goals? To flesh out the main point of the pre-buttal, and the speeches of both leaders, we have to look the major accomplishment of the pre-buttal: Successfully framing the debate around the two most important issues to be discussed during the State of the Union. To make substantial changes in the United States, there has got to be bipartisan efforts. The GOP hasn't articulated a position for bipartisan reform. They haven't framed a debate in an effort to increase discourse and discussion between the two opposing parties. The Democrats have now successfully done that. The issues discussed today, if they don't frame the discussion for everyone, at least frame it for those on the left and those opposed to the neoconservative radicalism of the modern day GOP and the Bush Regime. The SOTU on Wednesday will be monumental. Let's see if the GOP and President Bush can offer policies and plans that benefit Americans and lead to bipartisan efforts. I want to believe that this can be accomplished by moderates in the GOP. It has the capacity. The true test comes in 48 hours. |W|P|110721353672478689|W|P|Pre-Buttal reaction|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"What’s more, elections do not a democracy make, and democracy is not necessarily the first or most important thing needed in Iraq to make that country safer and more secure—much less to accomplish the goal of reversing the hatred of the United States sown across the Arab world by the malignant policies and pronouncements of the Bush administration. Perhaps it's as wonderful as we are being led to believe and everything may turn out hunky-dory in the end, but the historian in me would like to see some genuine evidence of a "mission" actually "accomplished.""Read the rest of the post for some worthwhile thinks that help put things into even better perspective.|W|P|110720766476627831|W|P|My sentiments exactly|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
- Sen. Evan Bayh
- Sen. Joe Biden
- Sen. Barbara Boxer
- General Wesley Clark
- Sen. Hillary Clinton
- Former Sen. John Edwards
- Sen. Russ Feingold
- Gov. Bill Richardson
- Gov. Mike Warner
"A federal judge ruled this morning that special military tribunals the Pentagon has used to determine the likely guilt of most of the 500 men held at a prison in Guantanamo Bay -- and to justify their continued imprisonment -- are illegal. U.S. District Judge Joyce Hens Green, who is overseeing all of the legal claims that detainees have made challenging their imprisonment, said she cannot dismiss their claims, as the U.S. military had sought. The judge said the military's combatant status review tribunals are stacked against the detainees, and deny them crucial rights. She said some detainees may indeed be guilty and pose a danger to the United States, but the government must first give them a lawful hearing on the evidence against them. Green said the detainees are entitled to Fifth Amendment rights, including the advice of a lawyer and a fair chance to confront the evidence against them. The judge found the tribunals have largely denied those rights. Green noted in particular that there are widespread allegations, and some evidence, that detainees were tortured or abused during interrogations. She said such information makes extremely suspect any confessions of terrorist activities, upon which the military relies heavily in its tribunal decisions to determine that someone is an enemy combatant."Finally! An American standing up for our way of life, our practices, and the traditions of a democratic society. The rest of the article is definitely worth reading. I'm working on finding a copy of the judicial decision, because it will definitely be worth reading. In my mind, I'm considering how important this decision is. It will definitely be brought up in a lot of constitutional law classes today, and probably even international law. Unfortunately, I don't know if it is going to remain on the books. The next appeal is the US Circuit Court of Appeals. At that location, it is anyone's guess on the decision. If indeed it gets taken to the level of the Supreme Court, the decision could be monumental. It all depends on what time the case reaches the Court and who is on the Court.|W|P|110718601220068606|W|P|Tribunals unconstitutional|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"The blueprint urges lawmakers to promote the "personalization" of Social Security, suggesting ownership and control, rather than "privatization," which "connotes the total corporate takeover of Social Security."Too bad they're gonna lose this battle. We already framed the debate in the people's minds. The issue here is privatization--that's what the GOP is trying to accomplish and a majority of Americans don't want that. The next issue was the media strategy, or how to talk about Social Security in simple terms:
"The Republican's book, with a golden nest egg on the cover, urges the GOP to "talk in simple language," "keep the numbers small," "avoid percentages; your audience will try to calculate them in their head" and "acknowledge risks," because listeners "know they can lose their investments."This simply says to me distort the facts so that you can use them for your benefit. Make things seem dire when they really aren't. Just another part of the media strategy that is going to fail the GOP. It also seems that the radical right has gotten their input heard as well, thanks to Rep. Tom "The Hammer" Delay:
"Lawmakers said a turning point came Friday when House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), who has been leery of taking on Social Security, argued that the caucus had a "moral obligation" to do so."Explain to me the moral obligation here. Somehow it doesn't seem to come to fruition to me. Delay's speech was a turning point not because he was "leery" of the plans and now favors them, but because they know that Delay can inflict serious damage on their political careers, particularly when it comes to fundraising from big business. The man with no ethics is much more free to hurt you than those bound by ethical limits. Finally, the President will outline his official plan in the State of the Union on Wednesday and then he embarks on a big trip travelling to five different states to sell his plan for privatization. Democrats have a schedule and know where he's going. Contact the state and local Democratic parties. Get them involved to protest and put up flyers and posters. The Democratic message of opposition needs not only to be national and on the blogosphere, but local as well. This is the time to be an effective opposition force. We've gotta do it.|W|P|110714830999161189|W|P|The official GOP Social Security Strategy|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"So if it had been up to Bush, Iraq would have been a soft dictatorship under Chalabi, or would have had stage-managed elections with an electorate consisting of a handful of pro-American notables."In the end, we gave them the option of voting for candidates they hardly knew anything about (the candidates names weren't released until a week ago), and they could really only vote in substantial numbers where it was secure. And God knows we have barely made anywhere in Iraq completely secure--not even the Green Zone.|W|P|110713703508124757|W|P|Bush's unwanted elections|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
Robert Schumacher|W|P|If those numbers are correct, it tells me two things:1. The Iraqi's, like many other peoples in the world, value the hard won right to vote more than us generally lazy Americans and,
2. Based on opinion poll results they want us the hell our of their country.
Robert Schumacher|W|P|:) Sad, really, that your average Joe Citizen can take the time to read the bills, but many Congressmen can't. Chris Woods|W|P|The saddest part, to me, is when the majority party (the GOP for the most part) uses events like 9/11 and the prelude to the War in Iraq as a way of pushing through radical stuff, that is very encompassing and requires thoughtful consideration.Two of the biggest examples right off of the top of my head are the USA Patriot Act and last session's Lame Appropriations Act of 2005.
"U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., told the Tiger Bay Club of Volusia County on Friday that he'll decide whether to run after "going around the country" working to return a Democrat to the White House."Implications for 2008? I don't think he's big enough (publicity-wise) to get his name out there and get a nomination. Touring the country could help, but that will be pretty expensive. Moreover, big campaign contributions aren't likely, since he'll probably be under heavy speculation by the media for his fundraising efforts because of his sponsorship and advocacy for campaign finance reform. By supporting that bill, he's probably already hurt some of his fundraising chances from big donors who don't like the new regulations. I think whoever is elected the new DNC Chair should work on convincing some Democrats not to launch presidential bids. Look at the crowded field in 2004. Ten candidates, all from the opposing ends of the Democratic political spectrum. It was a heated campaign just during the primary season, and we weren't able to form an entirely cohesive message as a party, particularly concerning Iraq and the economy. That's just me though. I could be wrong. |W|P|110711618516703331|W|P|Feingold in 2008|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"I would not run for president," she said. "I really like what I'm doing now. People say I'm giving them energy and hope."The article profiles her role as the "bad cop" in Senate. The position allows her to get under the GOP's skin and helps Sen. Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to avoid some of the problems that former leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) faced while obstructing the Bush Regime's agenda. I'm thankful for people like Senator Boxer. Her efforts so far in this legislative session have been phenomenal. I thank her for her hard work. I hope she keeps it up. Liberals need a voice like hers. And if you're still interested in getting Sen. Boxer to run in 2008, check out these two websites: |W|P|110710928713966733|W|P|Boxer doesn't want to run for President|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"Every indication is that the election in Iraq is going better than expected."That still didn't answer my question on turnout, so I continued my search. This time, I took myself to CNN.com. There I found another article on the elections which helped a bit more to clear things up.
"The Independent Election Commission of Iraq clarified an earlier estimate of a 72 percent turnout in Sunday's election, saying that the "figures are only very rough, word-of-mouth estimates gathered informally from the field.""So, my guess is that the numbers will continue go down. My question is this: How many Iraqis actually participated in the elections that were old enough to do so? The most common figure going around is that 14.2 million Iraqis were registered to vote. That is fine. But when these news outlets and election commissions make reference to the percentage of eligible voters that participated, what does "eligible voter" mean? Does it mean those who are registered, or is it just a percentage of all those Iraqis over 18 who could vote? I think that question definitely needs to be answered before anyone (blogging, at least) can begin making assertions about the "amazing turnout"? Remember, all I am saying is that things aren't really clear when it comes to participation. If a lot of Iraqis did participate, then good for them. I am proud of them; they overcame a lot of obstacles. However, if the US and Iraqi commissions are hyping the vote to make it appear more legitimate to Western news viewers and the Iraqis themselves, then we've got a problem on our hands.|W|P|110710812062753702|W|P|Iraq elections|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"Still, Democrats know that if they are going to find a way out of the minority, they must do more than simply block the White House. . .They will need to come up with their own idea for revamping Social Security, and Mr. Reid promised they would - but not before Mr. Bush puts forth some specifics. "The rubber is going to meet the road very soon, because he's going to have to put something in writing," Mr. Reid said of the president. "And when that comes forward, we'll be happy to take a look at it.""I'm going to have to disagree to part of what Sen. Reid said. While it is important to wait to make our own specifics until the White House gives theirs, I still think that we need to go out with some broad notions of what Democrats plan to do to protect Social Security. Whether or not Social Security really needs immediate protection isn't an issue (we know it doesn't need immediate help, the troops in Iraq need immediate protection), the issue is forming a clear alternative plan. I think Democrats have a couple of options. First, they can simply propose a resolution and call it the "Save Social Security Act of 2005." Included in the resolution is a denunciation of privatization and a denunciation of the crisis rhetoric that the GOP has so frequently used. This option probably isn't the best, however, because it really doesn't provide a lot of clarity on the issue, and can allow for the GOP to have the talking point of "Democrats just want to ignore the problems of Social Security." The talking point is wrong, but their media machine is amazing. Ours is getting better, but we shouldn't pick a media fight as the sole grounds for this battle. The other option I would suggest is a bill calling for the rolling back of Bush's disastrous tax cuts in an effort to create a strong and secure financial situation for America. As I and others have noted recently, the United States isn't facing a Social Security crisis, we're facing a fiscal crisis. This bill will shape a policy of strong fiscal responsibility, while still making efforts to fix the nation's problems by not creating any more. These proposals are optimistic, but they are worth a shot. Gone are the days of fiscal conservatives who could squeeze any amount of money out of a nickel. Now its the cut-taxes and launch cost-ineffective wars party. Granted, 9/11 was a blow to the economy. It definitely didn't help create a secure fiscal environment. The Bush tax cuts, however, did even worse damage than al-Qaeda and other terrorists could have ever imagined. In America, we're facing the biggest rich/poor gap in decades. More and more families are forced to live in decrepit conditions, or forced to have parents work multiple jobs just to meet a quality standard of living. And now, the GOP and President Bush want to privatize Social Security--a plan that will cost us trillions of dollars of the next few decades. While the Bush Regime continues all of these fiscally unsound policies, our deficit grows larger and larger each year. The year 2004's deficit, while lower than the amazing predictions offered last spring by Bush economists, are still worse than 2003's. Plus, they don't even account for the costs of (possible) privatization and allocations for Iraq. Yet somehow, the Regime is still on track for halving the deficit by 2008. The Bush Regime has consistently ignored the monumental problems facing America's finances. Instead, the offer new initiatives to only worsen the problem and pass the debt back down to my generation and those after me. I, for one, won't put up with it. Will you? |W|P|110705954337139944|W|P|Uniting to fight|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"Majorities of both Sunni Arabs (82%) and Shiites (69%) also favor U.S. forces withdrawing either immediately or after an elected government is in place."Somehow the whole elections thing don't seem like it'll help us win their favor. The full Zogby report can be found here. Elections start soon in Iraq. I still stand strong at a prediction of 35% participation nationwide. Any other thoughts?|W|P|110705766784161789|W|P|Liberators we aren't|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
Robert Schumacher|W|P|Only one thought...civil war a 60% chance in Iraq's future, post-US withdrawl. If we stay, it's about 100% certain that it's going downhill from here.Call me a pessimist, but this war was one that we were pretty much doomed to lose from the beginning.
ABC's "This Week" - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind. CBS' "Face the Nation" - Rice; Sens. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Joseph Biden, D-Del. NBC's "Meet the Press" - Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. CNN's "Late Edition" - Rice; Sens. John Warner, R-Va., and Carl Levin, D-Mich.; Iraqi politicians Ahmed Chalabi, Adnan Pachachi and Jalal Talabani; Iraqi security officials Mowaffak Al-Rubaie and Barham Salih; Feisal Istrabadi, Iraqi deputy permanent representative to the United Nations; Ken Pollack, Brookings Institution; retired Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong and retired Army Maj. Gen. James "Spider" Marks; former Coalition Provisional Authority advisers Brett McGurk and Peter Khalil; June Chwa-Detroit and Jeremy Copeland-Maryland, Iraq Out-of-Country Voting Program. "Fox News Sunday" - Rice.|W|P|110705693465134718|W|P|Sunday line-ups|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
He’s no Miss Cleo In the year of the Lord, 2004, Iowa (like America as a whole) left its earthly orbit and flew over the cuckoo’s nest. If all Iowans wish upon a star, tiptoe through Pella’s tulips, shout profanity at those nasty crows and kick a boar hog in his ass, these top 10 wonderful events will happen in the 2005 heartland: 10. Tom Harkin will realize how much he has harmed America by voting to give Bush carte blanche authority for pre-emptive war and will resign. Tom Vilsack will be appointed to serve the rest of Harkin’s term. (In a shocking development, Ed Fallon is appointed interim governor.) 9. Vilsack discerns he is not fit for office because of the whopper he told to Iowa teachers. As his administration oversaw teachers’ wages sinking to Arkansas and Mexico City levels, and because most other Iowa workers didn’t fare much better, Tom falls on his sward (figuratively) and resigns. Fallon appoints world peace activist and ex-con Frank Cordaro to his vacant Senate seat. 8. Chuck Grassley, tiring of his hypocritical farm boy act, and knowing Iowa voters will soon realize Chuck hasn’t done a damn thing for them in over 20 years, resigns to become a playboy with Henry Kissinger. Pissed-off Republicans see to it that Drake University law school professor Sally Frank is appointed to Grassley’s seat. “Strange are the workings of the Lord.” 7. City Manger Eric Anderson, figuring if he can’t even keep the street lights on, what the hell is he good for, resigns and enters a monastery. Harkin and Vilsack are already at the hermitage that demands absolute silence for a lifetime (praise the Lord). Brian Terrell (another peacenik) is hired for the post. 6. Realizing they could never work with someone (Brian Terrell) who puts the people of Des Moines first, the City Council resigns en masse. 5. Heartened by the courage and conviction of Sen. Cordaro, the Democrats in Congress discover they really do have a pair. Finding Republicans who have not yet become “Hitlerized,” they find the votes to impeach President George W. Bush, for lying to Congress, to the American people and to God. Bush decides to resign. 4. Further inspired by Cordaro’s Christian faith and love, Congress works with the United Nations to get the world body in and the United States out of Iraq. 3. Fallon brings tens of thousands of high-paying, high-tech jobs to Iowa. Teacher pay in the state rises to first in the nation and every child has guaranteed health insurance and day care. Other people programs too numerous to mention are put in place and Iowa truly become s the heartland. 2. Under Terrell’s management, Des Moines experiences a renaissance. People from New York, Los Angeles and Paris, France, flock to the city for its vibrant night life and caring, sharing citizens. 1. The whole state of Iowa is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. P.S. The boar hog must weigh more than 200 pounds; kicking a smaller boar hog in the butt is just animal cruelty and very un-Iowan. - Tom Kearney, Des Moines|W|P|110703799559358339|W|P|Some funny Iowa political predictions|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"Iraqi officials predicted that 8 million of the country's 14 million eligible voters would cast ballots on Sunday, a turnout of roughly 57 percent, in the country's first multiparty elections in more than 50 years. But with insurgents threatening to kill Iraqis who vote and to bomb polling places, and with most leaders of the country's Sunni minority calling for a boycott, that statement, by the Independent Election Commission of Iraq, appeared to be as much an expression of hope as it was a prediction."My prediction: 35% or less turnout. If I'm right, yay for me. If I'm wrong, someone come up with a punishment and post it in the comments.|W|P|110703691666122095|W|P|More lives lost|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"This is a big, big showdown. The Democratic pledge of support is enormous, and something about the Republican issues that they seem to be running on seem so, well, 1990's. If Democrats can continue to gain in Virginia, we will put something of a crimp in the Republican governing coalition. If Republicans win, well, it will be like everything else lately--conservatives continuing to rise no matter how promising things looked for Democrats in the months before the election."Check out Chris's full post here. At The Forecast, we'll do our best to keep you updated on these important races.|W|P|110703594750477430|W|P|Gubernatorials in 2005|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"Less than 48 hours before nationwide elections here, Nasir al-Saedy, one of the city's most popular Shiite clerics, stood before a crowd of 20,000 Iraqis and uttered not a single word about the vote. Sheik Saedy spoke of faith, humility and the power of God. But about Sunday's elections, the first here in more than 30 years, nothing. For the throngs of Iraqis who had come to Al Mohsen Mosque to listen, the sheik's silence came through loud and clear. And it foreshadowed a less than overwhelming voter turnout in many parts of Iraq. "God willing, I will not be voting," Ziad Qadam, an unemployed 27-year-old, said after Friday Prayers at the mosque in Sadr City, the vast Shiite district in Baghdad. "Our religious leaders have not told us to vote." Sheik Saedy is an acolyte of Moktada al-Sadr, the rebel Shiite cleric, and his Friday sermon seemed to settle for good the question of Mr. Sadr's place in the country's new democratic order."It seems that we've been had by Mr. al-Sadr. He's been making it seem like he has been fielding candidates for the election, but in the end, chooses to boycott them. This just proves how underwhelming voter turnout will most likely be, especially if the Shi'ite majority is not planning on voting in great numbers, as their religious leaders have told them to do. I have a feeling that Brent Scowcroft's comments on civil war are emerging quite quickly right now. Meanwhile, violence continued to escalate, as more and more potential voters are killed and polling places have become less and less secure. According to CNN, 8 Iraqis have already been killed today, on what has been called "Election Eve." Unfortunately, I'm going to be leaving after this post and won't be back until about 3 PM central standard time today. Chase is out of town as well, so I doubt there will be any posting.|W|P|110700945550968867|W|P|Shunning the vote|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"Michael Chertoff, who has been picked by President Bush to be the homeland security secretary, advised the Central Intelligence Agency on the legality of coercive interrogation methods on terror suspects under the federal anti-torture statute, current and former administration officials said this week. Depending on the circumstances, he told the intelligence agency, some coercive methods could be legal, but he advised against others, the officials said. Mr. Chertoff's previously undisclosed involvement in evaluating how far interrogators could go took place in 2002 and 2003 when he headed the Justice Department's criminal division. The advice came in the form of responses to agency inquiries asking whether C.I.A. employees risked being charged with crimes if particular interrogation techniques were used on specific detainees."To his credit, he did oppose certain acts of torture, but overall, he provided legal analysis on how to avoid prosecution and how to get around certain legal guidelines on torture techniques. Now, I've opined a lot about not voting for Alberto Gonzales for Attorney General, but with this bit of information coming out about Chertoff, I'm absolutely going to have to ask my Senators to vote NO on Michael Chertoff. Honestly, he is not as bad as Abu Gonzales, but he's pretty damn close. He is a respected judge and everything, but still--its time for a NO vote. Armando is already on the case over at Daily Kos. He's got a lot of questions, and I admit, I have a lot of the same. But I'm not going to give him the benefit of the doubt. President Bush has been given a lot of that lately, and I'm definitely not going to concede any more. Here is the list of Democrats on the Senate Committe on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, who are set to convene next week for hearings on Chertoff:
- Joseph I. Lieberman Ranking Member (D-CT)
- Carl Levin (D-MI)
- Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI)
- Thomas R. Carper (D-DE)
- Mark Dayton (D-MN)
- Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
- Mark Pryor (D-AR)
Robert Schumacher|W|P|I'll be writing...one of 'em (Akaka D-HI) is one of mine.- Assuming that "several years" means at least three or four years, these guys are suggesting an increase of around 100,000 troops
- This is roughly eight divisions
- A couple of years ago the CBO issued a report that estimated the cost of a new division at about $10 billion up front
- $5 billion per year to maintain and deploy
- Eight divisions, then, would cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $25 billion per year for the next few years
- $40 billion to maintain after that
- This amounts to a permanent increase in the defense budget of about 10%
JustaDog|W|P|Well considering the USA committed to giving away $15 BILLION for AIDS in Africa - something we will never see any return on - I think we can pump up the defense of our country a bit. Besides, most all of the $$ will return to our economy in one form or another.http://wheresyourbrain.blogspot.com/
|W|P|Well, I don't see why the United States has to have a return on all the money we give out for foreign aid. Aid is the key word in that phrase, because the definition of aid is a charitable or philanthropic act--and they don't usually entail paying us back. If so, then it would be a loan.Even if you don't buy that, I think we can get a return out of it. A lot of the nations we're giving aid to in Africa have a pretty decent Muslim population, as well as other resources and commodities that we can trade. By giving aid money, we increase the likelihood that AIDS is prevented in the younger generations, thus generating a workforce as well as a surviving generation to help bring about a strong African Union and democratic nations to the continent.
And part of the reason I don't want to chuck another $10 billion in at defense is because if the Bush Privatization plan goes through, we'll be up shit creek with a paddle. Our deficits continually worsen, yet somehow we're on pace to cut it in half in three years. That doesn't seem possible. Plus, the costs of Iraq and privatization aren't even accounted for in the current predictions.
And tell me: how will the money we pump into our defense come back and help our economy?
Chris Woods|W|P|By the way, that was me who posted that. For some reason blogger just didn't select me as the person posting that.
"I can't thank all of you enough -- the Daily Kos community, and the blogosphere as a whole -- for all of your effective work during the recent debate over Condoleezza Rice's nomination. Your support and participation in this critical debate meant so much to me. More than 94,000 Americans from across the country signed my petition and stood together to demand the truth from Condoleezza Rice. It was truly an overwhelming response -- much more than I could have anticipated. You helped to get our message out to millions of Americans -- I couldn't have done it without you. And you made a difference. You gave me the voice I needed to ask the tough questions during Dr. Rice's confirmation hearings. And you gave the entire United States Senate the voice it needed to take its "advice and consent" responsibility seriously. In fact, Condoleezza Rice received 13 votes against her confirmation -- the most votes against any Secretary of State's nomination since 1825."It is always good to know that current elected officials recognize the support of the netroots when it comes to achieving goals in politics. Still on the same topic, though, why is it such a big deal for some conservatives that Boxer is now an official member of the dKos community? The idiots (yes, that is what they are) over at Powerline posted part of the comments she left at dKos as an example of "how far left" she is and her "love-fest" with those at dKos. What the hell is the point? Is it a problem to be far-left? Is it a problem to thank bloggers for their help? It seems kind of oxymoronic or hypocritical for a conservative blog that tries to advocate conservative issues get upset at an elected representative for respecting and thanking the work of those on the left who blog and advocate for lefty issues. Maybe they're just mad because they didn't get a payola contract. |W|P|110694721762309319|W|P|Thanks from Barbara Boxer|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"Let's start with the facts. Mr. Bush's argument goes back at least seven years, to a report issued by the Heritage Foundation - a report so badly misleading that the deputy chief actuary (now the chief actuary) of the Social Security Administration wrote a memo pointing out "major errors in the methodology." That's actuary-speak for "damned lies." In fact, the actuary said, "careful research reflecting actual work histories for workers by race indicate that the nonwhite population actually enjoys the same or better expected rates of return from Social Security" as whites. Here's why. First, Mr. Bush's remarks on African-Americans perpetuate a crude misunderstanding about what life expectancy means. It's true that the current life expectancy for black males at birth is only 68.8 years - but that doesn't mean that a black man who has worked all his life can expect to die after collecting only a few years' worth of Social Security benefits. Blacks' low life expectancy is largely due to high death rates in childhood and young adulthood. African-American men who make it to age 65 can expect to live, and collect benefits, for an additional 14.6 years - not that far short of the 16.6-year figure for white men. Second, the formula determining Social Security benefits is progressive: it provides more benefits, as a percentage of earnings, to low-income workers than to high-income workers. Since African-Americans are paid much less, on average, than whites, this works to their advantage. Finally, Social Security isn't just a retirement program; it's also a disability insurance program. And blacks are much more likely than whites to receive disability benefits."I don't know if the GOP has learned it yet, but exploiting someone's race for political benefit isn't a great thing to do. Seems a bit racist to me. And I don't want to hear any lectures from those on the Right telling me how Democrats use race all the time--with Blacks, Hispanics, etc. Race is not and should not be involved in making a political powerplay. If race is used that way, then the person doing it is a bigot--plain and simple. Dr. Krugman agrees:
"Is this an example of what Mr. Bush famously called "the soft bigotry of low expectations?" Maybe not: it isn't particularly soft to treat premature black deaths not as a tragedy we must end but as just another way to push your ideological agenda. But bigotry - yes, that sounds like the right word."|W|P|110694636936799298|W|P|Playing the race card|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"In fact, I generally think presidents, even those I really dislike, should have significant leeway on cabinet appointments. And in this administration, it's pretty clear the White House is calling all the important shots anyway. But I would make a big exception for the Attorney General."|W|P|110694082434931756|W|P|No to Gonzales|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
Robert Schumacher|W|P|Where'd you get the template...doesn't look like a Blogger one. I like it, would love to move to something like it (i.e., use both "sidebar" areas, etc.)"But asked if, as a matter of principle, the United States would pull out of Iraq at the request of a new government, he said: "Yes, absolutely. This is a sovereign government - they're on their feet.""I don't know what to say to that. I'm damn glad the troops will be coming home, since it is almost a guarantee that the Shi'ite majority in Iraq will be elected and that they will ask the US to leave quite quickly. But I'm saddened, especially knowing that we've irreparably damaged a country to the point of civil war. Unless the new Iraqi government accepts broad international help via NATO or the United Nations, the conflict between Baathist funded insurgents and the supposed 140,000 (or the more realistic 14,000) Iraqi troops will soon escalate or deepen into an all out civil war, particularly in the four provinces that are the most besieged by violence. Iraq is a sovereign state again. They have been since last June. I just wish there was some way to convince the Sunnis to participate effectively, as well as create some kind of international force (that isn't viewed as only Americans) to go into Iraq and be welcomed. It is a lose-lose situation for both Iraq and America. Shed a tear for peace and resolution, for worsening violence only darkens the light and hope of tranquility.|W|P|110688573867580440|W|P|Bush to withdraw troops from Iraq if asked|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"In response to continued revelations of government-funded "journalism" -- ranging from the purported video news releases put out by the drug czar's office and the Department of Health and Human Services to the recently uncovered payments to columnists Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher,who flacked administration programs -- Sens. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.) will introduce a bill, The Stop Government Propaganda Act, in the Senate next week. "It's just not enough to say, 'Please don't do it anymore,'" Alex Formuzis, Lautenberg's spokesman, told E&P. "Legislation sometimes is required and we believe it is in this case." The Stop Government Propaganda Act states, "Funds appropriated to an Executive branch agency may not be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States unless authorized by law." "It's time for Congress to shut down the Administration's propaganda mill," Lautenberg said in a statement. "It has no place in the United States Government." The bill is co-sponsored by Sens. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and Jon Corzine (D-N.J.).""More information as it becomes available.|W|P|110686296677937053|W|P|Stop Government Propaganda Act|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"This is personal. As I traveled across the country last year, I learned a lot about the dreams, hopes, fears and frustrations of the American people. Nothing touched me more than the parents I met who feared that illness would strike a child who is uninsured. A sick child is always a worry. A sick child that you can't get help for is a parent's worst nightmare. Helping the 11 million children who have no health coverage isn't even on the radar screen of the Bush administration and the Republican leaders in Congress. But, we're going to put it there. It is totally unacceptable that, in the greatest country in the world, millions of children are not getting the health care they need. That's why this week I introduced the Kids Come First Act. Help me push through the Republicans' political roadblocks and take care of the 11 million children without health insurance. Please co-sponsor my Kids Come First Act by clicking here: http://www.johnkerry.com/KidsFirst The Republican leadership will try to prevent this essential legislation from ever seeing the light of day. Help me gather one million co-signers for the Kids Come First Act, and we'll force them to act or to admit that they just don't care enough to act. Here's why it's so important to do something now:|W|P|110685969977109656|W|P|Kids Come First Act|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.comIn the Senate, I am working hard to convince my colleagues to co-sponsor this vitally important bill. But, the most important co-sponsors - the ones who can help push this legislation through a Republican Congress and the Bush White House - are the hundreds of thousands of grassroots activists in the johnkerry.com community. If you haven't done so already, please sign our Kids Come First petition and forward it to your family, friends, and neighbors: http://www.johnkerry.com/KidsFirst To date, nearly 300,000 Americans have signed our Kids Come First petition. Our goal is to top 500,000 before President Bush makes his State of the Union Address on February 2nd. We'll build from there until we stand one million strong. We've got to put getting our children the health care they need at the top of our national agenda. It won't be easy, but we will never relent until we find a way to make sure Kids Come First. The Bush administration wants to ignore the fact that children without health care translates into needless pain and suffering for millions of American families. But you and I won't let those children be ignored any longer. Making sure that Kids Come First is the right thing to do. What's more, it makes no economic sense to leave millions of American children uninsured. Immunizations, annual visits to a pediatrician, dental care, and screening for vision, hearing, and developmental problems are all long-term money savers for the health care system as a whole. And investing now in the health of our children is truly what is key to saving our Social Security system and the long-term financial solvency issues facing Medicare. The health and productivity of the next generation's workforce is what will contribute most to saving these systems, not whether or not we privatize accounts or means test the benefits. I hope you will take a moment to review this essential proposal -- and I hope you will act to encourage everyone you know to sign our Kids Come First petition now. As you read this, President Bush is on a health care swing through Ohio. In the midst of photo ops and canned speeches, he is offering no genuine solution to the fact that 11 million American children have no health insurance. You and I must work to provide the ideas and leadership that are missing from the White House and the Republican leaders of Congress. And we have to work day in and day out to mobilize America to cover every child. Thanks for standing with me in this essential undertaking."
- 1/4 of children are not fully up to date on their basic immunizations.
- 1/3 with chronic asthma do not get a prescription for medications they need.
- 1/2 of uninsured children have not had a well child visit in the past year.
- 1 in 6 has delayed or unmet medical needs.
- 1 in 5 has trouble accessing health care.
- 1 in 4 does not see a dentist annually.
- 1 in 3 had no health insurance during 2002 and 2003.
"In Mr. Kerry's first major speech since his loss to Mr. Bush in November, he attacked the president for offering health care proposals that amount to "the same window dressing, avoidance of reality that we've seen for the four years." "That's how the president who promised to usher in a 'responsibility era' proposes to deal with a real and present health care crisis, even as he seeks to hype a phony crisis in Social Security," Senator Kerry told a conference organized by Families USA, a nonprofit consumers group. "You know what that sounds like to me?" Mr. Kerry continued. "Sounds like a cradle-to-grave irresponsibility plan.""The specifics of his plan include:
- Repealing tax cuts from President Bush's first term for individuals earning more than $300,000 a year would pay for the measures
- Calls for the federal government and states together to expand Medicaid to cover 11 million children
- Put pressure on the parents in higher-income families to provide insurance by making proof of coverage a requirement for claiming the federal child tax credit, while providing new credits to make policies more affordable
"Even many middle-class workers who contributed regularly are finding that their private accounts - burdened with hidden fees that may have soaked up as much as a third of their original investment - are failing to deliver as much in benefits as they would have received if they had stayed in the old system. Dagoberto Sáez, for example, is a 66-year-old laboratory technician here who plans, because of a recent heart attack, to retire in March. He earns just under $950 a month; his pension fund has told him that his nearly 24 years of contributions will finance a 20-year annuity paying only $315 a month. "Colleagues and friends with the same pay grade who stayed in the old system, people who work right alongside me," he said, "are retiring with pensions of almost $700 a month - good until they die. I have a salary that allows me to live with dignity, and all of a sudden I am going to be plunged into poverty, all because I made the mistake of believing the promises they made to us back in 1981." . . .Chile was careful before it started its private system to accumulate several years of budget surpluses, in contrast to the recent large deficits in the United States. . . .Over all, Chile has spent more than $66 billion on benefits since privatization was introduced. Despite initial projections that the system would be self-sustaining by now, spending on pensions makes up more than a quarter of the national budget, nearly as much as the spending on education and health combined. . . .Chile spends about $2 billion a year to pay retirees from its armed forces, according to Mr. Scolari. The military imposed privatization on the rest of the country, but was careful to preserve its own advantages and exclude fellow soldiers from the system. Despite calls that the military be forced to give up its exemption, no civilian government has been prepared to pursue that. . . .For those remaining in the government's original pay-as-you-go system, the maximum retirement benefit is now about $1,250 a month. The National Center for Alternative Development Studies, a research institute here, calculates that to get that same amount from a private pension fund, workers would have to contribute more than $250,000 over their careers, a target that has been reached by fewer than 500 of the private system's 7 million past and present contributors."Is this really what people want America to look like in the next 10 to 20 years? I sure as hell don't. There Is NO Crisis.|W|P|110683613005251905|W|P|Privatization in Chile|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"I'm herewith resigning as a member of the liberal media elite. I'm joining up with the conservative media elite. They get paid better."Read it now, enjoy the wit and humor. Then remember that this asshole in the White House and his Regime really allowed all of these terrible things to happen. That will kill your giggles quickly.|W|P|110680644935105197|W|P|Maureen Dowd wants to be in the conservative media elite|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
- Patrick Leahy (VT)
- Ted Kennedy (MA)
- Joe Biden (DE)
- Herb Kohl (WI)
- Dick Durbin (IL)
- Dianne Feinstein (CA)
- Russ Feingold (WI)
- Chuck Schumer (NY)
"He is responsible for ensuring that America is a nation in which justice prevails. Mr. Gonzales's record makes him unqualified to take on this role or to represent the American justice system to the rest of the world. The Senate should reject his nomination."|W|P|110675766496619554|W|P|The Wrong Attorney General|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
- He warned that any public discussion about interrogation tactics would help al-Qaida terrorists by giving them "a road map" of what to expect when captured.
- Alberto Gonzales has asserted to the Senate committee weighing his nomination to be attorney general that there's a legal rationale for harsh treatment of foreign prisoners by U.S. forces. In more than 200 pages of written responses to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who plan to vote Wednesday on his nomination, Gonzales told senators that laws and treaties prohibit torture by any U.S. agent without exception.
- But he said the Convention Against Torture treaty, as ratified by the Senate, doesn't prohibit the use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading" tactics on non-U.S. citizens who are captured abroad, in Iraq or elsewhere.
Gonzales, White House counsel and a close Bush adviser, described recent reports of prisoner abuse as "shocking and deeply troubling." But he refused to answer questions from senators about whether interrogation tactics witnessed by FBI agents were unlawful.
|W|P|Chris- I just wanted to let you know what a fantastic job you've done with this blog. Most people use these things to spout off about their random, completely opinion-based beliefs and ideas, which is fine, but you've gone even further and made an attempt to educate people instead of pursuade. My compliments to you!Jen
"Were they really worried that Gallagher would come out for free love without the cash incentive? Neither she nor Williams is really known for their independent streak. In Gallagher's case -- and to some degree in Williams' too -- this seems less like a matter of payola than a Bush administration make-work program for third-tier GOP pundits."------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Washington Post reports that another columnist was paid by the Bush Regime to promote Regime agenda items. This time the proposal in question was federal initiatives promoting families. From the Post's Howard Kurtz:
"In 2002, syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher repeatedly defended President Bush's push for a $300 million initiative encouraging marriage as a way of strengthening families. "The Bush marriage initiative would emphasize the importance of marriage to poor couples" and "educate teens on the value of delaying childbearing until marriage," she wrote in National Review Online, for example, adding that this could "carry big payoffs down the road for taxpayers and children." But Gallagher failed to mention that she had a $21,500 contract with the Department of Health and Human Services to help promote the president's proposal. Her work under the contract, which ran from January through October 2002, included drafting a magazine article for the HHS official overseeing the initiative, writing brochures for the program and conducting a briefing for department officials. "Did I violate journalistic ethics by not disclosing it?" Gallagher said yesterday. "I don't know. You tell me." She said she would have "been happy to tell anyone who called me" about the contract but that "frankly, it never occurred to me" to disclose it."First, Armstrong Williams, now Maggie Gallagher. And yes, Ms. Gallagher, you DID violate journalistic ethics. You admitted it yourself when you filed a column apologizing to your readers today. Where does the insanity, illegality, and unethical-ities end, President Bush? It is interesting to note that she doesn't compare herself or this situation to the Armstrong Williams fiasco. WHY THE HELL NOT? |W|P|110671239013566268|W|P|New Bush Regime payola revealings|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"Not so long ago I would have identified the liberal media as the New York Times and Washington Post, CNN and the three TV networks, and National Public Radio. But both the Times and the Post fell for the Bush administration's lies about WMD and supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq. On balance CNN, the networks, and NPR have not made an issue of the Bush administration's changing explanations for the invasion. Apparently, Rush Limbaugh and National Review think there is a liberal media because the prison torture scandal could not be suppressed and a cameraman filmed the execution of a wounded Iraqi prisoner by a U.S. Marine. Do the Village Voice and The Nation comprise the "liberal media"? The Village Voice is known for Nat Hentoff and his columns on civil liberties. Every good conservative believes that civil liberties are liberal because they interfere with the police and let criminals go free. The Nation favors spending on the poor and disfavors gun rights, but I don't see the "liberal hate" in The Nation's feeble pages that Rush Limbaugh was denouncing on C-Span. In the ranks of the new conservatives, however, I see and experience much hate. It comes to me in violently worded, ignorant and irrational e-mails from self-professed conservatives who literally worship George Bush. Even Christians have fallen into idolatry. There appears to be a large number of Americans who are prepared to kill anyone for George Bush. The Iraqi War is serving as a great catharsis for multiple conservative frustrations: job loss, drugs, crime, homosexuals, pornography, female promiscuity, abortion, restrictions on prayer in public places, Darwinism and attacks on religion. Liberals are the cause. Liberals are against America. Anyone against the war is against America and is a liberal. "You are with us or against us.""As Alterman simply puts it, "His views help demonstrate just how far what now passes for conservatism in America has strayed from that vision."|W|P|110671090556528995|W|P|The conscience of a conservative|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com