"Grassley personally supports creation of the accounts along with a plan to solve the Social Security shortfall. But he said that as he works with committee Republicans, "I can say we're doing very good on solvency but not very good on personal accounts." He said he might put forth a proposal as early as today if he can get dollar estimates on it and coax committee members into an agreement. Grassley did not offer details but has in the past seemed open to slowing the growth of benefits for wealthy and middle-class workers and has said that raising the retirement age must be a part of any package."So, the ball is still rolling--and getting much faster. I'm contacting Rep. Boswell (my Congressman) in a few minutes to see where he stands on the issue in the House. You all should contact your reps as well and then communicate where they stand to Josh Marshall. Should new legislative proposals begin to emerge, Democrats must be ready to yield no ground and to fight back. Pathetic politics should not be the strategy in this game.|W|P|112017888480794201|W|P|Round 2 is gearing up|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"How would the FEC define "blog"? Like every other website you visit, this site is serving content via HTTP protocol on port 80. As far as the guts of the site, Movable Type considers itself a "publishing platform" these days. Like Slate, this site has multiple authors, covers a variety of topics, and updates sporadically throughout the day. If the FEC wants to draw a line between the online world and print, I'd love to see a comparison between the traffic statistics of NYTimes.com and the circulation numbers of The New York Times print version. Then again, the difference between whether or not I'm allowed to discuss politics could be as simple as not using the word "blog" anymore. Semantic restrictions are meaningless when you're a template change away from avoiding legal scrutiny."These efforts are becoming meaningless. Sometimes groups like the FEC need to take the higher ground and worry about the real threats to fair political speech and campaign finance issues. Maybe things like 527s. . .|W|P|112017579284930152|W|P|Online magazines spread across the internets|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
Fred|W|P|Amen!!!!!! Chris Woods|W|P|Too bad your post title didn't go on to say "...But what if O'Connor does?"Lol, this should make for some interesting politics this summer.
- Bob Herbert on incompetent leaders in the NY Times
- Ezra Klein on judicial fiat and abortion
- Looks like Time will be turning over Matt Cooper's source
- Eric Alterman's Nation column on Rove's comments
- Orcinus (David Neiwert) on "Hunting Liberals"
With the hub-bub over the recent FEC testimony and rules-chaning, I'm changing TPF into an online magazine. Entirely commentary, news, and features. All of this spurred by The Talent Show, Atrios, AMERICAonlinemagazine, and others. To understand Atrios' new format, read here.|W|P|112010208739457525|W|P|Welcome to my
|W|P|Have you seen this blog?http://scottfromca.blogspot.com/
It's a new experiment on a community blog that you might be interested in posting at.
Chris Woods|W|P|That is similar to one I saw at Best Buy on sale Saturday. The problem was that that was the last day of the sale and I didn't have the money on me to buy it (it was $860 with a $250 instant rebate). Supposedly it will be going on sale again, so I'm crossing my fingers..."A Republican congressman from North Carolina told CNN on Wednesday that the "evidence is clear" that Iraq was involved in the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001. "Saddam Hussein and people like him were very much involved in 9/11," Rep. Robin Hayes said. Told no investigation had ever found evidence to link Saddam and 9/11, Hayes responded, "I'm sorry, but you must have looked in the wrong places." Hayes, the vice chairman of the House subcommittee on terrorism, said legislators have access to evidence others do not. Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said that Saddam was a dangerous man, but when asked about Hayes' statement, would not link the deposed Iraqi ruler to the terrorist attacks on New York, the Pentagon and Pennsylvania. "I haven't seen compelling evidence of that," McCain, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told CNN."WTF, mate? This guy clearly is off his rocker and has been drinking too much of the kool kids kool-aid. Will Bunch has the full interview transcript here, the guy is a nutjob. How can someone in that position lie so bluntly and clearly?|W|P|112007998341670594|W|P|WTF Moment of the Day|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"Now raise your hand if you still think Karl Rove’s 9/11 remarks last week were unintentional. Facing mounting U.S. casualties, an increasingly skeptical public, and a growing chorus of criticism (even within his own party), a confident and resolute President Bush last night directly tied the situation in Iraq to 9/11 and the war on terrorism. To illustrate this renewed focus, he made five direct references to 9/11 and two references to Osama bin Laden."I can hear the White House being physically slammed against a wall by that one.|W|P|112005822934004127|W|P|First Read|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"By the time I encountered Cory Bray, a towering senior from the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business, the beer was flowing freely. "The people opposed to the war aren't putting their asses on the line," Bray boomed from beside the bar. Then why isn't he putting his ass on the line? "I'm not putting my ass on the line because I had the opportunity to go to the number-one business school in the country," he declared, his voice rising in defensive anger, "and I wasn't going to pass that up.""The quotes--and the story--only get better. Go give it a read. That's why I'm proud of my brother--he's a supporter of the war and Bush (for mostly indoctrination reasons via his high school ROTC commanders, but that's for another time)--yet he's still going to put his life on the line. Saying you have convictions and feel one way are great, but proving it through physical and real action is the true hero's way.|W|P|112005650101399218|W|P|Generation chickenhawk|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
|W|P|It makes no sense to say that you aren't a true supporter of a issue unless you are willing to actively devote your life to doing it yourself. Are you for Pro-Choice? Fine, then give up your job and current lifestyle and travel the country to protest at all abortion clinics or join as a full-time staffer any organization that interacts with Congress as a special interest group. Not willing to go to that level of committment? Well, then you're all talk aren't you? Is that a fair gauge of your personal integrity or the validity of your core beliefs? Of course not.
|W|P|Okay, I'm appropriately red-faced.After realizing my completely inaccurate analogy, let's try it again:
What I SHOULD have said is that, in following the logic of the posted article; if you are Pro-Choice but you don't intend to quit your current way of life and join a full-time staff that works to defend Roe vs. Wade by engaging with State and National politicians as a special interest group, then your committment to the issue is shallow and just a lot of talk, instead of putting your life where your views are.
THAT is just as unfair of a judgment to put on "Pro-Choice" advocates as it is for "Pro-War" advocates.
Chris Woods|W|P|Your analogy is misleading. We're not facing a shortage of pro-choicers or pro-lifers, we're facing a shortage of American soldiers. At that point, able-bodied men and women who support the war or who aren't conscientious objectors have some kind of obligation just to say more than "I support it and that's enough."Moreover, these stances are based on principle, more or less. Principles don't just mean preaching to the choir or making online posts about what you believe. It is real physical action.
Were I a woman in a situation where I needed an abortion, then I could really step up to the plate an have one (God, forgive me for making this such a political issue not just one about life). Since I'm not, I support Planned Parenthood and other pro-choice groups however I can through physical actions such as volunteering, running phone banks, etc.
Were I able to join the military and actively supporting this war, I would do the same thing, especially in this period of time when our country needs young, able-bodied soldiers. My complaints and criticisms are lobbed against those young men and women who could join up, but think words at home are good enough.
To truly show your principle and your support, it takes physical action, not just clacking on a keyboard or speaking fiercely.
|W|P|I disagree. Every eligible, able-bodied person who happens to support the actions in Iraq does not automatically have an obligation to enlist in the military or National Guard. You are talking about a level of personal sacrifice and life-altering long-term commitment that can't be equated with someone who supports Pro-Life by answering some phones or who runs an information booth a few times a year! Those are two VASTLY different levels of acting on principles. Listen, if someone was beating their chest about their support of the fight in Iraq and was also pressuring others to enlist and chastising those who didn't, I'd fully agree that the person better have done military service themselves to be talking up such a commitment to others.
Otherwise, no one is in any position to discredit someone's right to an opinion on this issue, just because they won't make a 100% commitment to giving their life to the military.
This is a very intellectually dishonest agrument that has been created to try to invalidate the opinions and beliefs of a segment of those who support Bush and the actions in Iraq.
There are enough straight-up criticisms about how the war and its aftermath have been handled, that distorted arguments like these shouldn't be necessary.
Chris Woods|W|P|I don't think they have an automatic obligation, but it would show some guts. And as for me being a pro-lifer, as a male, what else am I supposed to do? I can't rise to the actual, physical occasion simply because of physiology.As for "beating their chest about their support of the fight in Iraq and was alos pressuring others to enlist and chastising those who didn't" then you're not completely familiar with the actions of those in Generation Chickenhawk, namely a large number of College Republicans. Spend some time with their groups on campuses across the country and you'll understand what I'm talking about.
As for your finaly statement about the straight-up criticisms, you're absolutely right. That is where the real debate should be happening. The Generation Chickenhawk complex frustrates me, but not nearly as bad as the false 9/11 connections, the lies about strategy, and everything else we're doing in Iraq.
|W|P|But the point, it seems, to this whole Operation Yellow Elephant ploy is that those who are fit to enroll in the military and are vocal supporters of the war are hypocrites for not enlisting, and "putting their lives where their mouths are". Regardless of any manpower shortage, just because a supporter chooses not to accept such a drastic live-altering change in their life by committing to the military, doesn't invalidate their right to support the actions in Iraq! Although it obviously is an ultimate example of putting your beliefs in action, if someone does enlist.
There is a huge need for more quality teachers in our school systems. So should those who strongly and/or publicly support that view be expected to make the commitment to become teachers themselves or risk being judged as hypocrites?
Should those who passionately support the efforts to bring the US into the Kyoto Treaty to curb global warming be expected to make a commitment to working full-time for a scientific advisory board or a political special interest group that is dedicated to implementing change in US policy toward our global environment? If they won't make that level of commitment, are they hypocrites?
This Yellow Elephant rationale is similiar to these points, in that, if someone supports the war but they choose not to make the total life commitment of joining the military themselves, then they are hypocrites regarding their opinion on Iraq.
I understand the shortage of new recruits that the military and National Guard are seeing right now, but making such a dramatic, life-changing personal decision to join the military isn't required to validate one's opinion or support of US actions in Iraq.
"Our military reports that we have killed or captured hundreds of foreign fighters in Iraq who have come from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and other nations."Like I, and the CIA and others have said, this is because we let them get in. Instead of actually defeating al-Qaeda in the first place and focusing a tight mission, we got zealous and rapidly pushed into Iraq. We created the new battleground and it is kicking our collective ass. That's where accountability comes in. We didn't and haven't held ourselves accountable--or at least America via the leadership of Bush and co.--to the results we've gotten. Our cheap and shoddy means created these dangerous, deadly, and destructive ends. To promote accountability, we can't do things like celebrating an accomplished mission a month after invading Iraq like President Bush did. Now he claims that mission is still going:
"To complete the mission, we will continue to hunt down the terrorists and insurgents. To complete the mission, we will prevent al-Qaida and other foreign terrorists from turning Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban – a safe haven from which they could launch attacks on America and our friends. And the best way to complete the mission is to help Iraqis build a free nation that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself."I thought we did that when you landed on the aircraft carrier with a huge bulge and said we'd accomplished the mission? Was that a lie? I think it was. And now it is our duty as patriots and as Democrats to stand up to the lack of accountability in this adminstration when it comes to Iraq and the war on terror. This is a serious time meant for serious discourse. Democrats are going to step up to the plate and hammer hits on withdrawal and accountability. And undoubtedly, the Washington Republicans are going to strike out. UPDATE: The New York Times and The Washington Post editorial boards both weigh in--and not positively.|W|P|112001899072648836|W|P|Thoughts on the speech|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"Tonight's address offered the President an excellent opportunity to level with the American people about the current situation in Iraq, put forth a path for success, and provide the means to assess our progress. Unfortunately he fell short on all counts. "There is a growing feeling among the American people that the President's Iraq policy is adrift, disconnected from the reality on the ground and in need of major mid-course corrections. "Staying the course," as the President advocates, is neither sustainable nor likely to lead to the success we all seek. "The President's numerous references to September 11th did not provide a way forward in Iraq, they only served to remind the American people that our most dangerous enemy, namely Osama bin Laden, is still on the loose and Al Qaeda remains capable of doing this nation great harm nearly four years after it attacked America. "Democrats stand united and committed to seeing that we achieve success in Iraq and provide our troops, their families, and our veterans everything they need and deserve for their sacrifices for our nation. The stakes are too high, and failure in Iraq cannot be an option. Success is only possible if the President significantly alters his current course. That requires the President to work with Congress and finally begin to speak openly and honestly with our troops and the American people about the difficult road ahead. "Our troops and their families deserve no less."Amen, brother.|W|P|112001907633309986|W|P|Reid's response|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
- Josh Marshall on the offensiveness of the 9/11 invokations and the sad fact that the public buys them
- Matt Yglesias smacks around the idea of Iraq as "another battlefield in the war on terror"
- Ezra and (the newly designed ) Think Progress do a "speech by the numbers post
- Think Progress as a whole offers a fantastic rapid-response to the Bush redundancies
- AMERICAblog fills us in on the fake applause
- Pascal Riche proves that its all about the rhetoric and patriotic references
- Power Line of course calls it an excellent speech, but admits "There was nothing in it that we and our readers didn't already know..." Ain't that the truth
"MR. McCLELLAN: Good afternoon, everybody. Let me begin by giving you a preview of tomorrow night's remarks. [...] So tomorrow night the American people have the opportunity to hear from their Commander-in-Chief about the nature of the enemy we face in Iraq, the situation on the ground and the way forward to victory. [...] This is a time of testing. It is a critical moment in Iraq. The terrorists are seeking to shake our will and weaken our resolve. They know that they cannot win unless we abandon the mission before it is complete. [...] [E]lections have taken place; more than 8 million Iraqis showed up at the polls and defied the terrorists and elected a representative government to serve during the transition to democracy. [...] There is going to be tough fighting in the days and weeks ahead, as the President has talked about. He will talk about the nature of the enemy, as I mentioned. The terrorists have no regard for human life. They have no vision and no alternative but chaos, destruction and violence. It is a determined and ruthless enemy that has chosen to make Iraq a central front in the war on terrorism. They know that their survival is at stake. Iraq -- a free and peaceful Iraq will be a major blow to the ambitions of the terrorists. And every step of the way, these terrorists have failed to stop the progress on the political front. They have failed to stop the Iraqi people from moving forward on holding elections and electing a representative government. They have failed to stop the Iraqi people from signing up to serve in the security forces. And they failed to stop the transfer of sovereignty just one year ago, as well, on the time schedule that was outlined..."Scotty's a goddamn liar--at least by omission. The core of the speech will be Iraq = terrorists, 9/11, voting, war, freedom, etc. The same mumbo-jumbo about all the positives even though they're completely washed away two times over by all the negative. And the omissions that McClellan (and presumably, Dear Leader) will leave out is how the insurgents and fighters in Iraq became terrorists. Prior to our invasion, the only terrorists in Iraq were Iraqis, thus making them domestic terrorists. Our strategic definition of terrorists for decades--both theoretically and literally--has been people outside of their home states and attacking in other states. Moreover, they usually aren't state-sponsored and are for the most part amorphous, transnational actors. Once we invaded Iraq, the al-Qaeda terrorists in Syria poured into Iraq because we didn't secure the borders like we should've. It was all about Don Rumsfeld's cheap and shoddy war plans. We brought the terrorists into Iraq and now we're the ones who have to fight them. And for the actual Iraqi insurgents who essentially just want the US occupying force out, al-Qaeda offers them support. It truly is a vicious cycle. Furthermore, it is the rhetoric of Iraq = terrorism that is worse than the reality the White House and Dear Leader will try to portray. By invoking that rhetoric, they're able to insert connections of 9/11/01 and the war in Afghanistan to Iraq. The problem is that there is no connection--at least before we invaded. Now there is a connection, but because we fucked up. Remember, there has never been and never will be a pre-invasion connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda that would make them a legitimate or fundamental part of the war on terror. That is why we made the case for war (read: lied to the American people). Now what are we going to do to Bush and Regime about it?|W|P|111999423409791099|W|P|Tonight's speech: Iraq = terrorists|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
Yes--27%--9342 votes No--73%--25969 votes|W|P|111997334495505319|W|P|CNN Quickvote|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
Great AP article in Business Week about Markos' and Atrios' preparations to testify before the FEC today. Wish them luck. It is a serious effort they are partaking in, and they're really speaking for all of us.|W|P|111997098380407123|W|P|Puttin' it to the man (Bloggers testify before FEC)|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
UPDATE: Here's a pretty graph showing the quick sinking of the SS Bushtanic. (Click to enlarge)
Rob, get your Republican sub-mariner friends (I know there's one over there) to use their sonar to find Bush's sinking ship. It's not even above the surface anymore:
"The number of Americans disapproving of President Bush's job performance has risen to the highest level of his presidency, according to the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday. According to the poll, 53 percent of respondents said they disapproved of Bush's performance, compared to 45 percent who approved. The margin of error was plus or minus 3 percentage points. The 53 percent figure was the highest disapproval rating recorded in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll since Bush became president in January 2001."And instead of pinging sound when they find it, can we use a QUACK?|W|P|111993024926098955|W|P|Get out the sonar!|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
Robert Schumacher|W|P|:) Our sonar doesn't work to those depths...Your "Democracy Bond" is a commitment to make a monthly contribution the Democratic Party in order to: * Reform the political process by building a political party beholden only to the people, not the special interests * Build the Democratic Party from the ground up in every precinct so that we can compete everywhere * Win elections in every state and territory of the United States, at every level of office "Democracy Bonds" are about building a community of Americans with a stake in our common future -- locally, nationally, and globally. They will bond together a person in Alaska and a person in Missouri in common cause for a political process where parties are accountable to ordinary people and their concerns. You can only buy one bond. You can decide to commit more money per month, depending on what you can afford, but the principle is democratic with a small-d -- one person, one bond. Every person can be a stakeholder in our party.And you get to own a piece of the Democratic pie. We don't need rich lobbyists, porn stars, and special interests--we need the ordinary folks: you!|W|P|111992975752845382|W|P|Own a piece of the pie|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
- CJ Rehnquist and AJ Kennedy agreed with each other 77% of the time, more then any other pair of justices, pointing out that the "voting blocks" so often discussed are still relatively fluid.
- AJ Thomas wrote more majority and minority opinions then any other justice. The justice said to be exhibiting caution because of Anita Hill might not be anymore. Is he the unknown candidate for Chief Justice? (Following my theory that Scalia might not take the position if it were offered to him)
- There was no stable majority block in 5-4 cases. However, AJ O'Connor was the deciding vote in 12 cases of the term.
"While the Supreme Court ruled that the Ten Commandments can be displayed on government land, but not in courthouses... Who wants to explain the logic in that? What's next? Are Muslims going to be granted the right to swear on the Koran when testifying in court?"Matt Margolis' clear contempt for Muslims and Islam clearly shows his bigotry and racism.|W|P|111989265812553571|W|P|Over the line|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
Chris Woods|W|P|This is the comment I left for him over there...let's see if he publishes it or not:It is also important to keep in mind that the Supreme Court made sure to give themselves plenty of wiggle room with regard to statues that currently are there, but don't play a purely religious role or weren't placed there with religious intent.
Oh, and your contempt for Muslims and Islam only shows to a greater degree your bigotry and racism.
Chris Woods|W|P|Yeah, there is no requirement that one place their hand on a bible anymore. In fact, some states have allowed the witness to choose from their faith, i.e. they have the Torah, the Bible, and the Koran to choose from. At least, I think thats true. Chris Woods|W|P|Was that snark, Chase? lol.I agree, whatever makes people want to tell the truth, bring it on.
"When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm."Wtf? I think from now on I'm gonna have a "WTF?" moment of the day.|W|P|111988599664884432|W|P|Priest abuse? Blame Boston|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
UPDATE (9:35): HOLY SHIT! The Court ruled unanimously that developers of software violate federal copyright law when they provide computer users with the means to share music and movie files downloaded from the internet. In the words of Atrios, things are fucked.
UPDATE (9:17 AM): Matt Cooper and Judith Miller head to jail. Cable companies don't have to share lines with the competition. AP stories here and here, respectively.
UPDATE (9:14 AM): A victory for the separation of church and state--no Ten Commandments displays in courthouses. And now I can hear the collective gasps of millions of wingnuts across America. Five-four decision.
Today is the day of all days to watch in the US Supreme Court. The final day of their term is full of many controversial cases awaiting decisions and speculation about who will resign and who will replace them. Your thoughts?|W|P|111987962282757428|W|P|SCOTUS Watch|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
Slate.com offers in great detail the judicial histories of eight potential Supreme Court nominees to succeed the resigning (When? Maybe tomorrow or sometime this week?) Chief Justice William Rehnquist. The 'Elite Eight', as some have begun to call those on the shortlist, are quite the group of judges. First off, let's list all eight judges. (Current position in parentheses)
- Michael J. Luttig (US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit)
- John Roberts (US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit)
- Emilio Garza (US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit)
- Michael McConnell (US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit)
- Alberto Gonzales (Attorney General of the United States)
- J. Harvie Wilkinson III (US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit)
- Edith Brown Clement (US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit)
- Samuel Alito (US Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit)
Robert Schumacher|W|P|I don't know a lot about the others, but Gonzales...I'd have to say "NO". I can see his moderate tone, but when you factor in his shocking lack of ethics in the "torture memos", I can't accept him as a Supreme Court Justice. The ultimate question of detainees may again come to SCOTUS, and I frankly don't trust him to do the right thing in that position...and that would even further weaken our standing in the world. Chris Woods|W|P|I would hope that he would honestly consider the issue differently were he to be in that position where the political and superior pressures weren't that there at all.Then again, you could be right. Which is why he's on my questionable/ok list.
And it looks like whoever resigns, Roberts or Luttig are the top 2 candidates for the nomination. I'd pick Luttig over Roberts by far. . .but in a race with Michael McConnell, I'd pick him in a heartbeat. He's the easy political victory for Bush and is pretty well accepted by both parties.
Robert Schumacher|W|P|Leave it to Bush to pick the worst of the lot just to force another nuclear option showdown. GOPers would call any filibuster to be outside the agreement of the 14, and if they could get enough of the GOP members of the 14 to go along, we'd have nuclear Frist back on the button.But maybe, just maybe, given his lame-duck problems already, he may choose discretion and the political win. I don't mind conservatives per se on the high court...Kennedy has shown that he can rule in favor of law and the Constitution over his own personal leanings when it's the "right thing to do". Hell, I can take Rhenquist...just not another Scalia or Thomas, please.
5. Benjamin Franklin 4. George Washington 3. Martin Luther King, Jr. 2. Abraham Lincoln 1. Ronald ReaganWow...I'm beginning to feel the WTFs. If Ronald "Iran-Contra" Reagan wins I'm going to go apeshit. At 8:46, the WTFs are getting stronger. At 8:56=WHAT THE FUCK?|W|P|111983617418870490|W|P|Greatest American live-blogging==>WTF?|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
Chris Woods|W|P|Yeah, they're the same thing.I wonder if the freeping had anything to do with the results...
Robert Schumacher|W|P|I just saw a couple of seconds of it (as the wife channel surfed) and was very dismayed to see the Ben Franklin only narrowly beat out Dubya. George W. Bush????!!!?!?!?? What the fuck indeed!!! Chris Woods|W|P|Reagan did get picked though, unfortunately."A suicide bomber with explosives hidden beneath watermelons in a pickup truck slammed into a police station near a market Sunday in Mosul, the first of three bombings that killed at least 33 people and wounded 19 in the northwestern city. Attacks elsewhere killed at least five other people in Iraq, including a roadside bomb that killed a U.S. soldier and wounded two others in central Baghdad."|W|P|111981218177983085|W|P|'Last throes' watch|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"U.S. officials recently held secret talks in Iraq with the commanders of several Iraqi insurgent groups in an effort to open a dialogue with them, a British newspaper reported Sunday. U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld would not directly confirm or deny the report when asked about it in several TV interviews Sunday, saying only that "we talk to people all the time." The Sunday Times newspaper in London said the insurgent commanders "apparently came face to face" with four American officials during meetings on June 3 and June 13 at a summer villa near Balad, about 40 miles (25 miles) north of Baghdad, the Iraqi capital."First, we have an excellent idea of where OBL is but we can't capture him for some reason. Now we have these leaders right next to us talking and we just try to negotiate. I seriously don't understand what the fuck is happening over there. Maybe these talks have something to do with President Bush's address to the nation tomorrow night.|W|P|111979625588593446|W|P|Who wants to play let's make a deal?|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
FOX NEWS SUNDAY, 9 a.m.: Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. THIS WEEK (ABC), 9 a.m.: Former FBI acting director L. Patrick Gray and Rumsfeld. FACE THE NATION (CBS), 10:30 a.m.: Gen. John Abizaid, commander of U.S. Central Command. MEET THE PRESS (NBC), 10:30 a.m.: U2 singer Bono and Rumsfeld. LATE EDITION (CNN), noon: Sens. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) and Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari, Lebanese President Emile Lahoud and Abizaid.|W|P|111976076584183370|W|P|Bobbleheads|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
Allura|W|P|The sad thing is that if you showed that list of names to most people the most frequently recognized name would be Bono.Oh well, at least he's getting people interested in politics and global issues... [sigh]
The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan recommended changing the way benefits are calculated. All these ideas are on the table.It seemed to me a strange aberation for a President largely known as conservative and largely known to reject "intellectualism" to pick the words of a very liberal New York senator and Ivy League professor. I dismissed it at the time as an attempt solely to illustrate bipartisanship and largely forgot about it. Tonight I read the (now infamous) speech given by Karl Rove at the New York Conservative Party and discovered yet another reference to Moynihan:
A quarter-century ago, a Senator from this state, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, wrote this: "of a sudden, the GOP has become a party of ideas." It was true then; and it remains true today. We are the party of ideasThe President, it turns out, appointed the former Senator to his initial social security panel in 2002 as well, which may explain the SOTU quote. However, I think there's something deeper going on here. There must be a reason for the administration to select someone with such a polarizingly different political nerve both to be on the panel and to be quoted and given national attention. What, then, is the objective? The point is made quite evident in George F Will's tribute to the Senator upon his passing:
But he was a liberal dismayed by what he called "the leakage of reality from American life.'' When in 1994 the Senate debated an education bill, Moynihan compared the legislation's two quantifiable goals--a high school graduation rate of "at least 90 percent'' by 2000, and American students "first in the world in mathematics and science''--to Soviet grain production quotas. The Senate's Sisyphus, Moynihan was forever pushing uphill a boulder of inconvenient data. A social scientist trained to distinguish correlation from causation, and a wit, Moynihan puckishly said that a crucial determinant of the quality of American schools is proximity to the Canadian border. The barb in his jest was this: High cognitive outputs correlate not with high per-pupil expenditures but with a high percentage of two-parent families. For that, there was the rough geographical correlation that caused Moynihan to suggest that states trying to improve their students' test scores should move closer to Canada. For calling attention, four decades ago, to the crisis of the African-American family--26 percent of children were being born out of wedlock--he was denounced as a racist by lesser liberals. Today the percentage among all Americans is 33, among African-Americans 69, and family disintegration, meaning absent fathers, is recognized as the most powerful predictor of most social pathologies. At the U.N. he witnessed that institution's inanity (as in its debate about the threat to peace posed by U.S. forces in the Virgin Islands, at that time 14 Coast Guardsmen, one shotgun, one pistol) and its viciousness (the resolution condemning Zionism as racism). Striving to move America "from apology to opposition,'' he faulted U.S. foreign policy elites as "decent people, utterly unprepared for their work.'' Their "common denominator, apart from an incapacity to deal with ideas, was a fear of making a scene, a form of good manners that is a kind of substitute for ideas.'' Except they did have one idea, that "the behavior of other nations, especially the developing nations, was fundamentally a reaction to the far worse behavior of the United States.'' Moynihan carried Woodrow Wilson's faith in international law, but he had what Wilson lacked--an understanding that ethnicity makes the world go 'round. And bleed. The persistence of this premodern sensibility defeats what Moynihan called "the liberal expectancy.'' He meant the expectation that the world would become tranquil as ethnicity and religion became fading residues of mankind's infancy.Is it that the generally liberal Sen. Moynihan came to (some) conservative conclusions when it was useful for the administration? The several modern examples (think Libermann and media, Dodd and deregulation or even [gasp] Ted Kennedy and NCLB) left unused by the right suggest that may not be the case. The point here, in my opinion, is not that a liberal came to these conclusions, but that an intellectual did. For a president who is mocked by most all intellectual circles to associate his policies more readily with intellectualism is not only purposeful, but political genius. What's illustrated here is yet another example of how the Bush administration can subtly (but effectively) modify its image over time to combat image flaws. Most importantly, it is a significant illustration of what Bush is capable of politically and what Kerry wasn't.|W|P|111975468933028136|W|P|Moynihan and the Republican Ascetic|W|P|
Chris Woods|W|P|Chase, I understand the association with an intellectual and all of that. It clearly makes sense and I think its a good political objective for each party to take part in.But my question is: What are the new ideas being put out by the Washington Republicans? It seems that what the conservative intellectuals are putting out is the same old, same old. Here Matt Yglesias notes how Bill Kristol thinks the Republicans should keep cutting taxes. Its just a repeat of the same old mantra--yet how many Americans has their policies really helped?
Here's another good "ideas watch" by Yglesias with regards to conservative intellectuals and DR-CAFTA.
Finally, when Bush quoted Moynihan, it now seems that it was just for bipartisanship.
Moynihan was worried about long-term solvency of the program. Bush has admitted that what he wants for Social Security is private accounts--which both he, the White House, and Cheney have all said don't address long-term solvency issues. Essentially, its just an ideological demand or desire.
Their ideas any more seem to be built off of what looks good politically and not what actually is good for people and ideology. It almost seems like intellectual dishonesty.
Hopefully this all made sense...I just woke up from a two hour nap and am groggy still.
Chris Woods|W|P|Makes sense, Chase.though, on the Democrats universal healthcare plan, the policy ideas coming out of some of our thinktanks and politicos are starting to look quite interesting as they are combo plans, essentially, of pieces of different programs to make one successful single-payer US system.
"To have the sober conversation about the war in Iraq that America badly needs, it is vital to acknowledge three facts: The war has nothing to do with Sept. 11. Saddam Hussein was a sworn enemy of Washington, but there was no Iraq-Qaeda axis, no connection between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist attacks on the United States. Yet the president and his supporters continue to duck behind 9/11 whenever they feel pressure about what is happening in Iraq. The most cynical recent example was Karl Rove's absurd and offensive declaration this week that conservatives and liberals had different reactions to 9/11. Let's be clear: Americans of every political stripe were united in their outrage and grief, united in their determination to punish those who plotted the mass murder and united behind the war in Afghanistan, which was an assault on terrorists. Trying to pretend otherwise is the surest recipe for turning political dialogue into meaningless squabbling. The war has not made the world, or this nation, safer from terrorism. The breeding grounds for terrorists used to be Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia; now Iraq has become one. Of all the justifications for invading Iraq that the administration juggled in the beginning, the only one that has held up over time is the desire to create a democratic nation that could help stabilize the Middle East. Any sensible discussion of what to do next has to begin by acknowledging that. The surest way to make sure that conversation does not happen is for the administration to continue pasting the "soft on terror" label on those who want to talk about the war. If the war is going according to plan, someone needs to rethink the plan. Progress has been measurable on the political front. But even staunch supporters of the war, like the Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, told Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at a hearing this week that President Bush was losing public support because the military effort was not keeping pace. A top general said this week that the insurgency was growing. The frequency of attacks is steady, or rising a bit, while the repulsive tactic of suicide bombings has made them more deadly."|W|P|111974673700026435|W|P|Three things about Iraq|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"The market for political solutions doesn't really exist. But a smart political party wouldn't take that as a reason not to offer solution. A smart party would find some solutions, create the market in which they can live, and come to dominate that new market."Indeed.|W|P|111974230480106922|W|P|"If you build it, they will come"|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
Via Arianna Huffington at The Huffington Post:
"The guy sent to pick me up by the Vail Valley Institute (where I’m speaking) told me that he had seen the VP’s motorcade speed towards the local hospital. Being an intrepid HuffPost reporter, I asked him to take me straight there. Upon our arrival, we encountered a high level of security -- and a lot of zipped lips: “We cannot tell you anything,” “No comment,” “That information is not available...” But one hospital staffer, obviously not schooled in the secretive ways of Cheney, let it slip: “He’s no longer here”. And since you cannot “no longer” be someplace you’ve never been, we can deduce -- though not confirm -- that Cheney did, in fact, pay a visit to the local hospital. The reason? Over to you AP..."|W|P|111965885040530623|W|P|Cheney sped to hospital|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"Karl Rove didn't get George W. Bush this far just by luck. Rove has a brilliant and so far unbeatable strategy when it comes to political warfare: He doesn't defend his candidate's weaknesses, he attacks his opponent's strengths. Unapologetically. Consider the 2004 campaign, when Rove was faced with a Vietnam problem. A war hero was running against his boss, who had opted to stay well out of harm's way. Rather than defend, Rove attacked -- and put John Kerry on the defensive. Today, Democrats are uniting against the war and the public is increasingly worried and critical about Bush's leadership. So what's Rove doing? Rather than defend against their criticisms, Rove has decided to go for the jugular. The most compelling anti-war arguments are that the war in Iraq was a diversion from the war on terror and that American troops are dying daily for no good reason. So Rove's response is to liken war critics to al Qaeda sympathizers intent on subverting the American military."|W|P|111966947121761996|W|P|Froomkin gets Rove|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
This afternoon, Tapped called the offices of every Republican senator and asked their press staff the following: "Does Karl Rove speak for Senator X in his recent comments on liberals and September 11?" Several offices had no comment. Many transferred us into voicemail boxes, and we plan to call them back on Monday if they don’t respond. But we got two offices to react. While Kay Bailey Hutchinson's staff told us she agrees with Rove's remarks, Rick Santorum's communications director, Robert Traynham, suggested that the Pennsylvanian had a different reaction. He told me: "Karl Rove speaks for himself. He doesn't speak for the senator. On 9-11, there was no such thing as a Republican or a Democrat, and that's what the senator believes."Well, KBH can go fuck off. As for Santorum, good luck against Bob Casey--not. At least the man's got some kind of a backbone.|W|P|111965781819795344|W|P|Santorum distances himself from Rove|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
Busch Light at 10 AM?
How low can you go?
Steve Gilliard takes the College War Avoiders to task here.
And for more and more updates, follow the exploits of the undcover agents over at Campus Progress.
|W|P|111965735042530212|W|P|Campus Republicans like cheap beer|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com-"I am an American, not an African-American." - The Civil Rights movement destroyed black people's sense of self-respect and their compass for what's right. - The Civil Rights Movement took the men out of their homes and prevented black people from thinking for themselves. - It is not racism but lack of moral character that causes problems for black people. - The black leadership succeeds by keeping black folks angry. - Now Muslim folks are moving in and trying to take over. - "I don't care what people say, but (Muslim people) don't like us!" - America has already given black people all it has to give. - On reparations, he emphasizes the fact that all the slaves are dead. - On those who want reparations, he says, "Instead of reparations, how 'bout a free ticket back to Africa?" (Raucous laughter.) - "The Democratic battle is ordained by the devil." - "It's not white vs. black, it's good vs. evil." - "White folks need to get over their fear of being called a racist."This guy is off his rocker.|W|P|111964521093379884|W|P|Blame it on the Civil Rights movement|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"So it is now, with Cheney, Rove, McClellan, and Mehlman all saying the same thing, more or less officially enshrined in the Republican Party platform that those who question or oppose the White House policy in Iraq are "motivated" by a desire to see more dead US soldiers, wanted to give Al Qaeda "therapy" after 9/11, and generally "did not know what they were talking about." Shorter Rove to the Republican rank & file: Sit down and shut up, or go down in Republican history as traitor to both party and country. Shorter Jesse Lee to the Republican rank & file: You've already given up all claim to being independent public servants, you've already swallowed and voted for more garbage than most people see in a lifetime, you've already completely abandoned any pretense of oversight on the Executive, and the White House has already shown a total disregard for your re-election by holding your hands to the third rail of politics for months with no benefit to you."|W|P|111963339868287031|W|P|Nothing like keeping your party in check|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"A suicide car bomber slammed into a 7-ton U.S. military vehicle in Fallujah, killing five Marines and a Navy sailor, Marine Corps sources told NBC News, adding that at least three of the dead were female Marines and that 13 others were wounded. A review of casualty records indicates the attack is the single deadliest toll for female servicemembers in Iraq. Since the war started, 44 female soldiers have died in attacks or in accidents while in Iraq."God rest their souls. And from now on, each time a group of soldiers is killed and a news report comes out, I'll do my best to post it. You guys can help by leaving comments to let me know.|W|P|111962704997895726|W|P|Three female Marines killed in Iraq|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
White House spokesman Scott McClellan says that Karl Rove just meant that Democrats and Republicans had "different philosophies" when it comes to their reactions following 9/11. We agree. Our philosophies couldn't be more different when it comes to fighting international terrorism. Let's compare:|W|P|111962323638694185|W|P|Clear differences|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.comDemocrats Believe capturing the person primarily responsible for the attack should be a top priority.
Republicans It's been four years, and Osama bin Laden is still free, even though Bush's CIA chief says he knows where he is.
Democrats Investigate the intelligence failures that led to 9/11.
Republicans Do everything in their power to block the 9/11 Commission from doing its work.
Democrats Propose creating the Department of Homeland Security.
Republicans Push tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
Democrats Believe we should have stayed the course in Afghanistan, not allowing the Taliban to resurge, the warlords to take power, and the opium trade to skyrocket.
Republicans Ignore Afghanistan as the situation worsens.
Democrats Believe that we should be honest with our troops about the reasons we go to war, give them everything they need to be safe, and make sure we go in with an exit plan.
Republicans Manipulate intelligence to trump up reasons to go to war, don't give our troops the support they need, constantly mislead the public about the direction the war is going, and fail to make an exit plan. And turn Iraq into the ultimate terrorist training ground.
"They're living in the tropics. They're well fed. They've got everything they could possibly want," the vice president said.Riiiiight. . . Because they want to subject to extreme cold/heat and to shit on themselves. Doesn't everyone else want to do that when they're in the tropics?|W|P|111961985098441170|W|P|Free trips to the tropics|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"But that is where we are heading in the U.S. if we let the combination of the sugar lobby, which wants to block more imports from Central America; the A.F.L.-C.I.O., which doesn't like any free trade agreements; and Democrats who just want to defeat Cafta so they can make President Bush a lame duck have their way and block Cafta ratification. I understand Democrats want to stick it to Mr. Bush, but could they please defeat him on a policy he is wrong about (there are plenty) and not on expanding free trade in this hemisphere, which he is right about."What the fuck? Friedman neglects to look at all the principled reasons that Democrats--and even moderate Republicans--should oppose DR-CAFTA! This isn't about making Bush a lame duck, he can take care of that all by himself. I outlined them in this post. Giving substantial more profit and revenue to pharmaceutical companies while screwing the poor and sick people of Central America is one principled reason to oppose it. He can't tell me that allowing prescription drug competition is a bad thing when he spends the whole column promoting unregulated capitalism, which at its most fundamental is unhindered competition. Second, most Americans won't be impacted by this treaty and won't see any significant benefit--and neither will Central Americans. All it does is codify many agreements we have had in place via bilateral treaties that have worked for much longer. Third, we'd be decreasing labor standards in Central America. And finally, corporations could end up prosecuting poor Central American countries who are just trying to provide water to their people. Look, I'm as much of a free-trade Democrat as a liberal progressive can be. And trust me, that is a lot. But this bill isn't about protectionism versus natural capitalism. DR-CAFTA is worthless at worst and unimportant at best. Besides, with the instability in these countries anyway, bilateral trade agreements will work better until we can actually make our -AFTAs work.|W|P|111958645696447237|W|P|Friedman is WRONG|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
John Aravosis fills us in on the intentional bomb that was dropped on Democrats today in the form of Karl Rove's statement last night. Clearly, this was a public relations move. The obstructionist rhetoric wasn't working, Americans weren't buying the lies from the Bush Administration about Iraq, and the economy still isn't doing all that great. Rove has built a political powerhouse out of polarization and divisiveness, but almost always through some other kind of Washington Republican outlet, not himself. But desperate times called for desperate measures and he stood up. And he pulled the trigger. This coordinated attack is meant to keep our minds off of the massively important things that our government must deal with--the things that the Bush regime is failing to do for us. Iraq is going to hell in a handbasket, they can't 'fix' Social Security because it isn't broken, and they just plain can't get anything done. When that happens, you pull out plan B. Instead of launching an attack on partisan Democrats in America, Karl Rove attempted to term 57% of Americans traitors because we don't support their illegitimate war. The Washington Republicans in this coordinated attack hit not just Democrats, but America. And it just isn't right--ethically, morally, politically--at all. So, while we have the right to demand a repudiation or a resignation, we can't dwell on this for too long. The left wing echo chamber must arise tonight and fight unanimously against this vicious assault on the Americans who give a damn about where our country is headed. However, we can't get bogged down in this battle. The fronts for the war with the Washington Republicans is fluid and all around us. Our guard must be up and we must be prepared. Now that we're united on this front, let's carry it over to other fronts--like Iraq, health care, and judicial nominations. We must take principled stands against the vicious attacks of the Washington Republicans.|W|P|111958415885436657|W|P|A coordinated attack|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"I'm devoting much of today's report to Karl Rove's vile comments denigrating half of the American public. My office overlooks Ground Zero, and I'm looking at the gaping footprint as I write this. My wife and I were in New York that day, on our way to the WTC for a morning meeting. A chance phone call dragged on a few minutes too long and most likely saved our lives. I lost friends in the towers, and when I walk past the site, as I do almost every evening, the pain is as real as it was on September 11th, 2001. I spent my youth in Beirut during the height of Lebanon's civil war, and I fought the Syrian presence in Lebanon long before the "Cedar Revolution." I watched young boys give their lives and mothers cradle their dying children in blood-soaked arms. I've seen more bloodshed, war, and violence, and shot more guns than most of the 101st Fighting Keyboardists combined. I wouldn't presume to question the strength or dignity of a stranger, and I pity those who blithely push the right=strong, left=weak rhetoric. It says far more about their inadequacies than it does about the target of their scorn. Today, Karl Rove took that rhetoric to a new, filthy low."|W|P|111958311700764283|W|P|Listen to Peter Daou|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"These are indeed the public's airwaves, and the taxpayer deserves to retain at least part of it from Viacom and Time-Warner."|W|P|111956826365419013|W|P|A victory of sorts|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
Chris Woods|W|P|Red Green is also my little brother's favorite, as well as my grandfather's. I enjoy watching him as well. Maybe great minds think alike. James Shott|W|P|I have no idea why you think Karl Rove should resign. I haven't heard of anything outrageous that he's said or done lately.Frankly, I think you'd be better served to try to get the likes of Howard Dean, Richard Durbin and Nancy Pelosi to button their lips.
If anyone should resign their position based upon recent behavior, it is Durbin. He's really crossed the line into la-la land with his absurd attempt to equate Guantanamo Bay with Hitler, Pol Pot and the gulags.
James Shott|W|P|I just saw the next post re: Rove's remarks. His point is that conservatives/Republicans are fighting terrorism while liberals/Democrats are fighting the U.S.He's right.
Chris Woods|W|P|Durbin equated what was written in the FBI report to a description of what conditions were like under Hitler, during Pol Pot's regime, or under the Soviet Gulags. And why are you asking for Durbin to apologize for saying that? Shouldn't you be upset at the investigator who wrote the FBI report for giving liberals fuel to increase the flaming rage of the terrorists. /snarkAnd I hate to break it to you, but there are plenty of liberals in the US armed forces out there fighting terrorism while you, as a Keyboard Kommando on the 101st Fighting Keyboards talk about how great the war is but you won't do a damn thing about it--like join up.
Finally, if you're going to comment on this site, get some goddamned logical reasoning and not just GOP or Bill O'Liely talking points you wingnut.
UPDATE: Democrats are calling for a retraction right now. Chuck Schumer isn't as pissed as he should be, but he better get there soon.
Karl Rove is disturbed.
"Karl Rove came to the heart of Manhattan last night to rhapsodize about the decline of liberalism in politics, saying Democrats responded weakly to Sept. 11 and had placed American troops in greater danger by criticizing their actions. "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," Mr. Rove, the senior political adviser to President Bush, said at a fund-raiser in Midtown for the Conservative Party of New York State."Reminds me of the song from Modest Mouse that has the lyrics, "Why'd you have to be such an asshole?"|W|P|111954019354119049|W|P|Despicable|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
Chris Woods|W|P|You're right Chase. I can't wait to get my hands on that decision...especially since those four dissented on something you think they wouldn't.
If they take it down, let me know, I've got my own copy saved.|W|P|111954054637405007|W|P|This is just as bad|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.comToday's Christian Science Monitor has a great article on the readying battle over Chief Justice William Rehnquist's seat on the United States' highest court. According to CSM, the announcement that he is resigning could come as early as next week. Others speculate that it won't happen this term, he'll do it next term. Essentially, no one knows what Rehnquist's plans are--not even President Bush. Instead of speculating on possible nominees, I think it is worthwhile to look at the PR battle that will emerge when a potential nominee is being considered, when he or she actually becomes a nominee, and how Democrats should fight this battle. Here is how the CSM defines the structure of the PR battle:
"The public can expect a two-phase PR blitz, first when a justice announces retirement, then when the White House nominates a replacement. The gap may be a matter of minutes, a few days, or even a few months, depending on White House strategy."Now, I know there are hundreds of files floating around liberal and conservative groups on the pros and cons of each potential candidate, so the minute after the announcement is made, we'll be seeing massive emails sent out from activist groups to members and the pundits from every imaginable perspective will be on TV. How should be approach a candidate that doesn't really appreciate his or her place in the judiciary? Well, first of all, President Bush, at least in this second term, has been especially inept at defining an adequate frame for his nominees--judicial or otherwise (such as the Bolton nomination). What we should do is quickly obliterate any framing the White House may try and create. Unleashing our strong opposition at full force is a critical step--at least for a Supreme Court nomination. Second, if the candidate is chosen without bipartisan consultation, we need to stress that for as much as President Bush spews the rhetoric of compromise and bipartisanship, his negotiation and communication skills with the opposition are non-existent. Finally, for any Washington insider who thinks the Democrats should offer an alternative nominee, that is just ridiculous. We should have a list for the consultation--should it happen--but if we don't like a nominee, we shouldn't have to give other names we'd find more acceptable. Why? Because at that point we start giving up positional footing to the Washington Republicans. Nevertheless, we shouldn't be caught up entirely in strategic details. This is most likely going to be a challenging and tough battle, but one I believe we can win. One important consideration is Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist and his ability to bring back the Nuclear Option. I'll talk more about how to confront that in a post later today.|W|P|111953840514029973|W|P|New Chief Justice speculation and a strategy for confronting a nomination|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com