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
Rob|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.
Rob|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
TS|W|P|Nice Blog!!! I thought I'd tell you about a site that will let give you places whereyou can make extra cash! I made over $800 last month. Not bad for not doing much. Just put in your
zip code and up will pop up a list of places that are available. I live in a small area and found quite
a few. MAKE MONEY NOW
proportionality resources|W|P|Who Else Wants To Know The Secret of whats a good credit score?Find Out Here: whats a good credit score.
freestuff2|W|P|Hey I just love your blog. I also have a african american single siteblog/site. I mostly deals with african american single site
Please come and check it out if you get the time!
"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
Rob|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)
Rob|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. 'yeti|W|P|NO.Where is the money coming from? Where is the manpower coming from?
Where is the morality going?
There's a part of me that says if this big fuck-up is what we need to jumpstart some sense in this country... i guess that's the way it'll have to be...
"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
'yeti|W|P|Makes you feel good about blogs alright.Well, the first part of that post. At least powerline isn't the most recognizable blog in your state.
"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
Rob|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.) 'yeti|W|P|Snazzariffic!I've thought about dueling sidebars too, but have never gotten the motivation to actually do it...
Not really funny story... I first saw this post on my bloglines at school, but when I clicked the link to come here, the insane net filter there blocked it. Apparently you're a "Personals/Dating" site. :-)
"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.
gar|W|P|Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I am sure it is in my email but I just haven't read that far down. I have a political site also called "Gar's Grumbles." Drop by."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
- Senator Robert C. Byrd (D-WV): "Dr. Rice is responsible for some of the most overblown rhetoric that the administration used to scare the American people into believing that there was an imminent threat from Iraq."
- Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA): Rice, as Bush's national security adviser, provided Congress with "false reasons" for going to war. Had she not, Kennedy said in a speech, "it might have changed the course of history."
- Senator Mark Dayton (D-MN): Accused the Bush administration of lying and said he was voting against Rice's confirmation as a way of trying to stop mistruths.
- Senator Carl Levin (D-MI): Charged she concealed the Central Intelligence Agency's skepticism that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium for a nuclear weapons program from Africa.
- Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN): "We have a moral obligation to provide better leadership. Those in charge must be held accountable for mistakes."
"As the prime legal architect for the policy of torture adopted by the Bush Administration, Gonzales's advice led directly to the abandonment of longstanding federal laws, the Geneva Convention, and the United States Constitution itself. Our country, in following Gonzales's legal opinions, has forsaken its commitment to human rights and the rule of law and shamed itself before the world with our conduct at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. The United States, a nation founded on respect for law and human rights, should not have as its Attorney General the architect of the law's undoing."Visit here to read the entire post. I am hereby adding my name to the list of undersigned. Please vote AGAINST Alberto Gonzales. I encourage all of my readers to actively and aggressively contact your Senators tonight via phone or personal email to encourage them to vote NO. Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General is bad for the US domestically, and abroad. He undermines the collective actions of many Americans who are making a valiant effort to stand up for the rights of anyone accused, particularly in an effort to protect basic human rights. His advocacy for torture and cruel tactics makes him a barbarian. Please, take action now! |W|P|110668811082687242|W|P|Collectively against Gonzales|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"I'm pro-life. Go ahead, shoot me, call me a traitor to Democratic ideals and liberalism...I can take it (well, the bullet location is questionable, but I can take the rest). But I don't believe overturning Roe v. Wade is the right answer. Why? Reality. See that "reality based community" link up there? It applies to more than foreign policy with me. Reality says that abortions will happen. They did before it was "legal", they will if Roe v. Wade is overturned. But in a nation where they are illegal, one of two things will happen; they will be done in the states where it's still legal (canning Roe v. Wade leaves the legality up to the states), and/or they will be done in "back alley" situations that are very unsafe. Remember coat hangers? Pro-life activists use them to fan emotional flames in their demonstrations, but the reality is that the "coat hanger abortion" will become the norm in a state where abortion is not legal. Bill Clinton had it right (and this is a big shift in philosophy for me, as I've always been very against abortion)...safe, legal, and rare."I applaud Rob for his comments. Everyone should. And Rob, don't worry, I won't shoot you or call you a traitor to Democratic principles--stictly because you're not a traitor to our principles.|W|P|110668729049312196|W|P|Rob: Safe, Legal, and Rare|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"Imagine if Paul Revere had made his ride on April 18, 1775, declaring: "The British are coming, the British are coming...and they will get here sometime between the years 1803 and 1805, depending on events including troop levels at that time in Boston, the next several parliamentary elections and the health of King George." The good folks of New England might have appreciated the warning, but considered Revere's urgency on that particular night a little out of place."He's got the comparison right. Now, the facts in the rest of his piece are sketchy and assertive at best (but could you expect more?). Lowry still advocates private accounts, as it is what Bush campaigned on. He also asserts that they are quite popular. Most polling I've seen, when the accounts are explained, shows that people are against them. But whatever. That isn't the point here. When members of your same ideological stance agree with the opposition that you're making up a crisis, then it is time to get a new strategy. Remember, check out "There is No Crisis" for all the best news and links on the Social Security debate.|W|P|110668538968063001|W|P|National Review says "There is No Crisis"|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"In a grab for ultimate power over the Supreme Court, Radical Right leaders like Pat Robertson, James Dobson and Jerry Falwell are urging senators to make a pre-emptive strike that will leave Americans unable to defend against far-right Court nominees. Their target is the 200-year-old tradition of the Senate filibuster, the tool that empowers 41 or more senators to prevent a narrow majority from abusing its power. It was used last Congress to keep a number of President Bush's most extreme judicial nominees off the bench. In a situation where one party controls the White House and the Senate, the filibuster is one of the only ways to encourage genuine bipartisan cooperation and compromise on important issues. If the filibuster is eliminated, Bush, Cheney and 50 senators could steamroll up to four new justices onto the Court -- even one or two could create a right-wing majority that would undermine the Voting Rights Act of 1965, gut the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts, overturn Roe v. Wade, and much, much more."This is a good cause they're fighting for. I've studied the filibuster a lot in the last 6 months, as a student of political science. I've also judged its impact on Congressional deadlock or, if you prefer, gridlock. The fact is that it doesn't have that substantial of an effect, simply because usually only the THREAT of a filibuster is required to stall a certain piece of legislation. Moreover, it is a useful tool in protecting the right of representation and the overall rights of those in the minority. Our republican form of decmocracy in America requires a certain amount of checks and balances in our political institutions, but even more protection is required to protect the majoritarian nature of our political system. In a nation where two parties are dominant, one party must always be the minority, yet still represent a large segment of the populace. By maintaining the filibuster, we offer a check to the dangerous majoritarianism that could erupt in America, via the Radical Right's grab for power, as represented by the Bush Regime. Sign the petition today. |W|P|110668462375861078|W|P|Protecting the filibuster|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"Mr. Gonzales, whose nomination could be put to a vote in the Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, is another nominee encountering sharper-than-expected opposition. A number of committee Democrats - including Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, Dianne Feinstein of California and Charles E. Schumer of New York -say they are leaning against voting for him or rethinking their support. As a result, Mr. Gonzales could face "no" votes from six or more of the committee's eight Democrats."It is good to see Democrats are taking a stronger position on this confirmation than they did on Dr. Rice's hearing. My guess is that the two "No's" during Condi's hearings and the press coverage that followed would determine how other votes went down and whether or not the opposition method of slowing the process down is worth it. I'm assuming from the comments in the liberal blogosphere, plus some of the press that was given on the No votes by Boxer and Kerry, that Senate Democrats will probably take on stalling as a useful tool for a while.|W|P|110663436380865765|W|P|The joys of being the opposition...|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"The global warming danger threshold for the world is clearly marked for the first time in an international report to be published tomorrow - and the bad news is, the world has nearly reached it already. The countdown to climate-change catastrophe is spelt out by a task force of senior politicians, business leaders and academics from around the world - and it is remarkably brief. In as little as 10 years, or even less, their report indicates, the point of no return with global warming may have been reached. The report, Meeting The Climate Challenge, is aimed at policymakers in every country, from national leaders down. It has been timed to coincide with Tony Blair's promised efforts to advance climate change policy in 2005 as chairman of both the G8 group of rich countries and the European Union. And it breaks new ground by putting a figure - for the first time in such a high-level document - on the danger point of global warming, that is, the temperature rise beyond which the world would be irretrievably committed to disastrous changes. These could include widespread agricultural failure, water shortages and major droughts, increased disease, sea-level rise and the death of forests - with the added possibility of abrupt catastrophic events such as "runaway" global warming, the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, or the switching-off of the Gulf Stream."While some of you may argue that this is just another bunch of kooks with another crazy report, take a look at the groups who organized and published the report:
- Institute for Public Policy Research in the UK
- Centre for American Progress in the US
- The Australia Institute
"MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you something else you said at the National Journal Forum that raised some eyebrows: "Women are living longer relative to men today than they were in 1940. Yet, we never ever have debated gender-adjusting Social Security. …But, at some point if the age difference continues to separate and more women are in the workforce and you have more of an equality of pay structure in the workforce, at some point somebody might want to suggest that we need to take a look at the question of whether or not actuarially we ought to adjust who gets what, when, and how." A gender adjustment—what does that mean? REP. THOMAS: Well, it was one of my ways of getting people to focus on the issue of age. To move from 65 to 68, which we did in 1983, was a benefit cut. But it also creates hardships based upon the occupation that you have, and it creates inequities on who you are and how long you live. You could just as easily have a discussion about occupations as to when would be a fair or an unfair time to require. We also need to examine, frankly, Tim, the question of race in terms of how many years of retirement do you get based upon your race? And you ought not to just leave gender off the table because that would be a factor. Now, there are people who are saying, "Gee, this is great. We can get them into a box and maybe we can win some seats in the next election over this issue." This ought not to be about the next election. This is about how we have an opportunity given to us by the president, his willingness to work with us to solve some problems that are here and now, but will only get worse. If we're not in a crisis now, we're in a problem. Wait a few years. We will be in a crisis. We ought to examine all opportunities to solve the problem. Then we can dismiss them. But to not look at them denies us an opportunity to have yet another way to solve our problem. MR. RUSSERT: So if someone is a woman and they live longer, they would get less per year? REP. THOMAS: It's not that you would do it; it's something that you need to look at. Because if you extend the age beyond 78, if you go to 80 or 82, all of those concerns about race, occupation and gender are exacerbated. And you shouldn't just extend the age without understanding the additional complications and unfairness that you're bringing into the system. That's the point I'm trying to make. Don't look for a simple solution like shifting age without realizing you're creating additional problems for yourself down the road. Same thing with payroll tax. Same thing with individual accounts or other ways to bring additional revenue in the system. All of them should be examined. None of them should be labeled with the pejorative with an opportunity to try to gain seats in the next election. You are doing a disservice to the society if that's your intention in this debate. My goal is to get it as broad as possible, look for bipartisan support and give the president a bill on his desk that he can sign that addresses the real societal inequities that we have with seniors. MR. RUSSERT: Do you think Congress, Mr. Chairman, would accept any formula that said that people would be treated differently because of their gender or their race? REP. THOMAS: If we discuss it and the will is not to do it, fine. At least we discussed it. To simply raise the age and find out that you've got gender, race and occupational problems later, I would not be doing the kind of service that I think I have to do. You and I have been around quite a while. We went through the '80s. We went into the '90s. And now we're in the 21st century. We saw the choices that were made in the past. We went to the well over and over again with the same old solutions which really aren't solutions. We've reached the point where we have to fundamentally examine it in my opinion. The president has given us that opportunity. We ought to take it."Sign the petition, it is definitely worth it. Secondly, with all the references back to Clinton's rhetoric of crisis in Social Security during his administration by the Bush Regime, Josh Marshall argues it is time for Bill Clinton to get involved in the debate. As Marshall points out, the Regime has been intent on clinging to statements Clinton made first about Iraq during his administration in an effort to convey the image of Saddam Hussein as an imminent threat, and now they are using the "save Social Security first" rhetoric of Clinton in 1998 to assert again their claim that SS is in crisis. As Bill Safire pointed out today, we shouldn't simply believe these tactics by the Regime in an effort to try and prove that Clinton is on their side when it comes to Social Security or even Iraq. But what is more important is not simply the context it is said in, but the context AND actions taken to implement their philosophies or advocacies. As Josh points out:
"The problem is that you can't guage the meaning of a statement outside of its context of rhetoric or action. You can't equate a) calling something a threat and saying the response should be containment and continued scrutiny and b) calling something a threat and then bum-rushing the country into a war that costs a thousand American lives, hundreds of billions of dollars and a good bit of US global leadership all in exchange for finding that there was no threat there at all. And the difference between what Bill Clinton said and did on Social Security in 1997-98 compared to what President Bush is doing on Social Security today is pretty similar to the difference in what both did and said over Iraq."Clinton's good communications skills are desperately needed in the debate. With a lot of falsehoods being flung about both in the media and in other locales, Democrats and the foes of privatization need to be articulating a coherent message challenging the core tenets of the Bush Regime's plan. And let's make this clear about my views on the issue. The articulation that seems to be coming out from the White House now is an advocacy for an "ownership society." I have nothing against that position, and I think it is a worthy goal for government and for all Americans. It is part of the American dream, for God's sake. However, tricking people into thinking that owning private accounts in Social Security will set them up to be financially secure in the future is downright wrong. In an effort to promote and ideology, the Regime is ignoring the facts that impact their overall plan. Social Security isn't simply about politics, it is about the financial security of all Americans, but particularly seniors and those soon to be seniors. As Americans are living longer, it is important to make the government has some ability to maintain solvency in Social Security. But abolishing it for private accounts making in the individual's job to insure themselves is not a good idea. The only reason you need to be against this is by taking a look at the credit card problems many Americans have. When we encourage a materialistic society, particularly one based on spending in an effort to promote a healthy economy (look at Bush's public statements right after 9/11/01), we only entrench the problems of a large public debt and more Americans who can't spend wisely, or who just don't take the time to invest large sums of money to plan for the future. Furthermore, relying on the Stock Market to guarantee people's futures is like relying on gambling as a sole source of private income. For some people, it can and does work quite well. But for the majority, it just isn't feasible. American's need economic security. Abolishing Social Security only creates insecurity. Finally, the capitalist structure in America creates problems and social hindrances to a large group of people in America. Now, don't take this as bashing capitalism, because I DO support capitalism. What I don't support is capitalism based on corporations without governmental regulations to protect workers and citizens from its dangerous competition. The government must be involved at some level to protect workers in a capitalist society. Not everyone can simply rise up the ranks to become CEO of a major national (or multinational) corporation and become wealthy. The American dream says we can. So, what Democrats must be able to do is fight for the American dream, by striving for a society with as much equality as possible, and an overarching goal of achieving equity. This effort can be promoted by maintaining our support for the capitalist system, and encouraging investment of personal income into pensions and other accounts to bring about wealth, but there must always be a government tool for those who get left behind. Franklin D. Roosevelt recognized this during the Great Depression. President Bush is attempting to destory Roosevelt's legacy--we must fight to protect his legacy of financial security and trust in government to help its citizens.|W|P|110660956940896210|W|P|Social Security action|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Mad Kane|W|P|Thanks so much for mentioning the President Boxer blog.And thanks for your excellent post about Boxer and 2008.
Mad Kane
http://www.madkane.com/notable.html (Notables Blog)
http://presidentboxer.blogspot.com/ (President Boxer)
"1. Beware the pundit's device of using a quotation from a liberal opposition figure to make a conservative case, and vice versa. Righties love to quote John F. Kennedy on life's unfairness; lefties love to quote Ronald Reagan. Don't fall for gilding by association."Social Security plans, the Iraq War, and on and on. The Bush Regime plays that card a lot, and it is important to keep in mind that it is simply a charade. Bill Safire, thanks for your insightful conservatism (until recently, anyway) and enjoy your new work.|W|P|110659430787826559|W|P|William Safire|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Chase Nordengren|W|P|Wow, you just broke Safire's rule by posting it.(You're a lefty quoting a conservative to advance an agenda.)
Chris Woods|W|P|I don't know if I've entirely broken the rule, though if I have, this is the first time in my life I've been considered a pundit.The only thing I was trying to convey with the post was that both Democrats and Republicans certainly shouldn't buy into the gilding by association. If it came across that it was a partisan attempt, my bad.
Moreover, I was quoting Safire as strictly a writer and columnist himself, not a member of a particular party. And of course, he has a lot of standing as a grammarian and writer, so I think that is justified.
"SpongeBush SquarePants! We can only hope that Dr. Dobson doesn't pick up on the resemblance. SpongeBob, as his song goes, "lives in a pineapple under the sea/absorbent and yellow and porous is he!" SpongeBush lives in a bubble in D.C./absorbent and shallow and porous is he!"If only all of the Christian right issues were this funny.|W|P|110651941486967155|W|P|SpongeBob|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Rob|W|P|Have a safe trip. How can you take the cold?I love Hawaii :)
"President Bush is like a financial adviser who tells you that at the rate you're going, you won't be able to afford retirement - but that you shouldn't do anything mundane like trying to save more. Instead, you should take out a huge loan, put the money in a mutual fund run by his friends (with management fees to be determined later) and place your faith in capital gains. That, once you cut through all the fine phrases about an "ownership society," is how the Bush privatization plan works. Payroll taxes would be diverted into private accounts, forcing the government to borrow to replace the lost revenue. The government would make up for this borrowing by reducing future benefits; yet workers would supposedly end up better off, in spite of reduced benefits, through the returns on their accounts. The whole scheme ignores the most basic principle of economics: there is no free lunch."Again, simple, sweet, crisp, and to the point. This is what the messages that Democrats are putting out should look like.|W|P|110632611296858140|W|P|Ain't no thing as a free lunch|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"The inaugural address itself was startling. It left me with a bad feeling, and reluctant dislike. Rhetorically, it veered from high-class boilerplate to strong and simple sentences, but it was not pedestrian. . . .No one will remember what the president said about domestic policy. . . The president's speech seemed rather heavenish. It was a God-drenched speech. This president, who has been accused of giving too much attention to religious imagery and religious thought, has not let the criticism enter him. God was invoked relentlessly. "The Author of Liberty." "God moves and chooses as He wills. We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind . . . the longing of the soul." The speech did not deal with specifics--9/11, terrorism, particular alliances, Iraq. It was, instead, assertively abstract. Ending tyranny in the world? Well that's an ambition, and if you're going to have an ambition it might as well be a big one. But this declaration. . .seemed to me to land somewhere between dreamy and disturbing. Tyranny is a very bad thing and quite wicked, but one doesn't expect we're going to eradicate it any time soon. Again, this is not heaven, it's earth."Wow, for once I agree with a lot of things that she says. And you can trust me on this one, I really, really don't like the woman. I wonder what Ann Coulter will have to say about it. Oh, and Oliver, Peggy Noonan expected something about Mars too! |W|P|110632551719281114|W|P|Noonan didn't like Bush's speech|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Chase Nordengren|W|P|She's not a snotty bitch. She just knows good oratory when she sees it. The piece is brilliant, btw."On ABC News tonight they had a report about preparations for voting in the city of Mosul. The original plan was to have 100 polling places, but because of the violence there that's been cut down to 40. The population of Mosul is 2 million, and you can probably figure that about two-thirds of that number are eligible to vote. That means each polling place will have to handle 33,000 voters. Even if turnout is only 50%, that's still about 16,000 people per polling station."Sounds like Ohio for Democrats, if you ask me.|W|P|110632326403659836|W|P|Voting in Iraq|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"U.S. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell plans to resign after four years as chief regulator of the telecommunications and media industries, sources familiar with his decision said on Friday. Powell, a 41-year-old Republican, is expected to officially announce his resignation later on Friday, the sources said."I bet Mullah James Dobson isn't too happy. They just lost a big ally--right when the whole crusade against SpongeBob and his homosexuality was about to begin. |W|P|110632298270083716|W|P|FCC Chair to resign|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Chase Nordengren|W|P|MICHAEL POWELL HAS BEEN UNSEATED! REJOICE!Mullah James Dobson ... brilliant.
Yeah, having seen this "homosexual video" that SBSP is in, I gotta say ... first of all, he's only there for two seconds at most, and second, he's singing "We Are Family." That's it. That's the whole freaking video.
But James Dobson is trying to take Jerry Faldwell's job the same way Al Sharpton tried to take Jesse Jackson's.
- He wore a blue tie. Thank merciful God. This President functions far better in a blue tie, and the statesman's color has to come in a speech exclusively on Foreign Policy.
- There are no mentions in the text of "terrorism" or "terror", yet a head nod to the Koran as a defining American text. Beating expectations and conventional wisdom, perhaps?
- It breaks his theme of aggressive rhetoric. The freedom-as-a-fire metaphor was about as violent as it got. It's as if Freedom and Liberty will come as a mighty wave without war. Wouldn't that be beautiful?
- Best written speech he's ever delivered. Best performance on the stump ever. Definately the most Presidential he's ever been.
- I was promised the "ownership society" for the second time. I was denied for the second time. Granted, there was a tiny mention of it in the only domestic paragraph, but if Karl Rove really wants to put the phrase on par with the New Deal and the Great Society, POTUS has got to say it and connect it to anything. (Key to our success as citizens of the world is an ownership in society, one where people not only own their homes and futures, but have a stake in their government and control over their actions. [FREEDOM AND LIBERTY STUFF HERE])
- What happened to "You know where I stand"?
- He didn't finish or open strongly. And that's what prevents the speech from being eternal. Today, I couldn't get JFK's inaug closing out of my head: "With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love; asking His blessing and His help but knowing that, here on Earth, God's work must truly be our own." Yes I did type that from memory. That is what defines the speech, and a Liberty Bell and custom doesn't do it.
'yeti|W|P|Sorry Chase, but I'm far less impressed. I didn't hear it live so I couldn't comment about the delivery, but reading the transcript, it looks like someone who doesn't actually know any of the facts on a topic bullshitting an essay question. Throwing God and liberty and freedom around for 20 minutes doesn't cut it unless you actually believe in morality and liberty and freedom, and have actually done something to promote them, and explain what you will do to promote them more.Sadly, however, there probably is a large element of truth in your statement that this is the most presidential he's ever been :(
Chase Nordengren|W|P|Oh, don't take the word "best" as an indication I was impressed. This is impressive FOR HIM. I'll grant that. But this isn't exactly the oratory president."A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public debt...If the game runs sometime against us at home we must have patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at stake."Thomas Jefferson, 1798 Now, its time for some interesting insights from the innaugural address of President Bush. I thought the speech was pretty good, but reinforced the good vs. evil approach for foreign policy in America, which I don't think is a good idea. And the references to Christianity (which didn't bother me) but are bound to upset a lot of folks. But finally, my comments.
- Who is he talking about? Is this an attack on liberals?: “Some, I know, have questioned the global appeal of liberty - though this time in history, four decades defined by the swiftest advance of freedom ever seen, is an odd time for doubt. Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of our ideals.”
- Directed to Russia: “The leaders of governments with long habits of control need to know: To serve your people you must learn to trust them. Start on this journey of progress and justice, and America will walk at your side.” And if not, prepare for a unilateral invasion searching for your WMDs, justified by helping your people overthrow your tyranny.
- Hey, kids, listen to this so we don’t have to bring about a draft: “I ask our youngest citizens to. . . Make the choice to serve in a cause larger than your wants, larger than yourself.”
- You gotta have faith!: “That edifice of character is built in families, supported by communities with standards, and sustained in our national life by the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount, the words of the Koran, and the varied faiths of our people.” That means no gays and no atheists. Sorry Richard Nudow and the Queer Eye guys. I’m from West Texas, we don’t put up with that sodomy and no-God shit.
- Does this mean women don’t have rights and oppression is ok?: “Americans move forward in every generation by reaffirming all that is good and true that came before - ideals of justice and conduct that are the same yesterday, today, and forever.”
I've got a dick this big. Don't fuck with me. How many other women do you know who are as masculine as me?|W|P|110616995806206196|W|P|Size doesn't matter|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com Chase Nordengren|W|P|Yes, Chris, because Bill Clinton NEVER nominated a slightly masculine woman to a cabinet post."A Mellman Group (D) poll for the DSCC shows Rep. James Langevin (D-[02]) leading Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R) among regis. RI voters 52%-32% in the '06 race for SEN."So, it looks like Chafee has two options. One, switch parties. He's talked about it before, and I could honestly imagine him doing it. He's a deficit hawk, tired of the new GOP strategy of spend (and spend) while massively cutting taxes. Moreover, he's tired of the neocon foreign policy. He might not exactly be welcomed with arms wide open by the Democratic Party, but we sure as hell aren't going to complain. And the GOP probably wouldn't put up much of a fight. In an urban state like Rhodes Island, a GOP challenger (of the establishment) would definitely have a tough time winning. Chafee's second option is to alter his ideology and just become one of the neocon tax cut gurus that he doesn't like. But that doesn't seem like a real option to me, because then he'll most definitely lose. So, the DSCC should definitely be focused on Chafee's seat. Finally, the Democratic party needs to watch the Missouri 3rd CD. The seat formerly held by Dick Gephardt was an open seat this year, and the moderate corporate Democratic party establishment candidate Russ Carnahan beat out a good Democrat by the name of Jeff Smith in the primary, and then went on to barely win in 2004. Swing State Project has the low-down here. Democrats, particularly the party if it is headed by either Rosenberg or Dean, should focus on this seat in the primary by ousting the weak establishment candidate. The GOP is already focusing on this seat that has traditionally gone Democratic and trying to exploit some of the weakness there. Again, another seat to watch (or protect, in this case) |W|P|110616086302385125|W|P|Let's pick up some seats|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"The Iraqi government that emerges from elections on Jan. 30 will almost certainly ask the United States to set a specific timetable for withdrawing its troops, according to new American intelligence estimates described by senior administration officials. The reports also warn that the elections will be followed by more violence, including an increased likelihood of clashes between Shiites and Sunnis, possibly even leading to civil war, the officials said. This pessimism is consistent with other assessments over the past six months, including a classified cable sent in November by the Central Intelligence Agency's departing station chief in Baghdad. But the new assessments, from the C.I.A. and the Defense and State Departments, focus more closely on the aftermath of the election, including its potential implications for American policy, the officials said. The assessments are based on the expectation that a Shiite Arab coalition will win the elections, in which Shiites are expected to make up a vast majority of voters, the officials said. Leaders of the coalition have promised voters they will press Washington for a timetable for withdrawal, and the assessments say the new Iraqi government will feel bound, at least publicly, to meet that commitment."Since we institued the interim government, we've been saying all along "We'll leave when you ask us to." It seems that moment will be at hand soon, even though we may not want it to be. Our rushed elections to bring a false hope of Democracy to Iraq have come back to bite us in the ass in the form of what will most-likely be a Shi'ite dominated government with sympathy towards Iran. And then civil war will rage. Knowing what you know NOW, would you still invade Iraq, Mr. President?|W|P|110611318602141336|W|P|Slippery slope|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.) predicted yesterday that partisan warfare over Social Security will quickly render President Bush's plan "a dead horse" and called on Congress to undertake a broader review of the problems of an aging nation. Thomas, one of Capitol Hill's most powerful figures on tax policy, is the highest-ranking House Republican official to cast doubt on the president's plan for creating individual investment accounts. He said that as an alternative, he will consider changes such as replacing the payroll tax as Social Security's financing mechanism and adding a savings plan for long-term or chronic care as "an augmentation to Social Security payments.""Somehow, when your own party criticizes your plan, I don't think its gonna work. But bring on the crisis-mongering, we're prepared for it.|W|P|110610915066364715|W|P|"A dead horse"|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Rob|W|P|Sometimes, there are GOP lawmakers who make me reconsider my views on Republicans. Just a bit, at any rate. Congressman Thomas will probably be looking for a new committee to sit, given the party line discipline that seems to be the GOP norm :)Social Security does need a bit of work. The surpluses of the past were irresponsibly borrowed on, and that's going to come back to bite us, but I don't know where funding for Social Security could come from (our budget is pretty strapped as it is.)
But the Congressman has his head in the game, at least, and realizes that the Bush plan is a doomed one. Bush, true to form, will probably ride the dead horse through, though...as he has in Iraq. He's not one to compromise or admit mistake, despite all his talk of being a uniter and "working with Congress", which he pants out to no end.
"We knew that he was an implacable enemy of the United States, who did cavort with terrorists."From the Condi Rice hearing transcripts. |W|P|110610806810297334|W|P|He did it|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"More than any time in recent history, America's destiny is not of our own choosing. We did not seek nor did we provoke an assault on our freedom and our way of life. We did not expect nor did we invite a confrontation with evil. Yet the true measure of a people's strength is how they rise to master that moment when it does arive. . .but every time we think we have measured our capacity to meet a challenge, we look up and we're reminded that that capacity may well be limitless. This is a time for American heroes. We will do what is hard. We will achieve what is great. This is a time for American heroes and we reach for the stars."Martin Sheen's character was right. It is a time for American heroes. But where are these heroes? People like Dr. King were heroes. In the face of the most challenging trials in American history, Dr. King led millions of Americans in a march for freedom, for equality, for liberty. He, and many others, fought the good fight against injustice, discrimination, and domination in society. America needs heroes to face our biggest challenges today. These are not the challenges of the past but the challenges of the future. A leader with compassion in his heart and a head towards the future is what America needs. However, we are stuck with a leader who works for interests beyond the common man, working for those who seek to dominate and discriminate. He has taken actions to destroy the value of the American character--both at home and abrooad. With his illegitimate actions and unrelenting course, the America that was once held as a beacon of hope and faith for those afflicted by tyranny and oppression has been vanquished from the world as we know it. America is looked down upon. We are seen as instigators and bullies. Instead of acting as a caretaker and supporter of the world, we have acted as the dominator and the boss of this planet. Our arrogance is only surpassed by our ignorance. Beyond our appearance abroad, our popularity is waning at home. The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer. We are trying to abolish the only safehaven for seniors in America by giving them the opportunity to gamble. We condone the torture of our enemies and base our actions on the will of God. Using God as a justification for immoral actions is absurd. Democratic accountability has been abolished for the theory of our leadership's divine right claims. I have faith, however, that in our darkest hour we shall prevail. The forces of good shall overcome evil and the righteous shall be victorious. ". . .And victorious in war shall be made glorious in peace. . ." As Bob Herbert writes in The New York Times today:
"From my perspective, this is a dark moment in American history. The Treasury has been raided and the loot is being turned over by the trainload to those who are already the richest citizens in the land. We've launched a hideous war for no good reason in Iraq. And we're about to elevate to the highest law enforcement position in the land a man who helped choreograph the American effort to evade the international prohibitions against torture. Never since his assassination in 1968 have I felt the absence of Martin Luther King more acutely. Where are today's voices of moral outrage? Where is the leadership willing to stand up and say: Enough! We've sullied ourselves enough. I'm convinced, without being able to prove it, that those voices will emerge. There was a time when no one had heard of Dr. King. Or Oscar Arias Sanchez. Or Martin O'Brien, who founded the foremost human rights organization in Northern Ireland, and who tells us: "The worst thing is apathy - to sit idly by in the face of injustice and to do nothing about it.""My moral outrage will be heard. I will be a leader. Those who believe as I do will be leaders. And we will rise up against injustice, no matter our classification. We will do what is hard. We will achieve what is great. This is a time for American heroes and we reach for the stars.|W|P|110594422111430646|W|P|Observations on America|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
'yeti|W|P|It's sure creepy how a tv show is able to articulate these things so much better than most real politicians can."The United States has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran to help identify potential nuclear, chemical and missile targets, The New Yorker magazine reported Sunday. The article, by award-winning reporter Seymour Hersh, said the secret missions have been going on at least since last summer with the goal of identifying target information for three dozen or more suspected sites. Hersh quotes one government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon as saying, “The civilians in the Pentagon want to go into Iran and destroy as much of the military infrastructure as possible.” One former high-level intelligence official told The New Yorker, “This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush administration is looking at this as a huge war zone. Next, we’re going to have the Iranian campaign.""I'll get everyone a link to the New Yorker article as soon as it comes online. My guess is that it will be sometime tomorrow morning or early tomorrow afternoon. This is just another fiasco waiting to happen. Extending our already exhausted troops to another front in a nation like Iran will no doubt spell disaster for the United States. Overthrowing the religious leadership there will of course be difficult. Any my guess is that the same type of guerilla warfare occurring in Iraq would happen there. |W|P|110591357306104068|W|P|Seymour Hersh is at it again|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"President Bush said the public's decision to reelect him was a ratification of his approach toward Iraq and that there was no reason to hold any administration officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgments in prewar planning or managing the violent aftermath. "We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. "The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me.""|W|P|110591276343348829|W|P|Lowering expectations|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"This story, Social Security Enlisted to Push Its Own Revision, about the Republicans using the Social Security Administration to scare the pubic into supporting privatization is WAYYY beyond the Armstrong Williams scandal! That was the government using tax dollars to pay journalists to propagandize the public. This is using the government itself to propagandize the public to support the policies of one political party. The Congress will not investigate. The FBI will not. The Justice Department won't. The media will drop it in a day or two. This is bad. The Party has merged with the State."From the Times:
"Over the objections of many of its own employees, the Social Security Administration is gearing up for a major effort to publicize the financial problems of Social Security and to convince the public that private accounts are needed as part of any solution. The agency's plans are set forth in internal documents, including a "tactical plan" for communications and marketing of the idea that Social Security faces dire financial problems requiring immediate action."Ethics are one thing when it comes to people. They are a whole other thing when considering institutions. Ever before, in the history of the United States, has a governmental program publicized its problems in an effort to reform (read: destroy) itself? I somehow doubt that. Propaganda needs some kind of solidified justification for it to be true. Coming from conservative pundits is one thing, but now that it is coming from the SS Adminstration itself, more people are going to believe the hyped-up lies than ever before. We must fight back against the propaganda.|W|P|110590968624445513|W|P|Abusing the system|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
FOX NEWS SUNDAY (WTTG), 9 a.m.: Sens. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Counselor to the President Dan Bartlett. THIS WEEK (ABC, WJLA), 9:00 a.m.: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and NAACP President Kweisi Mfume. FACE THE NATION (CBS, WUSA), 10:30 a.m.: Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) MEET THE PRESS (NBC, WRC), 10:30 a.m.: Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin and Bartlett. LATE EDITION (CNN), noon: Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), Iraqi Ambassador to the U.N. Samir S.M. Sumaidaie, Capitol Hill Police Chief Terrance Gainer, former presidential speechwriters David Frum and Michael Waldman, former Secret Service Agent Joseph Petro and Bartlett.|W|P|110586019811382168|W|P|Back & Sunday line-ups|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
TS|W|P|Nice Blog!!! I thought I'd tell you about a site that will let give you places whereyou can make extra cash! I made over $800 last month. Not bad for not doing much. Just put in your
zip code and up will pop up a list of places that are available. I live in a small area and found quite
a few. MAKE MONEY NOW
Rob|W|P|~feedback squeal~"Is this on? Test, test..."
'yeti|W|P|GAaaa! Test? Where? What subject? |W|P|Have you ever read some comments on even our aid donations for the tsunami? A lot of people seem to think we don't need to take care of anyone but the good 'ol US of A.Unless Bush and his Regime play something like this as a "crisis", the "values voters" won't pay attention. They'll keep worrying about the impending Social Security "crisis", or the gay marriage "crisis".
'yeti|W|P|Wow, we've heard so much about the 0.7 but this puts it in a lot better perspective."The U.S. news media have provided readers and viewers with little information about how privatization has worked in other countries. Now my colleagues have even fewer excuses: there's an illuminating article on the British experience in The American Prospect, www.prospect.org, by Norma Cohen, a senior corporate reporter at The Financial Times who covers pension issues. Her verdict is summed up in her title: "A Bloody Mess." Strong words, but her conclusions match those expressed more discreetly in a recent report by Britain's Pensions Commission, which warns that at least 75 percent of those with private investment accounts will not have enough savings to provide "adequate pensions." The details of British privatization differ from the likely Bush administration plan because the starting point was different. But there are basic similarities. Guaranteed benefits were cut; workers were expected to make up for these benefit cuts by earning high returns on their private accounts."Read the rest. Its just more great Krugman analysis.|W|P|110573117773405941|W|P|Krugman on the British privatization plan|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"That almost no one would notice, let alone protest, is a snapshot of our cultural moment, in which hidden agendas in the presentation of "news" metastasize daily into a Kafkaesque hall of mirrors that could drive even the most earnest American into abject cynicism."The full context of the phrase, as well as the rest of the essay can be found here. Read it. And for those of you who don't know who Kafka is, check this out for help.|W|P|110568438676829592|W|P|Frank Rich: "All the President's Newsmen"|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Chris Woods|W|P|Finally, at 8:10 PM (EST) Glenn Reynolds said something, still while making excuses. Took long enough."Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of "professionalized" terrorists, according to a report released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director's think tank. Iraq provides terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills," said David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats. "There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries." Low's comments came during a rare briefing by the council on its new report on long-term global trends. It took a year to produce and includes the analysis of 1,000 U.S. and foreign experts. Within the 119-page report is an evaluation of Iraq's new role as a breeding ground for Islamic terrorists. President Bush has frequently described the Iraq war as an integral part of U.S. efforts to combat terrorism. But the council's report suggests the conflict has also helped terrorists by creating a haven for them in the chaos of war. "At the moment," NIC Chairman Robert L. Hutchings said, Iraq "is a magnet for international terrorist activity." Before the U.S. invasion, the CIA said Saddam Hussein had only circumstantial ties with several al Qaeda members. Osama bin Laden rejected the idea of forming an alliance with Hussein and viewed him as an enemy of the jihadist movement because the Iraqi leader rejected radical Islamic ideals and ran a secular government."And just to think, Invading for WMDs + Invading to fight terrorism = No WMDs + More terrorism. Any math teacher or logician (is that a word?) would be proud. Civil wa. . .I mean elections on January 30. Anyone wanna place some bets?|W|P|110568004860962908|W|P|Congratulations, Neoconservatives!|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"Education Secretary Roderick R. Paige yesterday defended payments to a conservative black commentator to promote the No Child Left Behind law as a standard "outreach effort" to minority groups who stand to benefit most from the Bush administration's showcase education program. Paige, the nation's first African American education secretary, said in a statement that he was deeply disturbed by the publicity surrounding the $240,000 contract. He announced an investigation by the Department of Education's inspector general to clear up any unresolved issues so as not to "sully the fine people and good name of this department."So, wait a second. If Paige is saying this is "standard" that almost guarantees what Williams said to the Nation's David Corn when he said that there were others involved. What I find funny about this is that Paige thinks that an internal investigation by the department's inspector general will bring back the "good name" to the DoEd. Yeah right. That won't happen until a Democrat is elected to the office of President. But back to Paige's first comments. If this really is a standard procedure to reach out to minorities, whom else have they paid to do their spreading of propaganda? The public has a right to know, as it is our taxpayer money that is funding these 'journalists' (and I use the term loosely). Furthermore, how are these dealings legal? In the article, Paige says they are not illegal, a claim furthered by Williams who has said it was a lapsed in judgment to take the contract, but had not done anything wrong and will keep the money. It seems as if bipartisan efforts are already underway for an investigation into the DoEd's dealings:
"In a letter to Paige, senior Republican and Democrat Appropriations lawmakers asked him to provide a list of money spent by the Education Department on public relations activities between 2002 and 2004. The department has acknowledged paying the public relations firm Ketchum Inc. $700,000 to rate journalists on how positively or negatively they report on No Child Left Behind, and to produce a video on the law that was used by some television stations as if it were real news. The letter was signed by Sens. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), the chairman and ranking Democrat of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee overseeing education spending."When two ideologues like Specter and Harkin get into the mix, you know something is up. Remember, Ketchum Inc. was the same company that had the contract with Williams that led to this whole payolagate mess. I hope that the information requested will help clear things up. If you're interested in keeping up with the whole Payolagate mess, keep tabs with Oliver Willis and his special section dedicated strictly to covering Payolagate.|W|P|110567888290042308|W|P|Standing up for Armstrong Williams and PayolaGate?|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Rob|W|P|Ethics...they are "quaint".Just ask our new Attorney General :)
It has come to my attention that your organization has begun running an advertising campaign to promote President George W. Bush's plan to privatize Social Security and cut benefits. The advertisements that are currently being aired feature President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his signing of the original Social Security legislation. I find the use of my grandfather's image and legacy in your campaign to be highly inappropriate. For seventy years, Social Security has been the bedrock of retirement security for millions of Americans thanks to the efforts of President Roosevelt. My grandfather would surely oppose the ideas now being promoted by this administration and your organization. Not only that, but to compare the courage it took to provide a guaranteed insurance program for our seniors and the disabled to the courage it will take to dismantle the most successful social program in history is simply unconscionable. We should be working to protect and promote Social Security, not cutting benefits for our seniors. On behalf of my family, I would ask that you cease using my grandfather's image in your advertising campaign. Respectfully, James Roosevelt Jr.Here comes the Democrats, ready to fight.|W|P|110565935049500488|W|P|Reid's Democratic "war room" launches first strike|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
- Formal Democratic Procedures. “This principle…specifies a basic set of individual rights necessary to create a vibrant public sphere. These procedures are meant to secure a space within individuals may participate in public life.”
- Grounded Rationality. “…A method of argumentation. It suggests that public discourse ought to be characterized by the practice of advancing claims, providing evidence, and developing counterarguments…It should be grounded in human relationships and be sensitive to the roles of emotion in establishing connections between people.”
- Reflexivity. “…Constant reflection on a proposition’s values, assumptions, and terms is required not only because truth is relativized under these conditions, but also because situations change so rapidly that values and assumptions may not hold over time.”
- Reciprocity. “This principle suggests that actors in public deliberation must go beyond mere toleration of different views; they must actively engage with these views in the course of dialogue.”
- Radical Difference. “The notion of radical difference goes farther, asserting that individuals must have the right to speak in the voice of any of the groups to which they belong.”
- Moderation. “Public discourse should be characterized by modesty in both the assertion of claims and the generalizability of personal experience. (Rodin and Steinberg)
“The sudden rise of new vehicles of communication—and the possibility that they may transform the way in which Americans conduct their politics—raises a major question for public life. What kind of public discourse is necessary to sustain a healthy deliberative democracy? …First, it must be broadly accessible. Citizens must believe that they have a voice in the process by which decisions affecting their lives are made…Second, it must be at least minimally consensual. Citizens must have enough respect for the processes of decision making in their fairness, to be willing accept their results, even when the results are not to their liking.” (Brinkley 139-40)Following through with the idea of new vehicles of communication, the Internet and those crazy ‘bloggers’ can have a significant impact as time progresses when reviewing legislation and contributing to an increase in quality of American public discourse. In concluding, creating more relevant discourse—debate and deliberation with quality—is no difficult task. However, the consequences of not doing so are far more challenging. The American public is becoming disassociated and uninterested in politics and the complicated procedures of social, political, and economic governance. The amount of discourse currently in America is lacking, but more so is the quality. Through the procedures and principles highlighted throughout this paper, Americans should be able to become more active in discussion, deliberation, and debate over the complex issues that face our politicians and, most importantly, that face us. Apathy towards the system and disgust must be defeated from both the bottom-up and the top-down. Citizens should respect their responsibility and use the resources around them to engage in meaningful discourse. But just as important, our elected officials must operate in this same type of atmosphere and under these conditions. In doing so, American public discourse can be revitalized and protected for the 21st century.|W|P|110565173269802594|W|P|Creating an Effective Public Discourse: Destroying the Apathy Towards Politics|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"At the urging of the White House, Congressional leaders scrapped a legislative measure last month that would have imposed new restrictions on the use of extreme interrogation measures by American intelligence officers, Congressional officials say."Hmm. . .we're really learning our lessons, aren't we? Not only the torture thing, but the overall efforts the GOP are taking to change bills outside of conference committees are appalling:
"The Senate had approved the new restrictions, by a 96-to-2 vote, as part of the intelligence reform legislation. They would have explicitly extended to intelligence officers a prohibition against torture or inhumane treatment, and would have required the C.I.A. as well as the Pentagon to report to Congress about the methods they were using. But in intense closed-door negotiations, Congressional officials said, four senior members from the House and Senate deleted the restrictions from the final bill after the White House expressed opposition. In a letter to members of Congress, sent in October and made available by the White House on Wednesday in response to inquiries, Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, expressed opposition to the measure on the grounds that it "provides legal protections to foreign prisoners to which they are not now entitled under applicable law and policy."So, instead of honoring what the Conference Committee had decided to put into legislation, the White House decided to have a closed door meeting to simply delete the language from the bill and then presented it before both houses? There seems to be something inherently undemocratic in those actions. Our representatives are elected both to stand in for their constituents on important national decisions, as well as work to preserve the effectiveness of the American democratic process. The actions the Bush Regime and Congressional leaders have taken are horrible. Public discourse on things as controversial as torture needs to occur. Discourse is fundemental to the supposed "deliberative" democratic process we have in America. But when our own government doesn't recognize the importance of discussion and deliberation over these issues, it leaves one wondering: does my vote count? or, does Congress really care what their constituents think?|W|P|110564658836964059|W|P|Bush Regime gives torture two thumbs up--way up!|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Rob|W|P|Isn't it neat, really, how those closed-door sessions produce really terrific legislation? Kinda like the good 'ol USA PATRIOT Act.Whatever happened to transparency and open government? "Regime" is incredibly appropriate for Bush's government.
cshivner|W|P|The fear here is the party will go more socialist than it is already...Which will certainly be wrong for all...Look at the Progressive movement that originated after WWI...There goals have been realized. In 2005 we have a 2 party system socialist(dems) and liberals(rep)...Look at the history of where the parties were after WWII and you'll see the truth in this. Is this really what America needs....Wake up America.."Bob Shrum, one of the dominant Democratic political strategists and speechwriters of the last three decades, said Wednesday that he was ending his formal consulting career and moving to New York, where he would write and teach at New York University as a senior fellow. . . .He leaves Washington with a mixed record, having served as an adviser on 26 winning Senate campaigns, perhaps more than any other consultant, but also eight losing presidential campaigns, which may also stand as a record. Mr. Shrum was a lead adviser to Senator John Kerry's presidential campaign, where he was sometimes a divisive figure and where he occasionally drew more attention from reporters than his candidate did. He was widely criticized as failing to develop a clean, consistent message."If he really elected that many Senators, than good work, he knows how to run a state-specific campaign for one fellow. (I would, however, like to see his record in the past few cycles when it comes to electing Senators). However, you would think after a certain amount of losses (say three straight) that he wouldn't be able to ever get another job consulting for a Presidential campaign. But evidentally in DC it is 8 strikes and your out. Good riddance.|W|P|110564387700830497|W|P|Shrum retires|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
|W|P|A) Shrum didn't lead 8 presidential campaigns. He was the speechwriter for Muskie, McGovern, and Kennedy. That's like saying that Pat Buchanan lead Richard Nixon to Watergate. B) Correct me if I'm mistaken, but doesn't Shrum get some credit for steering Kerry to the nomination, after everyone said aroudn January 1 that Kerry was dead in the water and Howard Dean would be the nominee?
"In a defiant speech ushering in what is shaping up as a contentious legislative year, Mr. Kennedy accused the White House of using scare tactics to try to push through changes in Social Security, and pledged to fight them. "The biggest threat to Social Security today is not the retirement of the baby boomers - it's George Bush and the Republican Party," he said. "Never before until now has any president, Republican or Democrat, attacked the basic guarantee of Social Security," Mr. Kennedy said in a speech at the National Press Club here. "Never before until now has any president, Republican or Democrat, proposed a cut in Social Security benefits. Yet President Bush is talking not just about a cut, but an incredible 33 percent cut. We must oppose it." His remarks underscored some of the Democratic resistance Mr. Bush is facing as he tries to push through what is shaping up to be an extraordinarily ambitious legislative agenda. Mr. Kennedy, the face of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, urged his colleagues not to accommodate the election-year defeats by moving to the center. "In the face of their tactics, we cannot move our party or our nation forward under pale colors and timid voices," Mr. Kennedy said. "We cannot become Republican clones. If we do, we will lose again, and deserve to lose. As I have said on other occasions, the last thing this country needs is two Republican parties.""I think Kennedy makes damn good points, the same ones a lot of us on the left have been making. The scarriest part of the article though is where Nagourney writes this:
". . .his remarks sounded like an early speech by someone working out the themes for a race for president."Oh, please God, no. I mean, I like Ted. He does a good job for Massachusetts and in the Senate. But do we really need another Massachusetts liberal? Or for that matter, a guy with a past?|W|P|110559045789920877|W|P|Republican clones|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
- On Monday, the Iowa Legislature convened and the evenly split Senate will definitely make things interesting.
- On Tuesday, Governor Tom Vilsack gave his State of the State or Condition of the State address. Education and school needs were at the top of his agenda.
- Last Friday, Rep. Jim Nussle (R-IA-01) filed papers for his intent to run for governor. Lt. Gov. Sally Pederson (D) has already announced she will not run (current Gov. Tom Vilsack is not running again). Secretary of State Chet Culver seems to be the only big name Iowa Democrat considering a bid for governor. The better news coming out of this report is that if indeed Nussle is running for governor, he won't be able to campaign in 2006 for his seat in Congress in Iowa's first district. For all of you who don't know where or what Iowa's first district looks like, check out a map here. The best news is that the section of counties that make up the first district went 52-45 for Gore in 2000, and 53-46 for Kerry in 2004, meaning a Democratic House pick-up could be likely. It is usually considered one of the most Democratic districts in Iowa. It is important to remember, however, that Iowa does not allow for gerrymandering of Congressional districts like most states do; our reapportionment process is handled by an independent out of state commission.
- In the Legislature, enormous debate has already begun concerning an increase in the cigarette tax. The measure is supported by Governor Vilsack, while Senate Co-Majority Leader Stewart Iverson vivaciously opposes it.
"But as concerned as I am about the integrity and credibility of any news organization, I am far more concerned about the credibility of the United States. And to that end, CBS seems to have shown far more courage and accountability than our own government. . . .Unfortunately, the Pentagon's document flap contributed to decisions that led to the loss of life... not just the loss of somebody's reputation. But guess how many people in this administration have been fired, reprimanded, or forced to resign because of any of the mistakes made before, during, or after the invasion of Iraq? Try "zero." Again, when mistakes are made in collecting, analyzing, or reporting information... the people responsible should be held accountable. But that should apply across the board to everybody who speaks to the American public... and not just at CBS News."He really is on the money when it comes to this. And I bet there would be more than 4 people fired. Read the whole post, its worth the two minutes it takes.|W|P|110555948056467705|W|P|Firings beyond "Memogate"|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"After a search that has consumed nearly two years and millions of dollars, and a war that has cost thousands of lives, no weapons of mass destruction have been found, nor has any evidence been uncovered that such weapons were moved to another country. Not only was there not an imminent threat to the United States, the threat described in such alarmist tones by President Bush and the most senior members of his Administration did not exist at all. Citing the continuing search by the Iraq Survey Group, President Bush has refused to concede what has been obvious for months: the primary justification for the invasion of Iraq was not supported by fact. Now that the search is finished, President Bush needs to explain to the American people why he was so wrong, for so long, about the reasons for war."Right on, Nancy. And as of 1:21 PM Central Standard Time, Instapundit has yet to comment on the report at all.|W|P|110555779433610983|W|P|Pelosi on WMDs|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"Prime Minister Ayad Allawi acknowledged for the first time on Tuesday that "pockets" of Iraq would be too dangerous for voters to cast ballots in the election this month, as insurgents continued their effort to disrupt the campaign, killing at least 15 Iraqis and attacking one of the country's main election offices. In a televised address, Dr. Allawi said he hoped that American and Iraqi security forces would be able to pacify many of the country's most chaotic areas before the Jan. 30 vote. By election day, he said, the areas too dangerous for voting would probably be limited in number and small. "Hostile forces are trying to hinder this event," he said. "Certainly, there will be some pockets where people will not be able to participate in the elections, but we do not think it will be widespread." Dr. Allawi's statement is his first public acknowledgement that some areas of Iraq will probably prove too violent to support the nationwide election, the centerpiece of the American effort to bring democracy and stability to this restive land."Hmm. . .oh boy, January 30--that'll be one interesting day. Scowcroft's comments coming true--could he be the next Miss Cleo? Oh, and Allawi is taking pages out of the DoEd/Bush Regime/Williams/Payola-Gate scandal. From today's Financial Times:
"After a meeting held by Mr Allawi's campaign alliance in west Baghdad, reporters, most of whom were from the Arabic-language press, were invited upstairs where each was offered a "gift" of a $100 bill contained in an envelope. Many of the journalists accepted the cash - about equivalent to half the starting monthly salary for a reporter at an Iraqi newspaper - and one jokingly recalled how Saddam Hussein's regime had also lavished perks on favoured reporters."Wow. . .when did Armstrong Williams visit Iraq? The new Iraqi state motto: "Money to every reporter who writes a positive story about this shithole."|W|P|110550887618466456|W|P|Iraq: Read for elections?|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Chris Woods|W|P|Good post, Chase. I've been wondering how I could include those comments in a meaningful post, but I couldn't get my wit going today in order to be able to do so. 'yeti|W|P|Wow. Guess I've been mislead on that one... Rob|W|P|I can actually say I have a bit of respect for Gibson now...I used to lump him in with the rest of the fundies, but he actually seems to have some sense and I'll grant now that he's just *VERY* committed to his faith."Today, I'm announcing my candidacy for the Chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee, and I am asking for your vote. Terry McAuliffe will soon step down, leaving the Democratic Party solvent and poised for growth for the first time ever after a presidential campaign. As a result, our Party has an enormous opportunity to build on the energy and experience of the last election -- and your decision about our next leader will be critical to building a party that grows our base and creates a lasting majority. We need a party focused on more than the next election. We need to build an infrastructure now that will remain in place not only in 2008, but in 2005, 2006, 2007 and beyond. There is only one way to do this: together, we must build from the ground up. The states are a central piece of that strategy. The Democratic Party needs a vibrant, forward-thinking, long-term presence in every single state. We must give our state parties the tools and resources they need in order to be successful. We must be willing to contest every race at every level. We can only win when we show up. Another integral part of our strategy must be cultivating the party's grassroots. Our success depends on all of us taking an active role in our party and in the political process, by encouraging small donations, by taking the Democratic message into every community, and by organizing at the local level. After all, new ideas and new leaders don't come from consultants; they come from communities. As important as organization is, alone it cannot win us elections. Offering a new choice means making Democrats the party of reform -- reforming America's financial situation, reforming our electoral process, reforming health care, reforming education and putting morality back in our foreign policy. The Democratic Party will not win elections or build a lasting majority solely by changing its rhetoric, nor will we win by adopting the other side's positions. We must say what we mean -- and mean real change when we say it. But most of all, together, we have to rebuild the American community. We will never succeed by treating our nation as a collection of separate regions or separate groups. There are no red states or blues states, only American states. And we must talk to the people in all of these states as members of one community. That word -- 'values' -- has lately become a codeword for appeasement of the right-wing fringe. But when political calculations make us soften our opposition to bigotry, or sign on to policies that add to the burden of ordinary Americans, we have abandoned our true values. We cannot let that happen. And we cannot just mouth the words. Our party must speak plainly and our agenda must clearly reflect the socially progressive, fiscally responsible values that bring our party -- and the vast majority of Americans -- together. All of this will require both national perspective and local experience. I know what it's like to lead hands-on at the state level and I know what it's like to run for national office. My organization, Democracy for America, has already begun creating the kind of organization the Democratic Party can be. This past election cycle, we endorsed over 100 candidates at all levels of government -- from school board to U.S. Senate. We contributed close to a million dollars to nearly 750 candidates around the country and raised millions of dollars more for key candidates, including John Kerry. We helped elect a Democratic governor in Montana, a Democratic mayor of Salt Lake County, Utah and an African American woman to the bench in Alabama. Fifteen of the candidates we endorsed had never run for office before -- and won. I also have experience building and managing a local party organization. My career started as Democratic Party chair in Chittenden County, Vermont. I then ran successful campaigns: for state legislature, lieutenant governor and then governor. In my 11-year tenure as governor, I balanced the state's budget every year. I served as chair of both the National Governors' Association and the Democratic Governors' Association (DGA). And as chair of the DGA, I helped recruit nearly 20 governors that won -- even in Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Mississippi. All of these experiences have only reaffirmed what I know to be true. There is only one party that speaks to the hopes and dreams of all Americans. It is the party you have already given so much to. It is the Democratic Party. We can win elections only by standing up for what we believe."Congratulations and good luck, Dr. Dean. Meanwhile, here is his announcement on Democracy for America. Definitely worth a read Some of you may be asking who I'm supporting for chair. I honestly can't tell you right now. What I can tell you is that over the next few days to the next week, I will begin doing some reading and thinking about where I want the Democratic Party to go and who I want to lead. However, I can tell you this much: I will not be campaigning or endorsing former Rep. Tim Roemer (D-IN). He is against any and all abortion rights. And with that stance, he could destroy the Democratic party. Moreover, his focus is too much on the values issue of the 2004 election, and thus appears to be a reactionary position. I want a candidate looking for establishment reform, and there are lots of guys in the running who have that idea at the forefront of their campaigns. Here is who is on my list right now: Howard Dean, Simon Rosenberg, Martin Frost, and Wellington Webb. I'm sure there are more, and I'll make sure to do my reading on them. If you guys have your own picks for Chair, let me know and leave a comment.|W|P|110546998757908229|W|P|Dean's in|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Chase Nordengren|W|P|I'm quite proud of myself on this one, cause I've been saying this for months. Before the election, no less, I was saying to people, "You know what Howard Dean should do? Be DNC Chair. Cause Terry sucks." But I digress.I'm beginning to wonder whether or not he was running for President in order to become DNC chair. A lot of his primary rhetoric was about changing the party, and this would be how you would do it. I will say it right now - I am endorsing Howard Dean. Long live a new era of progressivism and an in-your-face attitude and out with the "Consultant class of election-losers." (Thank you Moveon.org.)
Wow, that may be one of the most rabidly liberal things I've ever written, unless you count what I say about foriegn aid.
Chris Woods|W|P|Chase, that was indeed the most liberal thing you've ever said. Even the foreign aid stuff you say isn't that liberal in nature. Way to indulge in the light side!"President Bush promised to offer an ambitious plan for overhauling Social Security soon, pledging to "provide the political cover" for nervous lawmakers and warning opponents they are "taking a risk politically" by resisting change. . . .The president's comments, in his first newspaper interview since winning re-election, suggest that Mr. Bush and his advisers plan to turn up the political heat on members of Congress, many of whom have expressed reluctance to address the issue. Broadly, the administration aims to carve out private investment accounts for younger workers using part of Social Security payroll taxes, while curbing guaranteed benefits that the federal government has promised future retirees. Mr. Bush declined to specifically embrace recent assertions by aides that the Social Security benefit formula has contributed to the system's insolvency by making benefits rise too rapidly, but he pledged to propose more than a "Band-Aid" solution to address the "structural problem" in the system."I hope that Democrats and fleeing GOP members won't really feel the pressure from Bush. If anything, they've got the "political cover" to fight against privatization, especially if they're looking for re-election in 2008 or after the President is out of office. While I recognize the threat, at least in the House, of losing GOP fundraising and campaigning during 2006, I don't think that the GOP establishment will be able to find that many ideologically insane candidates to run against Republican incumbents. Even if they did, it'd be unlikely they'd win, because a big chunk of America still believes in real fiscal control--a tenant of the real fiscal conservatism. Next, Treasury Secretary John W. Snow visited Wall Street yesterday in an effort to campaign for Bush's reforms. From the New York Times:
"Treasury Secretary John W. Snow began a three-day sales effort on Monday to drum up Wall Street support for President Bush's plans to overhaul Social Security. Despite what some see as the potential boon to the stock market from allowing younger employees to invest part of their Social Security tax payments in personal accounts, many Wall Street economists are dubious about the costs. Administration officials acknowledge that their plan could require the government to borrow as much as $2 trillion over the next two decades, to pay for costs during a transition period when the government still has to pay full benefits to existing retirees. In private meetings, Mr. Snow will confer with top executives from the biggest bond-trading firms on Wall Street and is expected to argue that such borrowing would more than pay for itself at the end of 75 years."We all know that if privatization were to go through, Wall Street could face the biggest success overall--if indeed the borrowing would pay for itself. However, whiel the math is quite complicated, its the political realities that scare Wall Street the most. The fact is, there are no guarantees that the Bush plan for cutting benefits in gradual periods over the next few decades will be continued with in future administrations. Simply put--there are no guarantees that the borrowing will pay itself off. However, I think there are still enough "Enron-execs" out there who just want to line their pockets with cash, so I believe overall that Wall Street will give Bush the political power he needs to lobby Congress--at least a little bit. I don't think it will have much effect though. No matter how much you could get in contributions from these big businesses, it can't beat the support of your constituents. Finally, the Washington Post this morning reports on the problems the GOP faces internally when it comes to the privatization issue. From the Post:
"Many Republicans are expressing reservations about the political wisdom of President Bush's vision for restructuring Social Security, as the White House today intensifies its campaign to restructure the entitlement program for the retired and disabled. Bush, who relishes challenging the conventional wisdoms of Washington, has privately counseled Republicans that partially privatizing Social Security will be a boon for the GOP and has urged skeptics to hold fire until he builds a public case for change. But several influential Republicans are warning that Bush's plan could backfire on the party in next year's elections, especially if the plan includes cuts in benefits. Most alarming to White House officials, some congressional Republicans are panning the president's plan -- even before it is unveiled. "Why stir up a political hornet's nest . . . when there is no urgency?" said Rep. Rob Simmons (Conn.), who represents a competitive district. "When does the program go belly up? 2042. I will be dead by then." Simmons said there is no way he will support Bush's idea of allowing younger Americans to divert some of their payroll taxes into private accounts, especially when there are more pressing needs, such as shoring up Medicare and providing armor to U.S. troops in Iraq."While I relish in the thought that next years elections could lead to a Democratic revolt in Congress, I'd much rather see this issue fail than have it pass then get a Democratic majority in one of the Houses of Congress. Representative Simmons, a new member of Josh Marshall's "Conscience Caucus" is finally beginning to see the light and wants to address the real issues that are affecting Americans right now. Right now, the debate seems to be heading towards us. But I'm sure with the advertising campaign soon to begin and Bush's tour to promote it, things will get a lot closer. But those opposed to privatizing have to keep their heads held and remember that they are leading the good fight--to protect one of America's most popular governmental programs. |W|P|110546830858170425|W|P|Bush on Social Security|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"In turning to Judge Chertoff, Mr. Bush tapped a man who has already been confirmed by the Senate three times. Most recently, he was approved by a vote of 88 to 1 on June 9, 2003, for his seat on the Third Circuit. The lone dissenter was Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. Mr. Chertoff had been the Senate Republicans' chief counsel during the Whitewater investigation into President Bill Clinton's and his wife's business affairs."Well, the whole Whitewater thing already makes me dislike him a whole bunch more. However, if you want some clear reasons to dislike him check out this post. An excerpt:
"It was Chertoff, as assistant atttorney general overseeing the initial 9/11 probe, who OK'ed and then defended the detention of hundreds of "material witnesses" of Arab descent -- even though it would later be determined that none -- that's right, none -- of the detainees had anything to do with the terrorist attacks of 2001. Chartoff's actions during this period would later be roundly criticized in a report from the Justice Department's own Inspector General. It found that immigrants were rounded up in an "indiscriminate and haphazard manner," held for months while denied access to attorneys and sometimes mistreated behind bars. The report noted that Chertoff "urged immigration officials to 'hold these people until we find out what's going on,' despite the fact that many had been swept up and detained on minor immigration charges.""Hmm. . .what a class act.|W|P|110546513269326334|W|P|Worse than Kerik?|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
- The estimates for when the trust fund runs out are pretty conservative (as in, they assume less than average economic scenarios).
- “The fund will run out!” Ten years ago the trust fund was expected to run out in 2029. Currently it stands at the year 2042.
- “Government bonds are worthless!” They are not worthless. The government is required by law to repay the bonds at value of the time. The only way the government wouldn’t be able to do that is if there were a major budget crisis and we defaulted on all our debts (like Argentina did).
- Remember to iterate this point: THERE CAN BE NO SOCIAL SECURITY CRISIS UNLESS IT’S PART OF A GENERAL BUDGET CRISIS. And if its part of a general budget crisis, then it is Bush and the GOP’s fault.
- Wrong!!! In the past, stocks have yielded higher returns than government bonds. Privatizers and economists who endorse privatization are taking this theory and making it a universal maxim. It is simply not true. Our economy will face periods where it tanks. When that happens, government bonds will probably yield more than private accounts.
- Fact: Privatization requires borrowing trillions of dollars to pay for it—possibly $15 billion over 40 years.*
- Lie: “The borrowing won’t matter because as payments are cut 30 – 50 years in the future it will offset the borrowing.”
- Fact: The government can change benefits standards at point it chooses. Thus (supposing Bush’s plan passes), if another administration comes in after Bush in 2008 and decides to increase benefits, the debt from the original privatization will still be incurred and will likely increase. There is absolutely no guarantee that benefits will continue to be cut and that the decreased benefits will reduce costs – it is all an assumption.
- It has been considered one of the most successful and well-loved government programs of the last 60 years.
- President Bush and other privatizers don’t want to fix it – they want to end it. They want to leave a legacy – that is all.
- Privatizing is simply taking a government-supported retirement plan and gambling with it on Wall Street.
- The real crisis in is Medicare/Medicaid. President Bush’s bill last year only made their economic and budgetary problems worse. That should be this administration’s focus. Medicare trustees say the legislation passed in 2003 will cost $8 trillion.*
- Reversing the Bush Tax Cuts and the 2003 Medicare Bill are the best way to take the first steps to creating strong fiscal continuity for America.
"If you were a Democrat running as a first-time candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2002, Joe Hansen was most likely a familiar part of your life. As the field director for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), Hansen was responsible for recruiting promising candidates, and then for getting the nascent campaigns off to a running start. In the first overwhelming days of your campaign, Joe was a lifeline. He took you out to dinner for pep talks, broke down the fundraising process into something almost manageable, walked you through the selection of campaign staff and consultants, and promised that—if you proved you were a serious candidate by putting together the right team—the DSCC would happily write the checks that might make the difference when things really heated up in the fall. And when it came to choosing just the right firm to design and produce the fliers, postcards, and door hangers that would blanket your state in the closing weeks of the campaign, Joe recommended the very best consultant he knew: Joe Hansen. In addition to his job at the DSCC, Hansen was also a partner in the direct mail firm of Ambrosino, Muir & Hansen. His sales pitch must have been effective—Democrats in nine of the closest Senate contests in 2002 signed up with Hansen, including Jeanne Shaheen in New Hampshire, Max Cleland in Georgia, and Alex Sanders in South Carolina. The day after the election, only two (Tim Johnson in South Dakota and Mark Pryor in Arkansas) were still standing. Despite widespread grumbling about his aggressive sales tactics, Hansen is still part of the DSCC (he stepped down as field director midway through 2002 as criticism mounted; officially, he is now a “consultant” for the committee). What's most surprising, though, is that Democratic candidates continue to hire him despite his lousy record. After losing seven of nine close races in 2002, Hansen was again a man in demand during the last election cycle. His firm handled five of the most competitive Senate races in 2004, including the two—Tony Knowles in Alaska and Erskine Bowles in North Carolina—that prognosticators thought were most winnable. Only one of Hansen's candidates, Ken Salazar in Colorado, pulled out a victory."As Markos says, "With a setup like that, you know the article will be good." Sullivan does good when she tears down the imaginary wall of awesomeness around consultant Bob Shrum, the idiot who's destroyed and failed at 8 presidential bids (including John Kerry's). I hope that someday we can begin to cultivate the small-town no-names who have led people like Bill Clinton and George W. Bush to victory.|W|P|110539667147609281|W|P|"Fire the Consultants"--The Washington Monthly|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"As President Bush prepares for his second term, Democrats in Washington and around the country are organizing for a year of confrontation and resistance, saying they are determined to block Bush's major initiatives and thereby deny him the mandate he has claimed from his reelection victory last November. The Democrats' mood and posture represent a contrast to that of four years ago, after Bush's disputed victory over Al Gore. Then, despite anger and bitterness over how the 2000 election ended, Democrats were tentative and initially open to Bush's calls for bipartisan cooperation. Today, despite Bush's clear win over Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), Democrats across the ideological spectrum say they are united in their desire to fight."Excellent news. Moreover, I think the lede offers a good pragmatic comparison between the two sides. More from the Post:
"Bush has opened the year with calls for bipartisanship, telling newly elected members of Congress last week that he hoped to work across party lines to solve the country's problems. Democrats, however, appear to have little interest in building bridges to the White House, saying they do not believe Bush is genuinely interested in cooperation or compromise with the opposition. "The president's idea of bipartisanship is, 'Here's what I want to do, join me,' " said Rep. Robert Menendez (N.J.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. "It isn't about negotiating. It isn't about compromise. It's almost this belief that they have the monopoly on what's best for the country." Democrats point to Bush's decision to renominate a group of conservative judicial candidates who had been blocked by Democratic opposition during his first term as evidence that he will aggressively push an ideological agenda in his second term."Recognizing Bush's idea of bipartisanship is good--now we just have to make efforts for us to appear bipartisan and actually be bipartisan. An approach like this during the upcoming Social Security debate would lead to great publicity and benefits for Democrats and Republicans who are true fiscal conservatives and who aren't just out to get rid of Social Security. There is also a proud moment for Iowa Democrats in Balz's piece, as he includes a great quote and a great description of Senator Tom Harkin.
"Sen. Tom Harkin (Iowa), one of the most combative Democrats in Congress, accused Bush of "throwing down the gauntlet" since winning reelection. "Usually when you win you try to be magnanimous," he said. "But everything we've heard from the president is, 'I've got a mandate,' 'I've got all this political capital,' and 'We'll work with you as long as you agree with us.' Well, wait a minute, you mean we have to agree to everything before they'll work with us. That's a non-starter.""I'm glad Harkin is gearing up for another fight. I've met with Harkin personally four or five times, once while watching the third Presidential debate, another while visiting his Senate office in Washington DC. He's a brilliant man when it comes to downhome Iowa Democratic politics and offers a great alternative to the slimy, old, and inarticulate Republican Senator from Iowa, Charles Grassley. Read the full article, its got a lot of great quotes and full of awesome analysis. Like Harkin said, the guantlet's been thrown and now its time for Democrats to step up and master that gauntlet.|W|P|110538766170638708|W|P|Democrats United|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"And then Williams violated a PR rule: he got off-point. "This happens all the time," he told me. "There are others." Really? I said. Other conservative commentators accept money from the Bush administration? I asked Williams for names. "I'm not going to defend myself that way," he said. The issue right now, he explained, was his own mistake. Well, I said, what if I call you up in a few weeks, after this blows over, and then ask you? No, he said."If this is indeed true, the Inspector General needs to immediately begin an investigation not just in the DoEd but every executive department. People for the American Way have a petition/letter drive going already. Read and sign it here.|W|P|110538552349772869|W|P|More tools beyond Williams|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"Shahwani...said that the U.S. occupation has failed to crack the problem of broad support for the insurgency. The insurgents, he said, "are mostly in the Sunni areas where the population there, almost 200,000, is sympathetic to them." ...."The Sunni population is paying no price for the support it is giving to the terrorists," he said. "From their point of view, it is cost-free. We have to change that equation.""The next article is from today's New York Times describing the new hot topic in Washington--disengaging in Iraq. From the Times:
"The rumblings about disengagement have grown distinctly louder as members of Congress return from their districts after the winter recess, and as military officers try to game out how Sunni Arabs and Shiites might react to the election results. ....all over Washington, there is talk about new ways to define when the mission is accomplished — not to cut and run, but not to linger, either....For the first time, there are questions about whether it is politically possible to wait until the Iraqi forces are adequately trained before pressure to start bringing back American troops becomes overwhelming."Finally, the prowar group Strategic Forecast (or Stratfor) is reporting that they think the US occupation is basically over and we've nothing left to do (reported via Andrew Sullivan).
"The issue facing the Bush administration is simple. It can continue to fight the war as it has, hoping that a miracle will bring successes in 2005 that didn't happen in 2004. Alternatively, it can accept the reality that the guerrilla force is now self-sustaining and sufficiently large not to flicker out and face the fact that a U.S. conventional force of less than 150,000 is not likely to suppress the guerrillas. More to the point, it can recognize these facts: 1. The United States cannot re-engineer Iraq because the guerrillas will infiltrate every institution it creates. 2. That the United States by itself lacks the intelligence capabilities to fight an effective counterinsurgency. 3. That exposing U.S. forces to security responsibilities in this environment generates casualties without bringing the United States closer to the goal. 4. That the strain on the U.S. force is undermining its ability to react to opportunities and threats in the rest of the region. And that, therefore, this phase of the Iraq campaign must be halted as soon as possible."What is also emphasized in the article is that the US should pull to the periphery of Iraq and let the inevitable civil war happen in the center. If civil war is what they predict, then I have a much greater beliefe in Brent Scowcroft's comments last week at Steve Clemmons' luncheon. The US fails to bring democracy again. |W|P|110538441988206605|W|P|Update on Iraq|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"It appears that the president and his aides are trying to sow ignorance to gain support for their flawed privatization agenda."Hmm. . .kind of like the lead-up to Iraq, except "ignorance" should be replaced with "lies" (that word will work in both cases, I guess) and "privatization agenda" for "Iraq war."|W|P|110533600687849004|W|P|NY Times on Social Security again|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"Numerous strides have been made in the area of preparedness: The percentage of parents who stocked emergency supplies to prepare for a possible terrorist attack has increased significantly and the proportion of parents who have created a family communications plan has increased. However, despite these remarkable results, most Americans have still not taken basic steps to prepare. In order to continue to encourage all Americans to prepare themselves, their families and their communities, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has sponsored new public service advertisements that empower Americans to prepare for and respond to potential terrorist attacks and other emergencies. These new advertisements focus specifically on encouraging parents to develop a family communications plan."On the page are links to all the ads they've made, even one in Spanish. If the threat of terrorism is really as bad and imminent as the ads and the Bush Regime make it out to be, why has it taken until 2005 (or 2004) to get these ads on the air? The World Trade Center and the Pentagon were attacked in 2001. That was the first big act of terrorism on US soil. Why weren't there any ads in the rest of 2001 or all of 2002 or 2003? I think that is a question worth answering.|W|P|110533367177758791|W|P|Fear|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Rob|W|P|Fear will keep the local systems in line.(The part about the last remnants of the Old Republic being swept away sure seems like classic Shrub Regime to me...and we know how the Religious Right feels about us.) 'yeti|W|P|I think you just answered it.I've seen the one with the girl eating breakfast (the pic on the adcouncil page) several times. I couldn't put an exact date on it but I'm thinking that one started a couple months before the election... could be wrong though.
"President Bush had great success in his first term by defining crises that demanded decisive responses. Now, as he begins a second term, Bush is returning to the same tactic to accomplish three longtime conservative goals. Warning of the need for urgent action on his Social Security plan, Bush says the "crisis is now" for a system even the most pessimistic observers say will take in more in taxes than it pays out in benefits well into the next decade. He calls the proliferation of medical liability lawsuits a "crisis in America" that can be fixed only by limiting a patient's right to sue for large damages. And Bush has repeatedly accused Senate Democrats of creating a "vacancy crisis" on the federal bench by refusing to confirm a small percentage of his judicial nominees. This strategy helped Bush win support for the war in Iraq, tax cuts and education policies, as well as reclaim the White House. What is unclear is whether the same approach will work, given the battering to the administration's credibility over its Iraq claims and a new Democratic campaign accusing Bush of crying wolf. "This White House had made an art of creating crisis where a crisis does not exist," said Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.)."I'm glad to see that Reid notices things like this as well, it means that a lot of Democrats are gonna start paying more attention to this false crisis rhetoric. We can no longer allow the Bush Regime the ability to undermine collective Democratic actions with false claims of crises. But if we continue to do so, then we really are the minority party in America, which I don't believe we are.|W|P|110532340895645607|W|P|Crisis love|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
“The Iraqi elections, rather than turning out to be a promising turning point, have the great potential for deepening the conflict. Indeed we may be seeing an incipient civil war at the present time.”These comments even drew out a response from Regime Leader Bush (from the Washington Post):
“Asked if he shares Scowcroft's concerns, Bush told reporters today, "Quite the opposite. I think elections will be such a incredibly hopeful experience for the Iraqi people." He said that 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces "appear to be relatively calm." The four remaining provinces "are places where the terrorists are trying to stop people from voting," he said. "So I know it's hard. But it's hard for a reason. And the reason it's hard is because there are a handful of folks who fear freedom."”What Bush doesn’t mention is that the four provinces that aren’t “relatively calm” also happen to be four of the most populous provinces in Iraq, including the province where Baghdad is located. Noting the fact that President Bush doesn’t take kindly to hearing bad news, what his reaction be if Mr. Scowcroft’s comments become fact? I think it’s a disturbing thought, but one that needs to be further explored. Bush doesn’t seem to be completely ignorant towards all bad news in Iraq. He seems to get a lot of reports from British Prime Minister Tony Blair and other close advisors as to the quickly deteriorating situation in Iraq. If this is true, will he accept the outcome of the elections—especially if Iraqi’s overwhelmingly choose a strong Shi’ite government that immediately demands the United States leave? The US has promised all along that we will stay as long as the government of Iraq officially welcomes our support. Assuming, however, that Shi’ites do come to power and ask us to leave, what then? This question should be a heads up to reporters and they should begin asking this question immediately to Minister of Disinformation Scott McClellan and any public person in the Bush Regime. I still don’t know, even after all of the thought and consideration that I’ve been giving to Iraq in the past couple of days, what the outcome will be and what I would do if I were in a position of power. The situation is monumentally complicated and requires diverse opinion from every angle—including those who disagree or are considered to be “dissenters” helping the terrorists. To any of you interested in keeping up with the situation in Iraq, from an insider or expert angle, check out Juan Cole’s “Informed Comment” and Steve Clemmons’ “The Washington Note.” I don’t need to go out on a limb to say this—the next few weeks will carry huge weight in the outcome of the debacle in Iraq. And it will not doubt have a big impact on the War on “Terror.” I will try and keep updates on the Iraqi situation coming at a rapid rate, along with information on the new session of Congress, and the Social Security privatization battle that will soon emerge. The Political Forecast will strive to keep you informed.|W|P|110532125350943394|W|P|Elections in the Middle East|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
ABC's "This Week" - Secretary of State Colin Powell; former Rep. Tim Roemer, D-Ind.; actor Don Cheadle. CBS' "Face the Nation" - UNICEF executive director Carol Bellamy; Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Robert Blackman; former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski; former Mideast envoy Dennis Ross. NBC's "Meet the Press" - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. CNN's "Late Edition" - Sens. John Sununu, R-N.H., Joseph Biden, D-Del., and Jon Corzine, D-N.J.; Palestinian Cabinet minister Nabil Shaath; Israeli Vice Premier Ehud Olmert; UNICEF's Bellamy; American Red Cross President Marty Evans; Dr. David Nabarro, head of crisis operations for the World Health Organization. "Fox News Sunday" - Powell; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.Enjoy.|W|P|110524779574511508|W|P|Sunday show line-ups|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
PolarTrader|W|P|Great Blog! I wanted to share this with you. Are you tired of the Internet Marketing Rat Race? business home online todayCheck this out when you have time :-)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Question: who else has been on the payroll? They sank a quarter of a million into one not so prominent commentator to push a single issue -- not even one where they really needed help -- and they never greased anyone else? Not so credible."A fair question. And Oliver Willis has a great image (downloadable in PDF format here):
|W|P|110516185674300105|W|P|More on Armstrong Williams|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com"Seeking to build support among black families for its education reform law, the Bush administration paid a prominent black pundit $240,000 to promote the law on his nationally syndicated television show and to urge other black journalists to do the same. The campaign, part of an effort to promote No Child Left Behind (NCLB), required commentator Armstrong Williams "to regularly comment on NCLB during the course of his broadcasts," and to interview Education Secretary Rod Paige for TV and radio spots that aired during the show in 2004. Williams said Thursday he understands that critics could find the arrangement unethical, but "I wanted to do it because it's something I believe in." The top Democrat on the House Education Committee, Rep. George Miller of California, called the contract "a very questionable use of taxpayers' money" that is "probably illegal." He said he will ask his Republican counterpart to join him in requesting an investigation."It is a good thing that this guy isn't in the US House of Representatives. Otherwise there'd be no ethical investigation. ABC News' The Note is busy picking their jaw up off the floor from this story. Eduwonk, a progressive education policy weblog calls it "sleazy." This is highly illegal and definitely gonna generate some big stories in the news cycle for the next couple of days.|W|P|110512266723677349|W|P|Another regime tool|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
|W|P|Ethics and values...the GOP hard at work.Tom DeLay, Bush cozying up to child molesters, propaganda, vote rigging. And they are the "values party".
I'd think this could be grounds for a serious investigation, if we had a government with checks and balances. But there are no checks and balances in the GOP one party government.
"I've been thinking of writing a political novel. It will be a bad novel because there won't be any nuance: the villains won't just espouse an ideology I disagree with - they'll be hypocrites, cranks and scoundrels. In my bad novel, a famous moralist who demanded national outrage over an affair and writes best-selling books about virtue will turn out to be hiding an expensive gambling habit. A talk radio host who advocates harsh penalties for drug violators will turn out to be hiding his own drug addiction. In my bad novel, crusaders for moral values will be driven by strange obsessions. One senator's diatribe against gay marriage will link it to "man on dog" sex. Another will rant about the dangers of lesbians in high school bathrooms. In my bad novel, the president will choose as head of homeland security a "good man" who turns out to have been the subject of an arrest warrant, who turned an apartment set aside for rescue workers into his personal love nest and who stalked at least one of his ex-lovers. In my bad novel, a TV personality who claims to stand up for regular Americans against the elite will pay a large settlement in a sexual harassment case, in which he used his position of power to - on second thought, that story is too embarrassing even for a bad novel. In my bad novel, apologists for the administration will charge foreign policy critics with anti-Semitism. But they will be silent when a prominent conservative declares that "Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular." In my bad novel the administration will use the slogan "support the troops" to suppress criticism of its war policy. But it will ignore repeated complaints that the troops lack armor. The secretary of defense - another "good man," according to the president - won't even bother signing letters to the families of soldiers killed in action. Last but not least, in my bad novel the president, who portrays himself as the defender of good against evil, will preside over the widespread use of torture."Sounds a lot like reality--doesn't it? Right-wing fanatical pundits like O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Coulter, and others are going to have a field day with this column. Read the full column. The perspective is amazing. Things in politics really are worse than fiction.|W|P|110507771387263662|W|P|Krugman: Worse than fiction|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"Army leaders are considering seeking a change in Pentagon policy that would allow for longer and more frequent call-ups of some reservists to meet the demands of conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, a senior Army official said yesterday. Reservists are being used heavily to fill key military support jobs, particularly in specialty areas, but Army authorities are having increasing difficulty limiting the active-duty time of some normally part-time soldiers to a set maximum of two years, the official said. He described the National Guard's 15 main combat units as close to being "tapped out." To avoid pushing reserve forces to the breaking point, the official also said, a temporary increase of 30,000 troops in active-duty ranks that was authorized last year will probably need to be made permanent, especially if U.S. troop levels in Iraq remain high. He said significant troop levels may be required in Iraq for four or five more years. The official declined to be named because of the political sensitivity of the troop issue and the lack of decisions. But he said that the Army probably will ask Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld in the next several months to change the policy on mobilization of reservists. "It's coming," he told a small group of Pentagon reporters. "I think we're going to have this discussion this spring.""Here is the beginning of the draft you had been predicting, Rob. May God help all those folks' souls. Its just unfair for them. |W|P|110507350507204426|W|P|Reservists face new limits|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"Mr. Baucus's position will make it difficult for the White House to obtain the Democratic votes necessary for the measure to get through the Senate. "I seriously doubt I'm going to be the linchpin this time," Mr. Baucus, the senior Democrat on the Finance Committee, said in an interview. Although the Social Security system has difficulties, Mr. Baucus said, "it is not a crisis," as Mr. Bush asserts. The president's plan to allow workers to divert part of their Social Security taxes into private investment accounts would "exacerbate the problem, not solve it," the senator said. And the suggestion that benefits could be cut "by 40 percent 50 or 60 years from now," he said, "is simply unacceptable." With the tax cuts and the Medicare legislation, Mr. Baucus's willingness to break party ranks gave the measures the bipartisan backing they needed for approval by the Finance Committee and passage by the full Senate."This is the type of news Democrats need to hear. Bush will not get any bipartisan support on this measure, simply because its not a bipartisan effort. They just want to get rid of it. And no Democrat should or cannot support that. He wasn't a member of Josh Marshall's "Fainthearted Faction" but its good to know that Democrats can round up suspect members. |W|P|110507286730921385|W|P|Bush loses Democratic supporter of privatization|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
- "So, I guess news is fixed?"
- "I had no idea that if you wanted something cancelled, you just had to say it."
|W|P|At least a Senator stood up. I was wondering how Sen. McCain would vote (he's a maverick, but I figured he'd go with Bush) but he wasn't present.I was really wondering about Chaffee, but he was absent also.
"Simon Rosenberg, announcing his candidacy today for DNC chair, endorsed a challenge of the electoral college vote. Asked whether Dems should mount such a challenge, Rosenberg responded, "Yes. Next question.""Fascinating. I don't think he's saying this because he thinks the election will be overturned, but because he wants election reform. If that is different than what you read from Rosenberg's statement, let me know. |W|P|110503757132714916|W|P|Rosenberg endorsed the challenge|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Chase Nordengren|W|P|I don't read anything from his statement. Anybody who doesn't make the argument after being asked that question is idiotic. 'yeti|W|P|Awesome... I think our focus now turns to how (and how much) the MSM is going to play it. I think I'm going to write a letter on how this is NOT a whining challenge to Bush - it's all but given that's how Fox will play it, but hopefully the rest will realize what it's truly about.Btw, how much snow do you have in Des Moines?
Chris Woods|W|P|10-12 inches. 'yeti|W|P|Neato! We've about half that the entire winter. It's sad."For the first time in six decades, the Social Security battle is one we can win -- and in doing so, we can help transform the political and philosophical landscape of the country. We have it within our grasp to move away from dependency on government and toward giving greater power and responsibility to individuals."And this:
"Let me tell you first what our plans are in terms of sequencing and political strategy. We will focus on Social Security immediately in this new year. Our strategy will probably include speeches early this month to establish an important premise: the current system is heading for an iceberg. The notion that younger workers will receive anything like the benefits they have been promised is fiction, unless significant reforms are undertaken. We need to establish in the public mind a key fiscal fact: right now we are on an unsustainable course. That reality needs to be seared into the public consciousness; it is the pre-condition to authentic reform."Essentially, it all boils down to the first chance in 60 years that the Republicans have had to eliminate America's most popular governmental program--Social Security. Josh Marshall has most of the skinny on the memo (which can be read in its entirety at the end of this post) and so I recommend reading his post. Check out Eschaton as well, where Atrios poses a good question that needs to be answered by any supporters of this policy initiative. But moreover, what can easily be seen now is the dismissive spirit the Republican-right has towards Democrats. While continuously referring to former Sen. Patrick Moynihan, Wehner tries to make the issue seem to be moving towards bipartisanship. A more careful reading reveals that he could give a shit about the "party of the past." And since he doesn't give a shit, its time to become a pain in their asses. This memo should serve as a wake-up call to all Democrats that we have to become a throne in the side of the radical right. We don't have any other choice. Enough with the internal bickering, let us represent the strident minority in this country. We have a job to do. And we must do it. The fight for progressive policies to help all Americans continues in 2005 and beyond, and in the 109th Congress and beyond. Rise up, meet up, get invigorated, and get out there with the message. In the next few days, I'm going to post some talking points I've devised for the upcoming Social Security debate. They'll be simple and casual. Whenever you talk about this around the watercooler at work or over coffee with friends or whatever else you're doing and the issue comes up, you can use these talking points. This is too important of a debate to be a slacker on. Even more, the memo contains a lot of economic and budgetary falsehoods, most of which have already been countered by Paul Krugman of the New York Times, or will be in the next week and a half in his two week series on why you should be against privatization. Check out this post from a few days ago on the same topic, and check out this policy paper he's written (it's a PDF). Here, in its entirety, is the leaked Wehner Memorandum:
"From: Wehner, Peter H. Subject: Some Thoughts on Social Security I wanted to provide to you our latest thinking (not for attribution) on Social Security reform. I don't need to tell you that this will be one of the most important conservative undertakings of modern times. If we succeed in reforming Social Security, it will rank as one of the most significant conservative governing achievements ever. The scope and scale of this endeavor are hard to overestimate. Let me tell you first what our plans are in terms of sequencing and political strategy. We will focus on Social Security immediately in this new year. Our strategy will probably include speeches early this month to establish an important premise: the current system is heading for an iceberg. The notion that younger workers will receive anything like the benefits they have been promised is fiction, unless significant reforms are undertaken. We need to establish in the public mind a key fiscal fact: right now we are on an unsustainable course. That reality needs to be seared into the public consciousness; it is the pre-condition to authentic reform. Given that, our aim is to introduce market reforms in Social Security and make the system permanently solvent and sustainable. We intend to pursue the first goal by using our will and energy toward the creation of Personal Retirement Accounts. As you know, our advocacy for personal accounts is tied to our commitment to an Ownership Society -- one in which more people will own their health care plans and have the confidence of owning a piece of their retirement. Our goal is to provide a path to greater opportunity, more freedom, and more control for individuals over their own lives. That is what the personal account debate is fundamentally about -- and it is clearly the crucial new conservative idea in the history of the Social Security debate. Second, we're going to take a very close look at changing the way benefits are calculated. As you probably know, under current law benefits are calculated by a "wage index" -- but because wages grow faster than inflation, so do Social Security benefits. If we don't address this aspect of the current system, we'll face serious economic risks. It's worth noting that wage indexation was not part of the original design of Social Security. The current method of wage indexation was created in 1977, under (you guessed it) the Carter Administration. Wage indexation makes it impossible to "grow our way" out of the Social Security problem. If the economy grows faster and wages rise, this produces more tax revenue. But the faster wage growth also means that we owe more in Social Security benefits. This has produced a never-ending cycle of higher tax burdens, even during periods of robust economic growth. It is the classic case of the dog chasing his tail around the tree; he can run faster and faster, and never make any progress. You may know that there is a small number of conservatives who prefer to push only for investment accounts and make no effort to adjust benefits -- therefore making no effort to address this fundamental structural problem. In my judgment, that's a bad idea. We simply cannot solve the Social Security problem with Personal Retirement Accounts alone. If the goal is permanent solvency and sustainability -- as we believe it should be --then Personal Retirements Accounts, for all their virtues, are insufficient to that task. And playing "kick the can" is simply not the credo of this President. He wants to do what needs to be done for genuine repair of Social Security. If we duck our duty, it can have serious short-term economic consequences. Here's why. If we borrow $1-2 trillion to cover transition costs for personal savings accounts and make no changes to wage indexing, we will have borrowed trillions and will still confront more than $10 trillion in unfunded liabilities. This could easily cause an economic chain-reaction: the markets go south, interest rates go up, and the economy stalls out. To ignore the structural fiscal issues -- to wholly ignore the matter of the current system's benefit formula -- would be irresponsible. Here's a startling fact: under current law, an average retiree in 2050 would be scheduled to receive close to 40 percent more (in real terms) in benefits than an average retiree today -- and yet there are no mechanisms in place to produce the revenue to pay out those benefits. No one on this planet can tell you why a 25-year-old person today is entitled to a 40 percent increase in Social Security benefits (in real terms) compared to what a person retiring today receives. To meet those benefit levels, one option would be to raise the age at which people receive benefits. If we followed the formula used when Social Security was first created -- make the age at which you receive Social Security benefits above the average age of mortality -- we'd be looking at raising the benefit age to around 80. That ain't gonna happen. Another way to meet those benefit levels is through the traditional Democrat/liberal way: higher taxation. According to the latest report of the Social Security Trustees, the current system's benefit formula would require some $10 trillion in tax increases over the long term. We'd therefore need to raise the payroll tax almost 20 percent simply to provide wage-indexed benefit levels to those born this year. This will all sound familiar. In the past, the way Congress usually addressed the built-in funding problem was by raising payroll taxes (from 2 percent in 1937 to 12.4 percent today). In fact, Congress has raised Social Security taxes more than 30 times -- but it has never addressed the underlying problem. Avoiding the core issue by raising taxes is not the modus operandi of this President. The other key point, as you know, is that personal accounts, through the miracle of compound interest, will provide workers with higher retirement benefits than they are currently receiving from Social Security. At the end of the day, we want to promote both an ownership society and advance the idea of limited government. It seems to me our plan will do so; the plan of some others won't. Let me add one other important point: we consider our Social Security reform not simply an economic challenge, but a moral goal and a moral good. We have a responsibility to fulfill the promise of Social Security, not undermine it. And we have a duty to ensure that we do not create an inter-generational conflict -- which is precisely what will happen if the Social Security system is not reformed. We need to retain strong ties between the generations, which is of course a deeply conservative belief. The debate about Social Security is going to be a monumental clash of ideas -- and it's important for the conservative movement that we win both the battle of ideas and the legislation that will give those ideas life. The Democrat Party leadership, the AARP, and many others will go after Social Security reform hammer and tongs. See today's silly New York Times editorial (its only one for the day) as one example. But Democrats and liberals are in a precarious position; they are attempting to block reform to a system that almost every serious-minded person concedes needs it. They are in a position of arguing against modernizing a system created almost four generations ago. Increasingly the Democrat Party is the party of obstruction and opposition. It is the Party of the Past. For the first time in six decades, the Social Security battle is one we can win -- and in doing so, we can help transform the political and philosophical landscape of the country. We have it within our grasp to move away from dependency on government and toward giving greater power and responsibility to individuals. There are of course other important issues dealing with Social Security; for now, though, I've covered quite enough ground. I wanted to let you know where things stand. If you have any questions, or if we can send you anything to clarify our plans and respond to critics, just let me know. The President remains flexible on tactics -- and rock-solid on the principles. But there's nothing new there. In one of his last public acts of an extraordinary public life, the late Democratic Senator from New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, co-chaired the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security. In the introduction of its report, Senator Moynihan (along with Richard Parsons, his co-chair) wrote, "the time to include personal accounts in such action [reforming Social Security] has, indeed, arrived. The details of such accounts are negotiable, but their need is clear.... Carpe diem!" And so we shall."NO YOU SHALL NOT!|W|P|110499360826346630|W|P|Wehner memo: End Social Security|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"Condoleezza Rice should expect few surprises when she faces the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Jan. 18 and 19 for confirmation hearings on her nomination to be secretary of state. Committee Chairman Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) and other GOP members have agreed to submit in advance the questions they plan to ask her, a decision some Democrats find surprising. Lugar will give Rice the questions he plans to ask orally because he feels she should be fully prepared to answer without delay, said Lugar spokesman Andy Fisher said. "This is not a pop quiz," he said."He's right. This isn't a pop quiz. But it is a Senate Confirmation HEARING. She's not supposed to be prepared. Her preparation is her resume. When you go in for a job interview, that is usually all that the boss knows. Then you are questioned for an extensive period of time. That is why two days are scheduled for these hearings. If the job market were like this, we would have some damn quick interviews for a job--or maybe even none. |W|P|110498751650380361|W|P|Rice gets questions in advance|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Rob|W|P|Wonder if Duhbya will insist on Condi having Cheney along for the hearing? :) Chris Woods|W|P|I bet he wish he could have him there telling her what to say. But I think it might be a conflict of interest to have him be right there with her, seeing as he's technically President of the Senate at all.He must get that position confused ith Dubya's sometimes, maybe that's why he's always trying to be in power.
""I think there will be an objection or two," Reid told The Washington Post after meeting with the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, who wants a thorough probe of Ohio's balloting. Reid declined to say who might object."-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The New York Times reports that John Kerry won't be helping Rep. John Conyers in the House challenge the certification of the elction in a joint session of Congress tomorrow. From the Times:
"The day before a joint session of Congress to certify the results of the 2004 presidential election, Senator John Kerry said Wednesday that he would not participate in a possible protest by Democrats who are challenging President Bush's victory in Ohio. "While I am deeply concerned about the issues being highlighted by my colleagues in Congress and citizens across the country and support their efforts to highlight the need to ensure voting rights," Mr. Kerry said in a statement, "I will not be joining their protest of the Ohio electors." Senator Kerry, who is traveling in the Middle East, does not plan to be in Washington on Thursday for the formal tally of the Electoral College results, the official constitutional ending to the 2004 presidential race."This is probably a good idea for Kerry, to help keep his hands clean in case this gets messy. Rumor is that he's considering running again in 2008. His entire foreign policy team still meets once a week in Boston, according to an article in Newsweek. However, it looks like there could be hope on the Senate front for a challenge. From the Times:
"On Wednesday, an aide to Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, said Mrs. Boxer was contemplating raising an objection."If this is true, this is quite good news. If you're interested in getting ahold of Senator Boxer, Rob's got her contact information. |W|P|110498556485007505|W|P|Election challenge tomorrow|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"There is rising concern amongst senior officials that President Bush does not grasp the increasingly grim reality of the security situation in Iraq because he refuses to listen to that type of information. Our sources say that attempts to brief Bush on various grim realities have been personally rebuffed by the President, who actually says that he does not want to hear “bad news.” Rather, Bush makes clear that all he wants are progress reports, where they exist, and those facts which seem to support his declared mission in Iraq...building democracy. “That’s all he wants to hear about,” we have been told. So “in” are the latest totals on school openings, and “out” are reports from senior US military commanders (and those intelligence experts still on the job) that they see an insurgency becoming increasingly effective, and their projection that “it will just get worse.” Our sources are firm in that they conclude this “good news only” directive comes from Bush himself; that is, it is not a trap or cocoon thrown around the President by National Security Advisor Rice, Vice President Cheney, and DOD Secretary Rumsfeld. In any event, whether self-imposed, or due to manipulation by irresponsible subordinates, the information/intelligence vacuum at the highest levels of the White House increasingly frightens those officials interested in objective assessment, and not just selling a political message."Cue "Twilight Zone" theme song.|W|P|110497306562310703|W|P|Bush's fantasy world|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"President Bush has promoted long-time aide Dan Bartlett to counselor and is keeping senior adviser Karl Rove in his White House staff for his second term, a spokesman announced on Wednesday. . . . Nicolle Devenish, who was communications director for Bush's re-election campaign last year, will replace Bartlett as White House communications director and will be Bartlett's principal deputy. She formerly headed the White House media affairs office."Those positions seem to be the only publicized position changes inside the West Wing. It looks like Bush will keep most of his Senior Staff the same as it was during the campaign and the last year of his first term. It'll will be interesting to see how Devenish does as Communications Director for the entire West Wing and not just the campaign. |W|P|110496602955762199|W|P|Bartlett promoted|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"Top Democrats, including New York Sen. Charles Schumer, are working to convince current Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe to stay at his post for at least another twelve months as the party prepares for the 2006 midterm elections. McAuliffe is due to give up the post in five weeks when his four-year term ends at the DNC's winter meeting in Washington, DC. The Democrats trying to get him to extend his tour of duty fear that the large current crop of candidates for chair has not sufficiently inspired the 440-odd voting members of the national committee, and that a chair without a solid mandate would destabilize the party at the very moment when it most needs a steady hand. McAuliffe, they say, could build on his successes and incorporate many of the ideas being proposed by those who want to replace him. Others worry that no current aspirant for the job has galvanized enough support to prevent former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean from being voted into the chairman's spot at the party meeting, a scenario that some in the party who find the former presidential candidate too polarizing. Dean gained a boost this week as Rep. John Murtha, a conservative House Democrat who supported the Iraq war resolution, wrote to Pennsylvania delegates urging that they select Dean for chair."This is not the goddamn time for this type of debate. Things like this should've been settled over the winter as Congress adjourned and went on break. Seriously, we have bigger battles to fight right now. I understand the importance of Chairman of the DNC, but for god's sakes we've got a Social Security, tort reform, and confirmation challenges all on the way and we need to focus on getting Democratic victories. Otherwise we truly are the miniority impact with little or absolutely no clout. What angers me even more about this is that it will just intensify the anger/criticisms between the centrists of the DLC and others on the left at places like dKos and Howard Dean's Democracy for America. Now is not a time to be divided. Democrats, get your act together and focus on winning some things right now. |W|P|110495646060256761|W|P|Campaigning for McAuliffe?|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
- The Social Security Trust Fund needs money and privatization will, in the long run, increase the amount of money available to retirees
- Privatization will give people choice, and choice is good
- "It's your money," and you ought to be able to do with it as you wish
"A universal 401(k) would increase savings far more than partly privatizing Social Security. Privatization that simply allocates part of the current 12.4 percent Social Security payroll tax for employees to invest in private accounts does nothing to increase national savings: it's like taking $1,000 a year from your parent's 401(k) and putting it in your own individual retirement account. Allowing people to invest some of their Social Security payroll taxes in the market simply adds risk to the one risk-free leg of the retirement stool. If instead people could invest in universal 401(k) accounts - in addition to Social Security - that provided new incentives to those families having the hardest time putting money away, America would actually leverage new savings, not just shift existing savings around."He doesn't offer a cohesive paying method (at least one I can comprehend) and until he does, I won't take a position. But if its costs are reasonable and the effects increase the likelihood that Social Security and future government "insurance schemes" (as he calls them) will continue paying full benefits, and possibly even increase benefits, without eliminating the system, than I am all for it. |W|P|110490321251408078|W|P|Social Security op-eds|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"On at least two of the most controversial policies endorsed by Gonzales, officials familiar with the events say the impetus for action came from Addington -- another reflection of Cheney's outsize influence with the president and the rest of the government. Addington, universally described as outspokenly conservative, interviewed candidates for appointment as Gonzales's deputy, spoke at Gonzales's morning meetings and, in at least one instance, drafted an early version of a legal memorandum circulated to other departments in Gonzales's name, several sources said. Conceding that such ghostwriting might seem irregular, even though Gonzales was aware of it, one former White House official said it was simply "evidence of the closeness of the relationship" between the two men. But another official familiar with the administration's legal policymaking, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because such deliberations are supposed to be confidential, said that Gonzales often acquiesced in policymaking by others. This might not be the best quality for an official nominated to be attorney general, the nation's top law enforcement job, the administration official said. He added that he thinks Gonzales learned from mistakes during Bush's first term."All of this information comes from sources inside these discussions who have to remain anonymous. If this is true, it is unheard of. The position of White House counsel, and the office itself, was intended to be an office offering objective advice to the President on policy initiatives and actions taken by those in the executive branch and the bureaucratic and personnel offices involved. If VP Cheney (the Dark Lord, as Maureen Dowd refers to him) and his personal counsel were involved in this process, than the objective status has essentially been destroyed. It also seems, from the Post article, that decisions made by the Office of White House Counsel, rarely engaged in communication with other significant branches involved in the trial and detention policies being created by Gonzales and others. The main discussion occurred with individuals from the White House counsel's office, the Dept. of Defense, the vice president, and the president himself. Those left out included State Department officials as well as officials from the National Security Council. At the most basic, it seems that a personal relationship forged between Gonzales and Bush while back in Texas carried over into acts conducted by the Counsel's office. Typically, the Counsel's office dealt with domestic politics and the legal issues involved there. Matters of foreign and military legal counsel were usually handled by officials from the Departments of State, Defense, and Justice. Gonzales and company (referred to as active members of "The Federalist Society") simply circumvented the traditional routes and took more power than historically taken by their predecessors. What's more, the New York Times tomorrow morning will also have a story detailing the actions of Gonzales while in the White House Counsel's Office. From the Times article:
"Alberto R. Gonzales, the White House counsel, intervened directly with Justice Department lawyers in 2002 to obtain a legal ruling on the extent of the president's authority to permit extreme interrogation practices in the name of national security, current and former administration officials said Tuesday. Mr. Gonzales's role in seeking a legal opinion on the definition of torture and the legal limits on the force that could be used on terrorist suspects in captivity is expected to be a central issue in the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings scheduled to begin on Thursday on Mr. Gonzales's nomination to be attorney general. The request by Mr. Gonzales produced the much-debated Justice Department memorandum of Aug. 1, 2002, which defined torture narrowly and said that Mr. Bush could circumvent domestic and international prohibitions against torture in the name of national security."So, it seems from Mr. Gonzales' actions, he worked primarily with officials from the CIA, Justice Department, and those within the West Wing of the White House. Finally, it seems as if the hearings scheduled for Thursday on Gonzales' appointment to the position of Attorney General will become quite contentious. From the New York Times:
"Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, who has signaled an intent to question Mr. Gonzales vigorously about his role in the memorandums, said Tuesday that he has been continually frustrated by the White House in trying to obtain answers and documents. In a letter to Mr. Gonzales on Tuesday, Mr. Leahy wrote, "I am disappointed that, contrary to your promises to me to engage in an open exchange and answer my questions in connection with your confirmation process, you have not answered my letters" requesting documents."If the Senate Committee has indeed not been able to receive all the documents necessary from inside the White House, not only could the hearings get heated between Democrats on the committee and Mr. Gonzales, but between Senate Democratic leaders and those in White House preventing these important documents from being released. Stay tuned for more--Thursday promises to be a big day.|W|P|110489845592424230|W|P|Abuse memos ghostwritten?|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Chase Nordengren|W|P|While I think the memos are horrible, I think it's wrong to go after Gonzales for them ... we should be calling for the head of the person(s) who told him to write the memo, not the writer. This isn't an idea that a council would do without being asked to.Is it more significant that he didn't do such a good job arguing the case? Come on, the word "quaint" is idiotic. There's a much more neuanced way of saying that.
Chris Woods|W|P|I think going after Gonzales is perfectly fine. Democrats aren't going to get a chance to grill Addington, the guy who may have actually ghostwritten the memos. Moreover, we won't get to interview Dick Cheney either (since it seems the command came from inside the VP's office) and even if we do, he'll be in the same room with Bush, and that means any conversation won't get anywhere."Democratic senators plan to grill Alberto Gonzales, the White House legal counsel, during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Thursday, particularly about legal memos to the administration discussing policy on interrogation and torture. "The upcoming hearings are a chance for some accountability and for some answers that have been lacking from the administration about its policies on torture and about the prison abuse scandals," said Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, the committee's ranking Democrat. "There is much to answer for." Human rights organizations and a group of religious leaders have opposed Gonzales' nomination and have written letters to members of the Judiciary Committee urging them to scrutinize his beliefs on the administration's policy about torture. Twelve retired military leaders, including a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the former leader of the U.S. Central Command, took the unusual step of sending a letter to the committee expressing "deep concern" about the nomination of Gonzales, who is expected to be confirmed to replace John Ashcroft."This should be a tough battle. We have lots of things to grill Gonzales on. I don't think I've actually heard any rumors as to whether or not he will be confirmed or not. It would seem that the Republican-right has enough votes (55) in the Senate to confirm Gonzales, but somehow I don't think the Senate majority whip will be able to keep all of those senators in line. As I said, there are going to be a lot of questions regarding the interrogation policies as developed by Mr. Gonzales, as well as discussion of the treatment of detainees in Iraq at Abu Ghraib and in Cuba at Guantanamo Bay. I don't believe that Gonzales should be Attorney General. With the actions of John Ashcroft as the previous Attorney General and his closeness with Alberto Gonzales leads me to worry about the future of the office of America's top cop. Senate Democrats should definitely work together to form a cohesive path for questioning during these confirmation hearings. If certain damning information is uncovered, but Senate Republicans plan to move on with a vote on the confirmation, a filibuster is definitely needed and worth it. |W|P|110486916722726311|W|P|Gonzales faces tough confirmation|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
""With the new composition of the Senate I believe it is feasible and likely that both ANWR and an energy policy will be passed," Spencer Abraham told reporters on the sidelines of a meeting with Russia's top nuclear official."This is just plain bad news. The Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge should not be a place for furthering the expansion of our oil reserves. According to estimates using satelite and radar technology, at most there is enough oil for 6-8 months of regular usage by the American people. Now, the Republican-right may tell you that the point of going to ANWR is to boost our strategic petroleum reserves. However, we don't need to boost them. Moreover, the supposed boost they would receive from drilling in ANWR would be minimal at best. Hell, it wouldn't even be a "strategic" move for the United States. We need to end our dependence on oil products--both foreign and domestic. The Bush Regime's energy policy should be almost entirely focused on creating alternative forms of energy to decrease America's dependence on the Middle East. If we don't do that, we're simply continuing to further conflict and violence in the Middle East. What's more, the Republican-right will tell you that it isn't drilling in ANWR, but "exploring." That's just playing semantics. To explore, you have to drill. The impact of exploring/drilling (they're the same things) has the same detrimental effects on the environment. Fumes and exhaust from the machines they will be using will disrupt a delicate ecological balance in ANWR. Moreover, it will disrupt the migratory patterns of hundreds of species of birds as well as upset the large caribou and moose population. These are rare species of these types of mammals. Drilling in ANWR creates irreparable harm to the environment. Furthermore, it really messes up the employment of many folks up in the area who legally hunt some of these animals and make business from their hunt. Overall, the opening up of ANWR for drilling is a destructive economic and ecological policy for all United States citizens. |W|P|110486123675755689|W|P|ANWR drilling and energy policy expected to pass|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"Here's the truth: by law, Social Security has a budget independent of the rest of the U.S. government. That budget is currently running a surplus, thanks to an increase in the payroll tax two decades ago. As a result, Social Security has a large and growing trust fund. When benefit payments start to exceed payroll tax revenues, Social Security will be able to draw on that trust fund. And the trust fund will last for a long time: until 2042, says the Social Security Administration; until 2052, says the Congressional Budget Office; quite possibly forever, say many economists, who point out that these projections assume that the economy will grow much more slowly in the future than it has in the past. . . . As a budget concern, Social Security isn't remotely in the same league. The long-term cost of the Bush tax cuts is five times the budget office's estimate of Social Security's deficit over the next 75 years. The botched prescription drug bill passed in 2003 does more, all by itself, to increase the long-run budget deficit than the projected rise in Social Security expenses. That doesn't mean nothing should be done to improve Social Security's finances. But privatization is a fake solution to a fake crisis. In future articles on this subject I'll explain why, and also outline a real plan to strengthen Social Security."That is essentially the beginning and the end of his piece. It is full of good stuff in the middle. As I reported earlier, the Bush Regime has already "leaked" or allowed part of its benefit cuts to come into the public's eye: cutting benefits by a third. The battle on Social Security begins tomorrow when Congress convenes. Democrats need to prepared to fight in this battle. We have to have our troops ready and we need the whip in both the House and the Senate to be strong. I don't know how many Republicans we can get to come to our side. Right now, it doesn't look pretty. However, we've got a problem on the Democratic front as well. We've just lost our point-man in the House of Representatives and we've got one Congressman in the House (Allen Boyd) to a big supporter of privatization. As the minority party, we've got to fight and get the Republican-right to break ranks. But how do we get them to break ranks when we have no outstanding reason for them to come to our side? Oliver Willis brought up this notion in a post the other day. He considers himself a "Social Security contrarian." He feels that Democrats need to propose some legislation with a title like "Save Social Security Act of 2005." We need some consistent, solid plan for an alternative to the Republican-right attack on Social Security. Willis feels we've essentially created this problem ourselves because of some of the same crisis rhetoric that we gave out during the 90s. At first I didn't buy this argument from Willis. But the more I've thought about it, the more I buy it. We do need something like Willis' suggestion. The time is now. Bush's official proposal will be out in late February/early March. But the battle starts now. And as Willis so blatantly points out: Republicans simply want to cut/eliminate Social Security. Why not start there? |W|P|110482379435760207|W|P|Krugman: Defending against the SS "crisis" rhetoric|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"Opponents of the proposal have also been mobilizing. Under an inflation-linked formula, benefits would keep up with prices, but wage levels determine standards of living, Rother said. Social Security benefits currently equal 42 percent of the earnings of an average worker retiring at 65. Under the new formula, that benefit would fall to 20 percent of pre-retirement earnings. Future retirees would, in effect, be consigned to today's standard of living."If that is not a reason to opppose, I don't know what is.|W|P|110481254748678832|W|P|A look at the possible new Social Security formula|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"Alan Abramowitz provides these data from the latest Ipsos-AP poll (no public link available yet that I can find):This is excellent news. I've been saying, watch out for 2008! |W|P|110481956533095895|W|P|Realignment watch|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.comWH '08 Generic Ballot (RVs) *Dem 48 *GOP 44 *Undec/Oth 8 Congress Generic Ballot (RVs) *Dem 50% *GOP 42 *Undec/Oth 5As Alan comments: "Doesn't exactly look like 2004 was a realigning election, does it?""
- Take bribes!
- Fix parking tickets!
- Have sex with House pages!
Rob|W|P|Flip-flop.:)
Guess that level of hypocrisy is too much even for the GOP.
'yeti|W|P|I woke up to hear Matt Lauer interviewing Evan Thomas (the newsweek guy) this morning... yuck. They didn't talk about anything meaningful at all, and half the time the topic was Kerry's "whining" or "complaining" - obviously the Newsweek reporter took umbrage at Kerry taking umbrage. Then they took turns finding more things to pin Kerry's loss on, and settled on bashing Teresa. Classy. Rob|W|P|Good choice, actually...I have more faith in the elder Bush than Duhbya. And Clinton is there to make sure something actually gets done. Chris Woods|W|P|With Bush Sr.'s foreign policy expertise, I am glad he's on the trip. 'yeti|W|P|Yeah, makes perfect sense to me. It looks like at least he's mildly aware he can't accomplish anything himself..."Listening to the cable pundits, you would never suspect that there is no proof at this point that Annan, or indeed anyone else at the UN, did anything wrong. Charges of corruption against UN official Benon Sevan are suspect at best, given that they come via Ahmad Chalabi, who was also the source of the discredited information about Iraq's illusory weapons, as well as the assurances that Iraqis would greet US and British forces as liberators. Nor is there any evidence that Annan used his influence to give Cotecna, a company that employed his son, the job of monitoring contracts under the oil-for-food program, and no proof that Cotecna did anything illegal or corrupt. Although Annan's son certainly let his father down by not telling him of Cotecna's continuing "non-compete" payments to him, paternal resignations in response to the sins of prodigal sons have not been a great American tradition--certainly not under the Bush dynasty."The Right is simply attacking Annan and the UN because they dislike them. They have no facts or proof, just suspect beliefs that are completely unfounded. Thanks to this story, I may just begin paying more attention to the extreme bias in the media when covering this story. Hat-tip: Altercation. |W|P|110477856310245739|W|P|Oil for food|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
- Link benefits to life expectancy
- Link life expectancy to income levels
- Increase taxes - slowly
"The Pentagon and the CIA have asked the White House to decide on a more permanent approach for potentially lifetime detentions, including for hundreds of people now in military and CIA custody whom the government does not have enough evidence to charge in courts. The outcome of the review, which also involves the State Department, would also affect those expected to be captured in the course of future counterterrorism operations."Its a good thing that foreigners don't deserve Due Process or that little thing called human rights. It is great that we're working our way around that. Reuters also picked up the story and is covering it with a synopisis. Here's a costly excerpt:
"As part of a solution, the Defense Department, which holds 500 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, plans to ask the U.S. Congress for $25 million to build a 200-bed prison to hold detainees who are unlikely to ever go through a military tribunal for lack of evidence, defense officials told the newspaper."Sounds like a dandy plan, for sure. As Rob said, "Sounds like something that would happen in a third world country...or in a movie." Hat-tip: Rob's Blog. |W|P|110470180363239549|W|P|Life in prison|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Rob|W|P|"Due process...hmph! Justice...hmph! A Bushie craves not these things.You are liberal!"
(Sorry, Yoda...)
'yeti|W|P|I wish the "outrage" would be a little more vehement. Most of our reps don't give a shit at all and those that do don't seem a fraction as riled up as the mildest comments I've seen on the net...."In recent months, Matsui had been battling Milo Dysplastic Disorder (MDS), a rare stem cell disorder that causes an inability of the bone marrow to produce blood products, such as red blood cells, white blood cells, and platelets. The disorder leaves the patient at a heightened susceptibility to illness and compromises the ability to fight illness when it occurs. Matsui entered Bethesda Naval Hospital on December 24, 2004 with pneumonia, a complication that developed as a result of his prior illness."Our thoughts and prayers are with his family. |W|P|110469012120105156|W|P|Congressman dies|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"In addition to adopting rather dramatic language that reads like it comes right out of the privatization playbook, just what does 2018 represent? The first thing worth noting is that there's nothing unexpected about this. Indeed, it is part of the plan under which Social Security's financing was restructured in the early 1980s. Payroll taxes were intentionally raised substantially over and above current needs so as to build a 'trust fund' that could be drawn down when the surge of baby-boomer retirements began early in the 21st century. In essence, babyboomers were asked to overpay into the system to create a reserve to cushion the stresses that would be created when their oversized generation retired."----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Washington Post has two great articles on Social Security today. First up, "A Big Push On Social Security" makes page one and describes the efforts of the White House, the Bush Regime, and the GOP to raise funds for their election campaign-style approach to privatization. According to the Post, both parties are "prepar[ing] for what they predict will be the most expensive and extensive public policy debate since the 1993 fight over the Clinton administration's failed health care plan." That pretty well frames how important this domestic policy debate is for both Democrats and Republicans. Just how expensive will the debate be?
"Progress for America, an independent conservative group that backed Bush in the campaign, has set aside about $9 million to support the president's Social Security plan as well as other White House domestic priorities in the new year, said spokesman Brian McCabe. The group is asking its donors for much more, he said. Stephen Moore, head of the conservative Club for Growth, has raised $1.5 million and hopes to hit a $15 million target when his fundraising drive ends. But their contributions are likely to be dwarfed by those from corporate trade associations, spearheaded by the National Association of Manufacturers. Other likely contributors include the financial services and securities industries and other Fortune 500 companies, GOP officials say. White House officials, led by Karl Rove and Charles P. Blahous III, the president's policy point man on Social Security, are helping to shape the public relations campaign, said the officials, who talked about private discussions with the White House on the condition of anonymity. "It could easily be a $50 million to $100 million cost to convince people this is legislation that needs to be enacted," Moore said. "It's going to be expensive" because "it's the most important public policy fight in 25 years," he said. Republicans are expediting their fundraising plans after learning that AARP, the influential seniors group that supported Bush's Medicare program but opposes his Social Security designs, will spend $5 million in the first two weeks of this month attacking the president's plan to allow younger workers to invest part of their Social Security contributions in the stock market. AARP plans to run full-page ads in 50 large newspapers to coincide with the return of Congress next week. In one ad, a couple in their forties says, "If we feel like gambling, we'll play the slots." AARP will be joined by a large number of Democratic groups, including the AFL-CIO, the NAACP and the National Organization for Women. They are coordinating their work with Democratic congressional leaders, all of whom oppose the private investment accounts."This will be an important debate. And all Democrats should be prepared and ready to fight against privatization. Don't become a member of the "Fainthearted Faction" as Josh Marshall has so eloquently titled them. Another WaPo article, "Revamping Social Security", starts immediately with the fear-mongering that the Right has been pusing in their statements about Social Security:
"In just 14 years, the nation's Social Security system is projected to reach a day of reckoning: Retiree benefits will exceed payroll tax receipts, and to pay its bills the system will have to begin redeeming billions of dollars in special Treasury bonds that have piled up in its trust fund."Essentially, that lede only inspires in the reader a notion that Social Security is facing an imminent crisis. It is not. The long-term (and I emphasize long-term) solvency of Social Security is definitely an important issue to consider. But there is no so-called crisis. Its a ploy by the right to scare people. I'll give the Post credit though, they spend significant wordage discussing whether or not the so-called crisis actually exists. Too bad the basically ceded credit to the idea with their lede. Overall, both articles are worth a read if you're worried about Social Security. And if you're not worried about it, you should be. Unless you're super-rich right now, about to die, or have some other guaranteed pension. But I'm guessing there aren't too many of you right now, especially since 47.4 million Americans use Social Security right now. |W|P|110463896338700575|W|P|Even more on Social Security|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
- New York Times-"Bigger Republican Majority Plans to Push Bush Agenda": This article is a good highlight of the upcoming battles between the two parties, particularly between the leadership. The biggest thing about this article that got to me was the quote where Tom Delay (R-TX), House Majority Leader, told the Times that this new session was about "redesigning the House, redesigning the government." I guess by redesigning the House he means changing the Ethics rules and playing a prank on Democrats by locking them out of their offices on the first day.
- Washington Post-"Bush Immigration Plan Meets GOP Opposition": Highlights one of the big problems the Bush Regime faces inside the Republican party. According to the Post, the White House is on a "collision course" with some GOP House members who are opposed to Bush's very liberal plan of essentially allowing a quick and easy process to become legal citizens. Bush's plan is simply a political strategy, in my opinion, trying to enlarge the Hispanic voting bloc in the GOP. Since their supposed Hispanic gains in the elections have been shown to be misleading, the GOP and the White House probably need this measure passed to get a large Hispanic vote beyond Cubans in Florida.
- New York Times-"In Plan to Reduce Deficit, White House Turns to Old Projections": Reports on the budget issues facing the White House in Congress in 2005. The article outlines how the White House will use old deficit projections and the possible results of a new budget in an effort to spin an idea that he can fulfill a campaign promise of cutting the deficit in half by 2009. Its all about how you play with the numbers. Moreover, the new budget won't take into account any of the costs of Bush's plan to privatize Social Security. The budget battle seems like it could get pretty heated with just these few issues already.
|W|P|I found a new article dating free online submit. Post your Articles, Get Free Content. article dating free online submit TS|W|P|Nice Blog!!! I thought I'd tell you about a site that will let give you places whereyou can make extra cash! I made over $800 last month. Not bad for not doing much. Just put in your
zip code and up will pop up a list of places that are available. I live in a small area and found quite
a few. MAKE MONEY NOW
(a) mobilization of partisans and ideologues is not enough; we need a persuasion strategy as well; (b) we're the out-party now, and no longer have any excuse for behaving as the Party of Government; (c) you just cannot win a presidential election without a clear, overarching message, defined as a theme or two that explain what you propose to do to organize public resources to address the needs and interests of the American people at home and abroad; and (d) that message must, for the foreseeable future, address the perceived weakness and incoherence of Democrats on national security issues; the perceived elitism and relativism of Democrats in terms of their understanding of the direction of American society and culture; and the perceived obsession of Democrats with a program-heavy, values-lite approach to economic and other domestic issues.Implementation methods and other things can be disagreed on. But I do agree that these should be the fundamentals that Democrats recognize. The one thing that I'm already seeing as the part that will create the most controversy is letter "d." I feel that this doesn't mean a move towards the Center. I think we should stay where we are. However, we need to frame our persuasive message that will attract those on the left all the way to the center and even the center right. It is a tough task. But I know we're up to it. |W|P|110463360251455273|W|P|Something we should all agree on|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Rob|W|P|Sounds good to me. And in "D" he does make the point to say "perceived" (many times), since it is a perception...not a reality. Thus I agree, it's not a call to move to center so much as an addressing of misconceptions about Democratic demographics, values, and issues.