2/28/2005 01:38:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Doug Gross, former Republican candidate for governor of Iowa, announced today that he will not run for Governor in 2006. That leaves the field of Republicans to just two, and only one has officially announced. The two candidates are Sioux City businessman (and fascist in my book) Bob Vander Plaats, who has already announced his candidacy, and US Representative Jim Nussle (R-IA-01). Nussle has expressed interest and filed some papers, but not made an official announcement. One man seeking to fill Nussle's possible empty seat is entrepeneur Mike Whalen, founder and CEO of Heart of America Restaurants and Inns. Whalen is currently Policy Chairman of National Center for Policy Analysis, a DC-based free market (read: conservative) think-tank. It seems that the NCPA is another staunch advocate of privatization. The front page of its website is full of articles and questions and answers about the looming Social Security 'crisis.' And now the group seems to be a part of President Bush's Bamboozlepalooza tour. They've launched a 10-state campaign to persuade people that Social Security is in dire need of reform. Whalen is also a big supporter of private accounts, just check out this article about him on his website. And here is an example of his own writing on Social Security. Who is on the board of directors of NCPA, you may ask? None other than WSJ columnist Pete du Pont, former congressman, governor, and Republican presidential candidate. And not only is NCPA for privatization, they're for the flat tax as well. An excerpt from du Pont's bio:
"du Pont was a member of the National Commission on Economic Growth and Tax Reform. The Commission was established by Speaker Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole to examine overhauling the tax system. The Commission's January report called for repeal of the existing tax code and its replacement with a low, single-rate tax with a generous personal exemption."
Hmm. . .we need to watch out for these guys. If Whalen does indeed run in Nussle's empty seat, he'll be a pretty tough challenge for Democrats in the pretty evenly split first district. Whalen has a lot of name recognition and is pretty popular there. The GOP has an even greater advantage when you consider that the seat has been held by the GOP for at least the last four years. However, the District as a whole has voted for the Democratic candidate in both 2000 and 2004, but by less than 8%. Stay tuned for more information on Whalen, and possibly the launching of an anti-Whalen website. If you're interested in helping me research Whalen and NCPA, leave a comment.|W|P|110961954390481166|W|P|GOP gubernatorial candidates in Iowa|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/28/2005 01:11:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Fantastic news out of the Middle East--and possible signs for democracy growing on its own in this dangerous region of the world: Lebanon's pro-Syrian government has resigned. It seems to be a similar situation to what happened in Ukraine in December, following the first round of rigged elections. Now, a revolution is occurring in Lebanon--one looking for free and fair elections and without Syrian intervention. Fighting a ban against protests, at least 50,000 Lebanese citizens are staging peaceful protests demanding the withdrawl of Syrian troops from Lebanon. Lebanon has been relatively peaceful since its civil war ended in 1990. Hopefully, the resignation of this government and the election of a new government will not damage the stability that is so critical to nations in the Middle East. The resignation carries a lot of implications for Middle Eastern nations, most importantly that given time, democracy can rise up on its own. For more information: |W|P|110961789512688174|W|P|Lebanon's government quits|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/28/2005 09:26:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|125 killed in Iraq suicide bombing. This is by far the biggest and deadliest attack since the war was launched, I'm sure.|W|P|110960445441120940|W|P|More bad news|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/27/2005 11:26:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|According to Washington Whispers:
"Five Democrats have begun informal staff interviews for 2008 presidential runs, according to a few who've been interviewed. So far, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is dubbed "the most aggressive" in seeking out aides, followed by Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack. The others are Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, and 2004 candidate Sen. John Kerry."
Hmm. . .he'll lose for sure if he runs. Vice Presidential material, maybe. Presidential--not in my book.|W|P|110956841367936457|W|P|Vilsack for Prez in 2008?|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/27/2005 11:19:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Who is this "Chris Rock" fellow who is hosting the Academy Awards? Don't ask John Hinderaker of Power Line, he doesn't know. Just another example of the interaction the Right has with real Americans--not much.|W|P|110956806509340777|W|P|Out of touch with reality|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/28/2005 08:47:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 'yeti|W|P|Heh! That's hilarious. So many levels. It's a good thing there are so many people willing to sacrifice their brain cells and read powerline so I don't have to... :-)

I wonder what book he read. Actually no, I don't.2/27/2005 01:18:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|It looks like hope really is on the way. It just wasn't coming in 2004. Ruy Teixeira:
"A newly-released poll for National Public Radio gives Democratic congressional candidates an early lead in the 2006 congressional campaign. The poll, conducted by Public Opinion Strategies and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research 2/15-17 indicated that 42 percent of repondents would vote for the Democratic candidate and 36 percent would vote for the Republican candidate in their district, "if the election for Congress were held today." The 6 point Democratic advantage was in line with a GQRR poll conducted in January that gave the Dems a 5 point advantage in '06. A December Ipsos-Public Affairs poll gave the Dems a 7 point advantage in response to the question "And if the election for congress were held today, would you want to see the Republicans or Democrats win control of Congress?"
|W|P|110953192448681791|W|P|John Edwards didn't lie|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/27/2005 01:14:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|I don't even know why I bother blogging about Ann Coulter any more. She's positively insane and divorced from reality, and most of us know that. Yet she still finds time to offend millions of people, and without it being all that political. Writing about Jeff Gannon, our man the hooker in the WH, she says:
"Press passes can't be that hard to come by if the White House allows that old Arab Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the president. Still, it would be suspicious if Dowd were denied a press pass while someone from "Talon News" got one, even if he is a better reporter."
Helen Thomas is an "old Arab"? What the hell, Ann? She's specifically working to add to the bigotry and racism in America and the post-9/11 atmosphere. Well, after we conquer all of the Middle East and convert them to Christianity, Ann, we'll work on things back some. Fuckin' bitch.|W|P|110953165889930037|W|P|Coulter proves she's a racist all over again|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/28/2005 05:57:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Chase Nordengren|W|P|The other day that editoral used a word that meant old curmudgeon that I thought would get some mail. Interesting she changed it.2/27/2005 12:57:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous|W|P|WaPo reports that John Ashcroft's name is now being substituted for a swear word during foreign flight airings of "Sideways." Whoops.|W|P|110953066727704649|W|P|The A-Word|W|P|chase.nordengren@gmail.com2/27/2005 08:04:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Here ya go:
FOX NEWS SUNDAY (WTTG), 9 a.m.: Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.); Cardinal Francis George of Chicago; and Ray Flynn, former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican. THIS WEEK (ABC, WJLA), 9 a.m.: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-Calif.) and Democratic strategist Donna Brazile. FACE THE NATION (CBS, WUSA), 10:30 a.m.: Sens. John E. Sununu (R-N.H.) and Jon S. Corzine (D-N.J.); and former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. MEET THE PRESS (NBC, WRC), 10:30 a.m.: Sens. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) LATE EDITION (CNN), noon: Sens. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.); Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.); German Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger; French Ambassador Jean-David Levitte; British Ambassador David Manning; Brzezinski; and former defense secretary William S. Cohen.
|W|P|110953203419668088|W|P|Sunday line-ups|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/26/2005 12:30:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|A local Des Moines news station is reporting that former Senator and Democratic Vice Presidential Nominee John Edwards may be making two stops in Iowa. According to the report from KCCI Channel 8, Edwards would be speaking on poverty issues, as he is heading a new poverty center at the University of North Carolina. I'm sure it is also a stump speech for his run in 2008. We'll see how right I am in a few years.|W|P|110944279929443178|W|P|Edwards may visit Iowa|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/26/2005 04:11:00 PM|W|P|Blogger The Golden Ghost|W|P|It's pretty obvious Edwards is going to be running in 2008. Now that he is out of a senate seat, he has plenty of time to travel around the country and gather support for his future bid for the presidency. The only way I don't see him running is if some state turns to him and asks him to fill a suddenly vacant senate seat in 2006, but that doesn't appear very likely.2/26/2005 10:17:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous|W|P|The BBC and about a thousand other people are reporting that Egypt's Prez has announced a secret-ballot election proposal with more then one candidate on the ballot. This all comes the day after Condi refused to go to Egypt. Intreaguing.|W|P|110943466418431864|W|P|Egypt announces electoral reform|W|P|chase.nordengren@gmail.com2/25/2005 12:57:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous|W|P|"If you look across the Gummi category we certainly have many products that are offbeat, and that's what we were doing in this case. We didn't mean to offend anyone." The AP story is worth it.|W|P|110935785341280677|W|P|Quote of the Day|W|P|chase.nordengren@gmail.com2/25/2005 10:41:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Who knew it was possible? Evidentally Jim/Jeff Guckert/Gannon thinks he can. Check out the new JeffGannon.com. Remember to clean up your vomit afterwards. Here is AmericaBlog's amazing point-by-point reply.|W|P|110934981607180622|W|P|Turning tricks and reporting at the same time|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/25/2005 12:08:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Chase Nordengren|W|P|Wait, wait ... I thought he was an unbiased journalist and the whole G-O-P-U-S-A thing was just a coincidence, but I guess .... huh ... wow ...2/24/2005 06:46:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous|W|P|The San Francisco Chronicle has good reason to believe that Sen. Joe Biden (D-Delaware) will run for President next cycle: he told them. "I'm sounding it out,'' said Biden, 62, during an interview with The Chronicle editorial board. "In all my career, there's more at stake than any time since I've been a senator ... (and) I have some pretty clear ideas about what I think should be done.'' It's at least a better answer then Hillary's "I've got more then I can say grace over right now." I've always applauded Biden's ability to give it to us straight on the Foreign Relations Committee. Plus, when we're facing enemies who are pretty blunt themselves (Think "Death to America"), it's nice to be on even turf.|W|P|110929240568139970|W|P|2008: At Least Joe Biden's Blunt About It|W|P|chase.nordengren@gmail.com2/24/2005 06:43:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous|W|P|Peggy Noonan's column this week opines on several things. One of them is her candidate for Patron Saint of the Internet: "Why is St. Joseph Cupertino the obvious patron saint of the Internet? Because he flew through the air, lifted by truth. Because no establishment could keep him down. Because he empowered common people. Because they in fact saw his power before the elites of the time did. And because it could not be an accident that the center of the invention of the Internet, ground zero of Silicon Valley, is Cupertino, Calif., named for the saint centuries ago." Whether or not you agree with her, she's a brilliant writer. Definate suggested read.|W|P|110929219806214943|W|P|Peggy Noonan says "homage de blog"|W|P|chase.nordengren@gmail.com2/24/2005 03:11:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Ok, this is the most work I'm gonna do for a while to catch myself and my readers up on the big political stories happening now:
  • GannonGate: The only REAL source for the most update and late-breaking news is AMERICAblog. This is probably the only real big story beyond privatization that I've continued to follow. As John points out, Gannon has become a media whore of late (ironic, isn't it?) and has yet to answer any real questions with real answers.
  • Privatization: When it comes to Social Security and the privatization debate, there are so many good options. The two I recommend most are There Is NO Crisis and Talking Points Memo. They've been posting a lot about the group USAnext's public campaign for privatization and the lies and distortions it has been offering. Definitely check those sites out.
  • Senate in 06: Markos makes a rundown definitely worth exploring. Check it out.
  • Drake Democrats: Check out their new website, as well as their weblog, where I officially have posting privileges.
Oh, and in case you might've missed 'em, the 2004 Koufax Awards were announced. The results follow. The Political Forecast didn't win, but let's make 2005 a great year! |W|P|110927948916736616|W|P|Catching-up|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/24/2005 02:19:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Ok, I know I've been gone for a while. I've probably lost some permanent readers because of the massive lack of updates lately. But I really had to take a break off for personal reasons. Just needed some to time to reflect and get my priorities straight. And don't worry, it wasn't because my grades were slipping. I've missed blogging about some big stories lately, but the thing is, I haven't really missed them. Prior to my hiatus, I had become a posting freak and was posting as much as I could left and right. That isn't such a good habit (unless you're making money off of it, which I'm not) and caused me to get pretty burnt out for a while. Starting later this afternoon, I'll start posting regularly again. It definitely won't be in 10-15 post increments on a daily basis anymore, but expect 3-5 good posts. And if you notice that I seem to be going overboard, let me know, that way I won't leave again because I get burnt out.|W|P|110927640316109470|W|P|Back again|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/24/2005 11:22:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous|W|P|Des Moines Register reports that RNC chair Ken Mehlman came to Des Moines on Wednesday to thank GOP activiest and to advocate a Republican return to the governor's mansion. Just out of curiousity, does anybody know why the Mehlman cares enough about the Iowa governorship to visit personally? Especially if Vilsack isn't gonna run again?|W|P|110926577467844992|W|P|Mehlman in Des Moines|W|P|chase.nordengren@gmail.com2/24/2005 03:13:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Chris Woods|W|P|Recruiting GOP-ers to run against Harkin?2/24/2005 09:07:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Chase Nordengren|W|P|Forgive me for being obvious, but wouldn't it then be easier to just go after Harkin's seat directly? He's said all those things which could easily be spun anti-GOP. Why try for a governor's race in Iowa that doesn't even have an incumbant running to rip on?2/22/2005 04:25:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous|W|P|The Starr Center for the Study of the American Experience releases a poll today on the country's greatest presidents. They run with the statistic that the nation's first President (G.W.) would beat the nation's 43rd (G.W.B.). I think it most significant that Americans have such short memories of their presidents. Top vote getters for best president of all time include Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and JFK. Can't we remember presidents before the 1960s? Oh, but if you want some humor, LBJ and Nixon tied for last with 1%.|W|P|110911110506778701|W|P|American's Short Memory|W|P|chase.nordengren@gmail.com2/22/2005 04:13:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous|W|P|For those of you who haven't been following the Jeff Gannon/James Guckert story for fear you'd happen on a picture you REALLY didn't want to see, the following is suggested reading: JustOneMinute: James Guckert For Dummies - The Story So Far Just the basics. No bad pictures.|W|P|110911041344604188|W|P|Jeff (James???) 101|W|P|chase.nordengren@gmail.com2/17/2005 02:12:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Check out ThinkProgress for a little info on President Bush's new choice. He fits well with the other shitty choices he's made in the second term of his regime.|W|P|110867129782107506|W|P|Some interesting info on our new Nat'l Intel Dir.|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/17/2005 09:50:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Rob|W|P|Wouldn't want Gonzales and Chertoff to feel lonely up there in DC.

Negroponte should fit right in...10/01/2005 03:46:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Submit your Articles to this new article culture society submit. article culture society submit2/17/2005 08:43:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|President Bush will make the announcement sometime today. But I already know who it is. Formber Ambassador John Negroponte. Read the story here.|W|P|110865143921004659|W|P|New National Intelligence Director|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/17/2005 08:42:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|President Bush will make the announcement sometime today. But I already know who it is. Formber Ambassador John Negroponte. Read the story here.|W|P|110865135200011888|W|P|New National Intelligence Director|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/17/2005 08:38:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|President Bush will make the announcement sometime today. But I already know who it is. Formber Ambassador John Negroponte. Read the story here.|W|P|110865120830777895|W|P|New National Intelligence Director|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/16/2005 01:21:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|It seems that the left-wing blogosphere is missing the importance of today in many parts of the world. Today, had we signed it, the Kyoto Protocol would be in full-force in the United States. But instead, we keep on the same destructive path. Eric Alterman's lamentations echo mine:
"The Kyoto Protocol goes into effect today without the participation of the United States, offering a near perfect paradigmatic illustration of America’s relationship with the rest of the world (hitherto fore ROW). On the one hand, Bush is insisting that only he, his minders and ideological soulmates—know the truth. Independent scientific inquiry is irrelevant. Worldwide consensus is irrelevant. Decades of collected data are irrelevant. What’s more, the easily predictable future is also irrelevant. The United States will continue on its path as the world’s most destructive environmental power, intent on creating climate chaos not only in our own nation—least of all in our own nation—but all over the world; further immiserating those on the planet least able to handle it. The Bush attitude toward global warming increases hatred toward the United States in virtually every civilized nation, hurts others and hurts ourselves."
Some day the right will realize its utter ignorance. But I'm not holding my breath.|W|P|110858168912231659|W|P|Destroying the environment|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/17/2005 12:57:00 AM|W|P|Blogger The Golden Ghost|W|P|This is one issue I can actually agree with the Democrats on. Although environmental regulation is costly, it is necessary towards assuring we aren't all dead from global warming 100 years down the line. The world has a right to pissed off at us, or the majority of the polution going into the air is ours. I hate saying this, but we need to start listening to the world community on this issue.2/16/2005 01:14:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Power Line blogger John Hinderaker thinks Jimmy Carter is on the side of terrorists.
"Jimmy Carter isn't just misguided or ill-informed. He's on the other side."
What a fucking moron. Matt Yglesias' comments sum up my position well:
"Flinging this sort of totally unsubstantiated allegation is disgusting and utterly destructive of any effort to have serious debate about anything. Is Jimmy Carter really in league with the jihadist forces responsible for the murder of thousands of Americas? Is this what Power Line's fans and those who link to them believe? That a jihadist agent managed to get himself elected president? That an ex-president turned traitor?"
If you want to point to any more fanatical and stupid right-wing quotes, leave them in the comments below.|W|P|110858127798640136|W|P|Just another example of right-wing stupidity|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/16/2005 01:28:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Mark|W|P|Unfortunately I don't have any idiotic right wing quotes to contribute, but I want to comment about my outrage towards the above comment against Jimmy Carter. This man, having no job obligations being an ex-president, has done more for this country and the world since leaving office than many of his peers have done in office. Frustrating stuff...

http://www.justmark.com2/16/2005 01:06:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|It looks like Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi read Amy Sullivan's piece in The Washington Monthly. The Hill reports that some big shake-ups are coming in the Democratic consultant community:
"Sen. Harry Reid (Nev.) and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), the Democratic leaders of the Senate and House, plan to shake up the Democratic political consulting community and break the grip that a small number of consultants have had on strategy and contracts, party sources say. The Democratic leaders want to bring in new people with track records of success and innovation and look beyond the Beltway for message smiths to help guide the party [...] A Democratic leadership aide said, "There's general agreement in both chambers and at the House and Senate political party groups that we need to rethink our relationships with consultants [and have] more accountability for results."
The only bad news from the entire piece is that Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the new head of the DCCC, is reluctant to overthrow all of the consultants. He seems to be encouraging a closer review, but not necessarily the full-throttle review that some inside the party have been gunning for. And if you're interested, here is the post I wrote a while back on Sullivan's article.|W|P|110858079058457227|W|P|Firing the consultants|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/16/2005 12:58:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Joe Conason urges us to think about the Gannon story in a different light:
"Imagine the media explosion if a male escort had been discovered operating as a correspondent in the Clinton White House. Imagine that he was paid by an outfit owned by Arkansas Democrats and had been trained in journalism by James Carville. Imagine that this gentleman had been cultivated and called upon by Mike McCurry or Joe Lockhart--or by President Clinton himself. Imagine that this "journalist" had smeared a Republican Presidential candidate and had previously claimed access to classified documents in a national-security scandal. Then imagine the constant screaming on radio, on television, on Capitol Hill, in the Washington press corps--and listen to the placid mumbling of the "liberal" media now."
Just more proof of the SCLM.|W|P|110858030736906270|W|P|Use your imagination|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/16/2005 12:53:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|No, this is not a joke. Head on over to ThinkProgress.org and leave some ideas for names. And Alan Colmes is too easy of a choice, think of something more challenging.|W|P|110858004319119758|W|P|Name Hannity's puppy|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/16/2005 12:47:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Last night on MSNBC's "Countdown w/Keith Olbermann" James Roosevelt Jr., the grandson of the late FDR and creator of Social Security, commented on Brit Hume's lies and misquoting of remarks by his grandfather, and echoed a call by Al Franken--for Hume to resign. Roosevelt had this to say:
"And he rearranged those sentences in an outrageous distortion, one that really calls for a retraction, an apology, maybe even a resignation."
MediaMatters for America documents the events here. You can watch the Quicktime video of the interview here. It is important to keep in mind that Roosevelt does indeed know what he's talking about when it comes to Social Security. He's not just some kind of legacy expert. He was a former associate commissioner of Social Security. Just another way we know that privatization is dead.|W|P|110857968682107982|W|P|Roosevelt's grandson on Hume's lies|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/15/2005 02:21:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Paul Krugman explores the good news for Democrats from the election of Howard Dean as chair of the DNC. Some interesting excerpts:
"For one thing, there's no more room for illusions. In 2001 it was possible for some Democrats to convince themselves that President Bush's tax cuts were consistent with an agenda that was only moderately conservative. In 2002 it was possible for some Democrats to convince themselves that the push for war with Iraq was really about eliminating weapons of mass destruction. But in 2005 it takes an act of willful blindness not to see that the Bush plan for Social Security is intended, in essence, to dismantle the most important achievement of the New Deal. The Republicans themselves say so: the push for privatization is following the playbook laid out in a 1983 Cato Journal article titled "A 'Leninist' Strategy," and in a White House memo declaring that "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." By refusing to be bullied into false bipartisanship on Social Security, Democrats have already scored a significant tactical victory. Just two months ago, TV pundits were ridiculing Harry Reid, the Senate minority leader, for denying that Social Security faces a crisis, and for rejecting outright the idea of diverting payroll taxes into private accounts. But now the Bush administration itself has dropped the crisis language, and admitted that private accounts would do nothing to improve the system's finances. By standing firm against Mr. Bush's attempt to stampede the country into dismantling its most important social insurance program, Democrats like Mr. Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin and Barbara Boxer have, at a minimum, broken the administration's momentum, and quite possibly doomed its plan. The more time the news media spend examining the details of privatization, the worse it looks. And those Democrats have also given their party a demonstration of what it means to be an effective opposition. In fact, by taking on Social Security, Mr. Bush gave the Democrats a chance to remember what they stand for, and why. Here's my favorite version, from another fighting moderate, Eliot Spitzer: "As President Bush embraces the ownership society and tries to claim that he is the one that is making it possible for the middle class to succeed and save and invest - well, I say to myself, no, that's not right; it is the Democratic Party historically that created the middle class." For a while, Mr. Dean will be the public face of the Democrats, and the Republicans will try to portray him as the leftist he isn't. But Deanism isn't about turning to the left: it's about making a stand."
Go read the rest of the article. Oh, and looks like it might be light posting the rest of this week, I'm gonna be busy with school and stuff.|W|P|110849891551209327|W|P|It's about making a stand|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/14/2005 10:10:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous|W|P| Caption submissions should be added as comments to this entry. The winner will recieve some sort of salute by me. In case no one submits, here's mine: "Whoa, Terry, we still need red state values at the meetings." Let the flood gates open.|W|P|110844083344813980|W|P|The First Ever PFC Photo Caption Contest|W|P|chase.nordengren@gmail.com2/14/2005 11:34:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 'yeti|W|P|HD: "Terry, buddy, think I should let out a little scream? Just for old times' sake?"

TM: "Heh heh... *hearty laugh*..... NO."2/15/2005 12:33:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Rob|W|P|"Are they gay? We won't say...on our way...DC Land."2/14/2005 06:49:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Jay Rosen offers his concluding thoughts on the resignation of Eason Jordan of CNN. We understand the aftermath of his comments, but we don't understand his comments. The right-wing blogosphere--instead of trying to conjure up completely substantiated facts with attributable sources from Davos and evidence to the contrary of Jordan's comments--decided it was time for Eason Jordan to resign and leave it at that. Quite possibly, Jordan could've simply miscommunicated at Davos. Now, because of that, he has been condemned by those in the blogosphere and decided to resign. We, on both the left and right blogosophere, need to set up some standards on issues like this. The end of people's careers, or the end of them in general, shouldn't be our goal. Answers should be our goals. Revealing truths should be our goal. Let the public decide. Bloggers have a new role--as both public commentators and journalists, to some extent. A balance must be struck. Some of you may argue that that is the same thing that is happening on the left-wing blogosphere because of GannonGate. It is not the same. Gannon/Guckert was involved in illicit activities and plagiarized from GOP talking points. He lobbed softballs to Bush and McClellan, and wasn't even a real reporter. Hell, he even owes $20,000 in back taxes to the state of Delaware. We've uncovered questions that need to be answered--and we're asking them. We didn't demand that he resign, we questioned what he was doing? And what did blogs like Power Line and people like Hugh Hewitt do? They became outraged and demanded that he resign. For them, a simple miscommunication or unsbustantiated (though definitely consequential) statement deserved a resignation by someone in such a serious position. If that really is the standard in all cases, why haven't most of the members of the Bush Regime resigned for miscommunications to the people of America and the world?|W|P|110842858248503157|W|P|More communication, not ex-communication|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/14/2005 06:30:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|President Bush resubmitted the names of 20 judges who were not confirmed by last session's Congress, 10 of whom were blocked by Senate Democrats. Doesn't Bush ever learn from his mistakes that Democrats have condemned? Now, the Democrats have to stand up and fight like they've done against these extremist judges in the past. We've confirmed over 200 of Bush's nominees for the Courts, and he continues to hammer us with these 20 nominees who are not fit for the Court because of their extremist nature. Senate Republican's, under the leadership of Bill Frist, have talked about changing Senate rules to prevent fillibusters of these judges. Only 51 senators are needed for that, and the GOP majority has 55 total senators. Mustering up 51 of them to change the rules will definitely be a challenge, however, the even bigger challenge will be convincing them that they'll be ok when the Senate becomes dominated by Democrats. This will no doubt be a decisive issue in the coming weeks. Stand tall and proud Democrats. Oh, and take a look at some of President Bush's antics when it comes to these judges.|W|P|110842741766149800|W|P|Bush goes looking for trouble|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/14/2005 01:12:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Glenn Reynolds is a moron and a hypocrite. And just to preempt possible attacks on me for posting a link to the Gannon/hooker-in-the-White-House story: Jeff Gannon's personal life has plenty to do with this story. The fact that he was engaging in illegal activities online (being a prostitute), as well as the fact that he owed $20,000 in back taxes, and the fact that his own personal choices were contradicting the propaganda from the RNC and the White House that he spewed all have to do with this story. If someone can explain to me why his personal life doesn't belong in the story, leave a persuasive comment.|W|P|110840837245479302|W|P|Hypocrisy|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/14/2005 03:47:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 'yeti|W|P|I would argue that his personal life hasn't even been brought into it. This is his business we're talking about, and an illegal business at that. Besides, when you put something on the internets, you're pretty obviously declaring it open to the public (you could make a case against that for the one site you needed to pay to get to, but that's the exception rather than the rule here).2/14/2005 12:55:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Some amazing sleuthing work by John at AmericaBlog. Go read the story, but I must warn you, the images are pretty explicit and not your typical political blog material. The summarization is thus: Jeff Gannon appears to be a gay hooker. And he was allowed into the White House to ask questions to the White House Press Secretary and to the President of the United States. John sums up the investigation by explaining why all of this matters:
"So in the end, why does this matter? Why does it matter that Jeff Gannon may have been a gay hooker named James Guckert with a $20,000 defaulted court judgment against him? So he somehow got a job lobbing softball questions to the White House. Big deal. If he was already a prostitute, why not be one in the White House briefing room as well? This is the Conservative Republican Bush White House we're talking about. It's looking increasingly like they made a decision to allow a hooker to ask the President of the United States questions. They made a decision to give a man with an alias and no journalistic experience access to the West Wing of the White House on a "daily basis." They reportedly made a decision to give him - one of only six - access to documents, or information in those documents, that exposed a clandestine CIA operative. Say what you will about Monika Lewinsky - a tasteless episode, "inappropriate," whatever. Monika wasn't a gay prostitute running around the West Wing. What kind of leadership would let prostitutes roam the halls of the West Wing? What kind of war-time leadership can't find the same information that took bloggers only days to find? None of this is by accident. Someone had to make a decision to let all this happen. Who? Someone committed a crime in exposing Valerie Plame and now it appears a gay hooker may be right in the middle of all of it? Who? Ultimately, it is the hypocrisy that is such a challenge to grasp in this story. This is the same White House that ran for office on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. While they are surrounded by gay hookers? While they use a gay hooker to write articles for their gay hating political base? While they use a gay hooker to destroy a political enemy? Not to mention the hypocrisy of a "reporter" who chooses to publish article after article defending the ant-gay religious-right point of view on gay civil rights issue. Who in the White House is at the center of all of this? Who allowed this to go on in the People's House? Who committed the crime of exposing Valerie Plame? Jeff Gannon has the answers to these questions, and boy we know he loves to talk. Let him talk to Patrick Fitzgerald."
|W|P|110840772616584635|W|P|The REAL Jeff Gannon|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/14/2005 09:59:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|AmericaBlog says its on its way today. Stay tuned. There are a couple of hints up on the site too. If you think you've figured the story out, leave a comment here to let me know.|W|P|110839683362700734|W|P|Big Gannon story|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/13/2005 12:47:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|So says the tool known as Glenn Reynolds.
"Beinart's views are marginal in the Democratic Party -- heck, the kind of patriotism that Barney Frank and Chris Dodd demonstrated in Davos is indiscernible in the MoveOn / MediaMatters end of the Democratic Party -- while the Seymour Hersh Vietnam-nostalgia strain runs strong. That's bad for the Democrats, and bad for America, but it's nonetheless the case."
Next thing you know, he'll just come out and say what he's thinking: "MoveOn/MediaMatters hate America. Fuckin' tool.|W|P|110832043084847514|W|P|Media Matters, MoveOn, bad for America|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/13/2005 12:30:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Has only just begun. Watch the video here. And then go donate to the DNC under the Chairmanship of Howard Dean.
Contribution amount: $
|W|P|110831943573497687|W|P|The Battle for America|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/14/2005 10:47:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Thomas|W|P|Is Howard Dean a good choice?2/13/2005 12:17:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Shi'ite dominance, strong Kurdish showing, and the Sunnis are fucked when it comes to writing the constitution. The New York Times story is here.|W|P|110831865179314564|W|P|Election results|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/13/2005 12:14:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P| I wonder how this got spun on the Sunday shows?|W|P|110831847381563149|W|P|Has a majority ever really liked him in the last two years?|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/13/2005 12:09:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|As shown by Alan Keyes, by kicking his lesbian daughter out.|W|P|110831818895801848|W|P|Red-state family values|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/14/2005 05:56:00 PM|W|P|Blogger The Golden Ghost|W|P|Yes, we all know how Alan Keyes is your typical southerner. Stereotyping is fun, no?

I'm just messing with you though. Alan Keyes really is a dick. Just don't group him with the majority of the southern population.2/13/2005 12:03:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Josh Marshall doesn't think so. And I think he's right.
"Let's set all that aside and stipulate to the fact that, all Washington Kabuki aside, the president does have a plan on the table, though one that he reserves the right to change on a day by day basis, and ask whether it makes sense for the Democrats to put one forward too. There seems little doubt that it doesn't pass the political test. As long as the president is floundering in a debate that is almost entirely confined to his own party, what sense is there for Democrats to throw him a lifeline, especially when the president has all the force of the executive and the legislative arrayed on his side?"
I had been one of those advocates of an alternative from the Democrats. But when we're fighting to save it, what is the point? Our plan really is to save Social Security--from the GOP privatization crisis. Until the GOP gets their act together and offers some kind of cohesive (read: terrible) plan, then the Democrats can launch an alternative bill. Until then, its time to unite against privatization anything else beyond minor changes.|W|P|110831783291470191|W|P|A Democratic alternative?|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/12/2005 12:28:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Howard Dean was officially elected chairman of the DNC. Now, it is time to offer some donations and help him.
Contribution amount: $
|W|P|110823307144309689|W|P|Support Dean and the DNC|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/12/2005 07:38:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kender|W|P|Dean, and in fact the entire democratic party, owes ME money. I am certain that I am going to need some kind of therapy.

I noticed that after the dean scream I cannot sleep at night. It seems that his scream is the same in those old horror movies, and taking a cue from the left, I have decided that I must blame someone else for my problems.

So Dean and the dems are it. Staying up all night and blogging is not my fault. It is Deans fault because of his scream. Now I am scared to sleep so I blog.10/02/2005 05:47:00 AM|W|P|Blogger freestuff2|W|P|Hey I was just blog surfing amd I found your blog! Looks Great!

I also have a open ended plane ticket
It deals mostly with open ended plane ticket plus other stuff,
You can save up to 50% your next flight!

You should check it out if you get a chance!!10/02/2005 05:05:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Ayoye|W|P|I did not have time to read your intire blog, so please forgive me, but I wanted to take the opportunity to invite you to look at mine for a way to better manage our unwanted goods using these services encan public and others like encan public, thanks for reading me2/12/2005 09:40:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Here's what you've all been waiting for:
FOX NEWS SUNDAY: Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.). THIS WEEK (ABC): Sens. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) and former secretary of state James A. Baker III. FACE THE NATION (CBS): Sens. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Karen Tumulty of Time. MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.), Israeli cabinet member Natan Sharansky and former presidential candidate Patrick J. Buchanan. LATE EDITION (CNN): Sens. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and John D. "Jay" Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.); Govs. Bill Richardson (D-N.M.) and Bill Owens (R-Colo.); South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki Moon; Imad Moustapha, Syrian ambassador to the United States; and Daniel Ayalon, Israeli ambassador to the United States.
|W|P|110822286974230397|W|P|Sunday line-ups|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/12/2005 09:32:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|I've got limited internet capabilities while I'm here in Okoboji. Here's some of the big news today: Eason Jordan resigned. The New York Times story is here. See this post from a few days ago about the controversy. I'll post my thoughts later tonight or tomorrow.|W|P|110822238029589963|W|P|Eason Jordan resigns|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/11/2005 12:08:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|I head out of town again for high school debate judging today. I'll be leaving at the god-awful early hour of 6:30 in the morning. I'll be back late Saturday night and posting should resume then. I'll miss posting, but I guess a break is good.|W|P|110810215193278485|W|P|No posting|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/11/2005 01:08:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Rob|W|P|0630...that's not early. I wake up at 0430, I'm at PT by 0530, and my workday starts at 0630 :)

You know, the old "we do more before 9 am than most people do all day" thing...old military recruiting ad :)

You civilians...

(Enjoy your trip, be safe and get on back to outing the Regime!)2/11/2005 12:03:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|It is indeed an issue of class warfare, from the top-down.
"It may sound shrill to describe President Bush as someone who takes food from the mouths of babes and gives the proceeds to his millionaire friends. Yet his latest budget proposal is top-down class warfare in action. And it offers the Democrats an opportunity, if they're willing to take it."
Read the full piece here, it is worth it. We should expand our fight from just opposing privatization to opposing Bush's overall bad tax cuts for the rich and tearing apart of the American middle class|W|P|110810185281834303|W|P|Krugman attacks Bush's budget|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/10/2005 11:46:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|She's a liar. In the words of SNL's Amy Poehler while poking fun at Sen. Barbara Boxer:
"An eruption of lies from your lies volcano, Dr. Condaliezza-lies-a-lot!"
|W|P|110810078335463093|W|P|Lying bitch|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/10/2005 11:25:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Right after I post this, I will immediately update the links section of The Political Forecast to include a link to the amazing AmericaBlog. I haven't really read them religiously, like I do most of the blogs that I link to, however, I'm going to start to. John Avarosis and the rest of the guys there have done an amazing job following Gannongate. And it is the issue of Gannongate that made me post. Follow this link to AmericaBlog where you can watch a video of Avarosis' comments on CNN's "NewsNight w/Aaron Brown." In the words of Atrios, it kicked ass. He needs to be on television more often.|W|P|110809955980670415|W|P|Americablog's John Avarosis on "NewsNight"|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/10/2005 09:42:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Tonight's debate was fabulous; well-argued and persuasive comments from both sides of the issue. Four topics were discussed in this order: RU 486, parental notification, rape/incest issues, and "partial-birth abortions." I put that in quotes because I don't believe such a thing actually exists. I don't think it is worthwhile for me to discuss every point Thomas and Pete made; that would simply be transcribing the debate and that is not what I'm doing here, I'm reacting to the debate. Thomas, whom I'd never heard speak before, was quite persuasive, but with that haughty, arrogant sense that what he knew was correct that and you should believe it because of that. Pete, on the other hand, came across as personable and insightful. Instead of relying on evocative imagery and human emotions, he played upon the facts of the issue, which of course are the most pivotal in a controversy like this. The thing that amazed me the most was Thomas' categorical opposition to abortion, even in the case of rape or incest. To be against abortions in this case would seem like an indefensible position to me. And even after hearing Thomas discuss it, I still don't think his position is defensible, simply because he doesn't really address the issue, but just categorically affirms his condemnation of abortion. Another interesting topic of discussion arose over the issue of "partial-birth abortion." I use quote marks because it is not a real medical term. As Pete so elegantly pointed out, it is a politically charged term of art. No practicing medical doctor or medical researcher in a medical journal would use that type of terminology for the procedure. It is essentially the same type of surgical procedure that is used overall in abortions. Pete's articulation of that issue helped to frame the debate in another realm, one that wasn't subjugated to the evocative imagery of Thomas but a realm that was considerably more objective and rationally based. The final statements struck me as quite intriguing. Thomas rehashed his main points again, and categorically affirmed his belief that there should be no abortions in any circumstance. Overall, while his position had substance on some points, he seemed to emphasize his own beliefs on the issue and his own personal opinions, instead of advocating with facts or rational arguments. Of course, I may be (ok, I am) biased in this belief, but I stick with it. Pete, on the other hand, led me down what I think is the most convincing avenue of the entire discussion. And I mean discussion. The issue at hand wasn't so much competitive debate, because the winner doesn't really get anything out of it, but moreso it was the discourse that occurred. And Pete summarized what he thought should come of this discourse, some kind of overall action that has an impact. Whether it be volunteering to help counsel abuse/rape/incest survivors, or just offering support to human beings overall TOGETHER, an impact could come from the discourse that occurred. Attending the debate was an enriching experience, and I hope Drake is able to have a lot more discourse and discussion-based debates/forums on controversial topics.|W|P|110809335239183712|W|P|Abortion debate--reaction|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/11/2005 11:30:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Jason|W|P|I'm glad this debate went well. I was not able to attend but was very happy to hear that Pete Clancy would be taking on Thomas on this issue. I knew that Thomas would be a tough opponent with his skills in articulation and his experience in working closely with this issue. So, I am happy to hear that Pete was able to stand toe-to-toe, based on your account here.2/10/2005 09:12:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Hat-tip to Atrios for this from Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR-03) yesterday:
"If this provision, the waiver of all laws necessary for quote improvements of barriers at the border was to become law, the Secretary of Homeland Security could give a contract to his political cronies that had no safety standards, using 12-year-old illegal immigrants to do the labor, run it through the site of a Native American burial ground, kill bald eagles in the process, and pollute the drinking water of neighboring communities. And under the provisions of this act, no member of Congress, no citizen could do anything about it because you waive all judicial review."
In response to the Real I.D. Act.|W|P|110809158208913225|W|P|Stop this in the Senate|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/12/2005 07:34:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kender|W|P|OMG...that is a great scenario....right outta some bad horror flick. "The Attack of Homeland Security" or how about "Day of the Rampaging Dozer" and even "Pillagers from the Right".

You guys slay me....2/10/2005 05:34:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|The debate happens tonight at 7 PM at Drake University's Olmsted Center. Be there or be square. |W|P|110807848825001036|W|P|Abortion debate at Drake--Reminder!|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/10/2005 04:36:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Chris Bowers explores some instances of the new crisis in America, one that The American Conservative talks about as well. An excerpt below:
"[T]he very fact that the f-word can be seriously raised in an American context is evidence enough that we have moved into a new period. The invasion of Iraq has put the possibility of the end to American democracy on the table and has empowered groups on the Right that would acquiesce to and in some cases welcome the suppression of core American freedoms. That would be the titanic irony of course, the mother of them all--that a war initiated under the pretense of spreading democracy would lead to its destruction in one of its very birthplaces. But as historians know, history is full of ironies."
Rob also disucssed this passage a little while ago, I just somehow missed it before that. I think the passage goes well with the "Conscience of A Conservative" post I offered a few weeks ago. So, you see, the real ideological debate isn't occurring within the Democratic party, but really is going on inside the GOP between the tradtional conservative faction and the new fascist neconservative element. This ideological debate could have lasting impacts on American and world politics for a long time to come. |W|P|110807499875384599|W|P|Fascism: the new F-word|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/10/2005 04:21:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Tomorrow morning's Christian Science Monitor features quotes from Joshua Bolten, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, who was the participant in CSM's "Monitor Breakfast".
"On the controversy over private Social Security accounts: "In and of themselves, they don't create the solvency that we need in the Social Security system. But I think they are an integral part of any solution.""
|W|P|110807412308797776|W|P|WH budget director admits privatization not a solution to solvency|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/10/2005 04:07:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Yesterday I pointed out a section in the "Real I.D. Act" that would give the Department of Homeland Security to ability to deny litigation on any sections inside of the bill. Well, it passed the House of Representatives today on a vote of 261-161. It moves on to the Senate next, where it's fate is unknown. I hope that it doesn't pass, but with new White House support, it may pass. In fact, the bill was first killed at the end of last session from White House and other GOP objections for it being part of the comprehensive 9/11-Intelligence reorganization legislation. However, its got the White House's support now, so we'll see how far it gets. |W|P|110807328889980827|W|P|The House waives good-bye to judicial review|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/10/2005 03:09:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Doesn't look like these two will be bickering at all. John Kerry is already sending emails out encouraging folks on his email list to contribute to the DNC and welcome Dean with arms wide open. The context of the email:
"We have a strong Democratic Party - and we need it to be stronger. Strong enough to turn back George Bush's efforts to privatize Social Security. Strong enough to insist that every child in America has health insurance. Strong enough to elect candidates committed to Democratic ideals at every level of government and in every region of our country. On Saturday - just two days from now - Howard Dean will be elected as the new chair of the Democratic National Committee. He'll need the ideas, engagement and financial support of the entire Democratic Party to succeed. Let's welcome Howard Dean and give him the groundswell of grassroots support he needs. http://www.democrats.org/BuildTheParty Let's send an unmistakable message to George Bush and his allies: In 2005, the Democratic Party is strong and united. Again, it is just two days until Howard Dean becomes chairman. Please join me now in getting his efforts to strengthen our Party off to a record-setting start."
Let's do what Kerry says--support and welcome Chairman Dean!|W|P|110806979679490583|W|P|Kerry and Dean|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/10/2005 02:59:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|I haven't been keeping track of the whole Jeff Gannon AKA James D. Guckert story here on The Political Forecast becuase I didn't feel it was necessary unless I was doing real investigative work, which I wasn't. However, I do feel its time to summarize a bit for those of you who don't necessarily know whats going on. Jeff Gannon was a writer for Talon News, a website owned by a Texas GOP party member and owner of the website GOPUSA.com, and had a spot in the White House Press Room. He came into the blogosphere quite forcefully with a question he posed to President Bush during a January 26th press conference where he said that Senate Democrats had become "divorced from reality." Media Matters and other liberal bloggers took over from there, finding out that Gannon had copied directly from GOP talking points when writing stories, that he consistently lobbed softball questions to Press Secretary Scott McClellan, that Jeff Gannon wasn't even his real name, that he may have been involved in the Valerie Plame affair, and that he may have had inside White House sources to get him a press pass with an alias on it. Just yesterday, Gannon announced on his website that he was quitting. Media Matters has now designated an entire section of their site to Gannon Gate. For all the details and background on the issue, I recommend checking them out. It also seems like letters are starting to go around. Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY-28) and Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) have both written letters to President Bush and Scott McClellan concerning Gannon and his 'reporting.' Link to Slaughter's letter here; Lautenberg's letter here. The Gannongate scandal, I'm sure, will continue to break open. Already, major media outlets have begun to pick up the story including the Washington Post (Kurtz's story and a story by Dan Froomkin) and MSNBC's "Countdown with Keith Olbermann." I'll keep posting updates as I can find them and hear about them. For continuing information and posts on the stories, visit Media Matters' Gannongate page, Daily Kos, Eschaton, and Americablog. |W|P|110806917284302453|W|P|Gannongate|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/10/2005 10:42:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 'yeti|W|P|Aravosis just did an awesome interview with Aaron Brown... the video's over at americablog now.2/10/2005 11:17:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Chris Woods|W|P|I saw the interview, it was awesome. I'll have to link to the video.2/10/2005 02:32:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Kevin Drum of The Washington Monthly takes a look at the public reaction to Bush's privatization plans as shown in a poll from today's Washington Post (beware, its a PDF). It is definitely worth a read to see his summarization, with some ideas for a plank for a Democratic message to enact minor reforms. I don't necessarily agree with his critique of the Senate Democrats' Question of Day on Social Security, but most of his analysis is correct. However, to frame the debate, extrapolations are needed. The difference between what the GOP is doing and what Democrats are doing is clear: the GOP lies and distorts; the Democrats extrapolate arguments from facts based on economic analyses not done by morons or party loyalists. |W|P|110806756119672315|W|P|Social Security and the public|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/10/2005 02:24:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|I think it is quite intriguing that the day after Nick Kristof tears apart the Bush Administration for their inability to confront North Korea or work with them to disarm them, North Korea comes out swinging with their announcement that they do, in fact, have nuclear weapons. Read over Kristof's column from yesterday. He seems to be offering a reasonable approach. And from some of my own personal studying of North Korea, one of the few reasons they can be considered a security threat is simply because the government of Kim Jong-Il is failing. He can't provide for them. So to draw attention to himself and his country, he makes blatant threats in some kind of effort for international aid. Dear Leader is insane, however, which makes things even more difficult, but there has got to be some kind of rational approach to take towards the country. |W|P|110806708331564108|W|P|North Korean and nukes|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/10/2005 02:18:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Al Franken announced this afternoon that he will not run for Minnesota's soon-to-be-vacant Senate seat, mainly because he wants to honor his two-year contract with Air America Radio and the fact that he does not currently live in Minnesota. However, Franken still has the option of running against Repbublican incumbent Norm Coleman in 2008 if he chooses to move back to Minnesota. If he did that, he would most likely move the show to Minnesota and host the show there while campaigning. If he did that, I'll gladly go up to Minnesota and campaign for him, at least once I'm done helping out during the Iowa Caucuses. |W|P|110806669471835865|W|P|Franken not running|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/10/2005 12:40:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Abortion has been a pivotal and controversial issue in American politics since the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade in 1973. Depending on which side of the aisle you fall, politics plays a substantial role in your beliefs. Tomorrow night here at Drake two students will debate on the issue of abortion. Arguing for the pro-life position is conservative student Thomas Laehn, former Drake student body president and a member of the Iowa Right to Life Committee. If you scroll down a bit on this page, you can find an interesting article written by Mr. Laehn in 2001 (or at least what the copyright date at the bottom of the page says). Arguing for the pro-choice position is Ankeny, Iowa, native Peter Clancy, currently the head debate coach at Des Moines Roosevelt High School (and a good friend of mine). Here is what Pete had to say to introduce himself:
"Hi! My name is Pete Clancy. I am the group coordinator for Amnesty International here at Drake. While Amnesty does not have an official stance on the issue I personally have strong feelings."
The debate will be held tomorrow night at 7 PM on Pomerantz State in Drake University's Olmsted Center. I'll post my reaction to the debate afterwards. . .and if I'm feeling like it, I may try and live-blog the debate. But I wouldn't hold your breath. All you Des Moines area readers, feel free to stop by, it should be quite an interesting time. Plus, you can meet me!|W|P|110801761936769117|W|P|Abortion debate at Drake|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/10/2005 10:57:00 AM|W|P|Blogger The Golden Ghost|W|P|I hate to say this, but abortion is the most pointless issue to debate. Abortion isn't something that you formulate your opinion on by hearing both sides of the story. You form your opinion by core values that nobody else is going to be able to change. I am sure that both sides at this debate are going to have amazing points, but I don't see the value of the debate as a whole.2/10/2005 12:15:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|From the New York Times:
"The report discloses that the Federal Aviation Administration, despite being focused on risks of hijackings overseas, warned airports in the spring of 2001 that if "the intent of the hijacker is not to exchange hostages for prisoners, but to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion, a domestic hijacking would probably be preferable." The report takes the F.A.A. to task for failing to pursue domestic security measures that could conceivably have altered the events of Sept. 11, 2001, like toughening airport screening procedures for weapons or expanding the use of on-flight air marshals. The report, completed last August, said officials appeared more concerned with reducing airline congestion, lessening delays, and easing airlines' financial woes than deterring a terrorist attack. The Bush administration has blocked the public release of the full, classified version of the report for more than five months, officials said, much to the frustration of former commission members who say it provides a critical understanding of the failures of the civil aviation system. The administration provided both the classified report and a declassified, 120-page version to the National Archives two weeks ago and, even with heavy redactions in some areas, the declassified version provides the firmest evidence to date about the warnings that aviation officials received concerning the threat of an attack on airliners and the failure to take steps to deter it."
So, we did have an idea prior to 9/11 that terrorists could use planes as weapons. I wondered why President Bush said we didn't though. Or, at least he had no idea (thanks to Oliver Willis for finding this):
"Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to strike America, to attack us, I would have used every resource, every asset, every power of this government to protect the American people."
So, you're a liar, President Bush, who would've guessed it? This just compounds the problems that the United States faced prior to the events of September 11th. Not only were there major intelligence sharing problems, there were major problems with the fucking government not paying any fucking attention to the stuff their executive departments weren't telling them. I guess if you don't listen to the advice you're getting, there is no way to take the guilt then and it is just easier to pass the buck that way.|W|P|110801611827328739|W|P|Pre-9/11 report from FAA warns about hijackings as weapons|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/10/2005 11:02:00 AM|W|P|Blogger The Golden Ghost|W|P|I find it odd how president Bush must be directly tied to every mistake that happened leading up to 9/11. We don't know the contents of that classified document, so I don't think it is fair to make assumptions. Put the blame where it is due with the airline companies not recieving information from the CIA and the FBI. The White House has nothing to do this this problem. They are only cleaning up the mess that occured from the lack of sharing, and I say they are doing a damn good job with zero incidents of terrorism since 9/11.2/09/2005 09:45:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|It definitely seems like a possibility. With 'The Yeti's' disappointed reminder in left in the comments section of the Dayton-not-running-again post, I remember hearing Al Franken talk a lot about running for Senate, particularly since he is from the Minneapolis area and is quite popular, as he was a good friend of former Senator Paul Wellstone. Well, according to the Swing State Project and the Washington Post, Al Franken is quite a possibility. It seems that tomorrow Franken will make an announcement on his radio show--we'll have to wait and see if he's gonna run or not. Personally, I think he'd be a great choice, but then again, he is a very polarizing figure. |W|P|110800715541130363|W|P|Franken for Senate?|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/10/2005 11:08:00 AM|W|P|Blogger The Golden Ghost|W|P|You have to remember that Wellstone and Coleman were neck and neck in the election up to the point where Wellstone died. It wasn't a given that Wellstone was coming back, and some polls even indicated that Coleman had taken a lead in the race. People often forget that with the Mondale mess that happened afterwards. In other words, Franken's connections to Wellstone aren't really a benefit to a potential campaign, and certainly not in the suburbs of Minneapolis.2/09/2005 04:11:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Let's show our anchors licking arms! Oliver Willis has the disturbing video. Nothing like hard news, fair and balanced. |W|P|110798710160372520|W|P|The idiocy of Faux News|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/09/2005 07:40:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Jason|W|P|Hey!

I got your comment... Very nice blog you have going here! :-) We may indeed try to get a blog going with multiple contributors for Drake Dems once we get the site going, but we haven't decided on that at this point...I'm for it, but we'll have to see how the rest of the E.C. feels about it. We'd most likely have it hosted here rather than with our hosting service, so as not to use our bandwidth and space. But yes, it's a great idea, and I'll be sure to bring it up again.

Keep up the good posts...very nice blog you have here.

Jason2/09/2005 04:06:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Al Franken on his Air America radio show today called for Brit Hume of Fox News to resign. The reason? Brit Hume deliberately and maliciously misquoted and distorted a three part statement by former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt; he claimed that FDR would be in favor of private accounts. Media Matters took note of this claim, noted here. Here is what FDR really said, courtesy of the Social Security Administration:
"In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, non-contributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps thirty years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."
Hume's extrapolation was clearly wrong. Ben Wikler, a writer on Al Franken's blog, covers it in much more detail here. Essentially, this is our request: Please resign, Brit Hume. Contact information:
Show email: special@foxnews.com Brit Hume’s email: brit.hume@foxnews.com FOX News Channel 1-888-369-4762 Comments@foxnews.com 1211 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036
|W|P|110798681855906592|W|P|Resign Brit Hume--for being an asshole and a tool|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/09/2005 03:53:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|That is what President Bush seems to be recommending when he talks about there being no trust fund. An excerpt from a speech today:
"Some in our country think that Social Security is a trust fund -- in other words, there's a pile of money being accumulated. That's just simply not true. The money -- payroll taxes going into the Social Security are spent. They're spent on benefits and they're spent on government programs. There is no trust. We're on the ultimate pay-as-you-go system -- what goes in comes out. And so, starting in 2018, what's going in -- what's coming out is greater than what's going in. It says we've got a problem. And we'd better start dealing with it now. The longer we wait, the harder it is to fix the problem."
Well, that's simply just a flat-out lie. There Is NO Crisis breaks the issue down here. Essentially, if the only way for the trust fund to be worth nothing is if the government bonds held in it weren't valued at all by anyone else in the world. And that simply isn't possible unless we default on our debt. US government bonds are probably one of the safest investments in the world. With Bush's above statement, he's saying that the US bonds are worthless. And if that is the truth, then we've been screwing the world over for a long time.|W|P|110798602447632234|W|P|Let's default?|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/09/2005 03:39:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Playing off the title of Ann Coulter's most recent piece of trash that she calls a book, the folks over at ThinkProgress have compiled a great list of GOP/conservative claims about privatization and the real facts that respond. They make great talking points, and they're definitely something you'll want to read. |W|P|110798519252093591|W|P|How to Talk to a Conservative About Social Security (If You Must)|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/09/2005 01:18:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Rob Schumacher first alerted me to this story, and now it is breaking across the blogoshpere. TAPPED has now picked it up, along with Eschaton. Essentially, the terminology in this legislation exempts the Department of Homeland Security and its subcontractors from all laws. Provisions like these have been inserted throughout history by both parties, but never in a measley bill like this, and especially extempting review from all laws. The story that is most disheartening is that it is expected to pass the House today or tomorrow. Time for Senate Democrats to shut it down. |W|P|110797673477364053|W|P|Waive goodbye to judicial review|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/11/2005 12:31:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kender|W|P|This law does not give DHS broad ranging authority. You have just shown a classic liberal tactic of using one small part to shout about by taking it out of context.

The language says.. "(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section."

You will please not the phrase "expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section."

This applies to Barriers and roads. What? Are you scared that they are going to build a road through your house?2/11/2005 12:54:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Chris Woods|W|P|You're right. I misstated. However, I still have big issues with the provision, as I discussed in subsequent posts. View the front page of this blog and scroll down, you'll see the other posts.

The first issue that I have offense with that in any of the acts the DHS takes when it comes to barriers and roads can be done however they please, whether it is damaging to the environment, violates propery rights, or anything else that it may end up causing.

However, the second issue, and the most pivotal one, I think, is the fact that it simply undermines the nature of our democracy, particularly the separation of powers. When the legislative branch intervenes and tells the judicial branch what it can and cannot do, that right there destroys the American democratic system.2/09/2005 12:59:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Sen. Mark Dayton (D-MN) won't be running for re-election in 2006. Read the story here. Power Line first reported the story a little while ago. It'll be interesting to see who the Democrats find to run in his place. I sure hope it is someone like Paul Wellstone. That's what Democrats need, and particularly Minnesota's Democrats. For all of you Minnesota readers, which Democrat is going to be the first to announce that he/she is running? How strong is the Minnesota GOP and could they pick up Dayton's seat in 2006? |W|P|110797557098243407|W|P|Dayton's done|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/09/2005 04:23:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 'yeti|W|P|I'm disappointed.

If you check out the comments at newpatriot.org, they're swooning over Al Franken. Franken did say he was considering the seat a couple years ago, but realistically, I hardly think that's going to happen.

Right now I'd put my money on Mike Hatch (attorney general). Dean Johnson (senate maj. leader) is probably the next biggest name. If the dems run competently and effictively, they should be able to get the job done. The polarzing effect (which I also think rules Franken out) Dayton would've had, combined with the lesser recognition Hatch, Johnson or someone else will have makes this whole move a wash in my opinion in terms of which party regains the seat.

To answer your question straightforwardly though, yes, the GOP has a real shot. But it's not as great as they would want you to think it is.2/10/2005 10:51:00 AM|W|P|Blogger The Golden Ghost|W|P|I am of the opinion that Dayton dropped out because he realized that inevitibility of his defeat to a moderate GOP member, which is becoming the trend in Minnesota. Although the state legislature recently balanced out in the house (the Republicans used to have a 30 seat advantage) and the senate remained in the control of DFL (Minnesotan democractic party, it's a long complicated story), you can feel the political culture of Minnesota changing, mainly the Minneapolis suburbs, where it is switching to a very Kansas like level of conservatism. Minnesota used to always be the the lone New England state of the midwest with its extreme liberalism, but that is quickly shifting with the death of the labor unions in the north where I am from, along with the booming lakeshore property industry that usually favors rich conservatives from the suburbs.

As far as Franken running, that would be a killer defeat for the Democrats. I can't find the exact link, but when Franken came out and said he wanted to take down Coleman about 6 months ago, CNN did a poll of likely Minnesotan voters, and it showed that only 21 percent (can't remember the exact number, but it was low 20s) of the voting population would vote for Franken. Even though we are the state that voted for Ventura, I believe there is a sense of apprehension in the political climate to prevent another celebrity disaster from representing us. It appeared as if Mike Hatch was going to be the frontrunner for the DFL governor nomination, but I am going to take a guess and say he now has his eyes on that senate seat, and is the most likely candidate to replace Dayton. It is looking like Governor Pawlenty is going to be pretty much unbeatable in the 2006 election anyways, so Hatch may not want to waste his time running a futile governor campaign. The Star Tribune claims that Hatch isn't looking into running, but as the Pawlenty approval ratings go up, he may seriously reconsider running. The much talked about DFL candidate in the papers is Mike Ciresi, a trial lawyer who brought Minnesota billions of dollars in tobacco settlement suits. With the Republicans new crusade against trial lawyers, this could be a tough sell on the general population, as the tobacco lawsuits were very controvertial back in 2000, and now that the money that the state won has been thrown away on Pawlenty's last two bonding bills, people might pin some of that blame on Ciresi.

Minnesota has had a history of electing Republican senators because we feel we need a balance of power representing us in Washington, which is very odd with the liberalism that is run rampant across the state. I am pretty much positive that unless the democrats can field an amazing moderate candidate, this seat is pretty much a lock for the GOP to pick up. One way the Republicans could slip is by electing lame duck senator Gramms (spelling?), who lost his re-election campaign to Dayton in 2000. He was one of the few Minnesota GOP members that was too far right for the general population to elect, and it amazes me how he got elected in the first place. If he runs, basically any democrat should be able to take that senate seat down. However, more plausible GOP candidates include Secratary of State Kiffmeyer, who has a strong record of voting reforms that will appeal to a vast voting base, and Mark Kennedy, who represents many of the rich Minneapolis suburbs in the US House. I would say that Kennedy has the best shot of winning, because he embodies the newfound sense of Suburbia that is growing in Minnesota.2/10/2005 10:52:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 'yeti|W|P|I haven't heard Kiffmeyer's name yet, but as for the other two GOPers - Kennedy and Gutknecht - remember that both of them had a lot more trouble in their house races than expected.

We are shifting a lot, but I hardly think this is a lock for the GOP. They certainly can't afford a pansy, though - no to Ciresi, and if Bill Luther god forbid finds his way in, I'm voting for the independent.

Hatch can win. Johnson can win, Klobuchar can win. It may be worth watching closely to see if the republicans, as they start to gain hold here, start to get a little cocky shift a little more to the right and out of their comfort zone that would limit the dfl's choices. Plus, given the DFL's bounce locally in the last election, if The Shrub continues to f. up, an administration suck-up like Kennedy is going to suffer.2/09/2005 12:54:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Today, Senate Democrats announced their opposition to the "privatization tax" that would be created by President Bush's privatizaton plans for Social Security. From the SDCC press release:
"With the new "privatization tax," the Republicans are going to give with one hand and take away with the other. Their plan will allow individuals to take money from the Social Security Trust Fund and put it into private accounts. But to recoup this money and lost interest for the Trust Fund, the Republicans will issue the new privatization tax, which will eliminate benefits by up to 70 percent or more."
Wow. . .the communications director of SDCC must've read George Lakoff's book. Democrats are really getting into the language issue now. First the birth tax, and now this. They're really hitting home on the word 'tax' and its negative attribution. Read here for the whole press release and the fact sheet behind it. With a message like this, it is hard to see privatization being passed.|W|P|110797529531472175|W|P|The benefit offset or the "privatization tax"|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/09/2005 12:44:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Two potential Presidential candidates in 2008 will be introducing some new legislation next week. I received this email this morning from Hillary Clinton, who will be co-sponsoring this bill with California Senator Barbara Boxer.
"Next week, I will introduce the Count Every Vote Act of 2005, co-sponsored by Senator Barbara Boxer. This comprehensive election reform bill will:
  • Provide a verified paper ballot for every vote cast in electronic voting machines.
  • Set a uniform standard for provisional ballots, so that every qualified voter within the state will know their votes are treated equally and will be counted.
  • Require the Federal Election Assistance Commission to issue standards that ensure uniform access to voting machines and election personnel in every community. It's outrageous that some people in predominantly minority communities had to wait up to 10 hours to vote, while people in other communities often voted in minutes!
In 2004, I introduced legislation similar to the Count Every Vote Act. But it never saw the light of day. I couldn't even get a hearing for my bill before the Senate Rules Committee. We can't allow this new legislation to suffer the same fate. The Republicans who control Congress don't want to address this issue. So we've got to build grassroots momentum to make sure they don't have any choice but to act. That's why I am determined to keep moving forward -- on the Hill, with advocacy groups, and with all of you!"
Here is the link to become a citizen co-sponsor. It seems to me that campaigning has started quite early. Wouldn't you love to see a Clinton/Boxer ticket in 2008? Oh man, imagine how many women Democrats could get. It makes me giddy just thinking about it.|W|P|110797466912154856|W|P|Count Every Vote Act of 2005|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/09/2005 12:36:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|John Kerry's email announcement about his $1 million contribution arrived at around 10 AM this morning in my email inbox and confirmed my report from earlier this morning. He's also set up a link now for visitors and supporters to contribute to the DNC for the grassroots effort. Here's an excerpt from the email, with the link to donate:
In 2004 you did something amazing. You helped build the largest, most aggressive grassroots effort in history -- and that has fundamentally changed the face of Democratic politics. Thousands of you have written in about how to continue the fight. I believe the answer is to transform the movement you built into a permanent grassroots presence for the Democratic Party in every state across this nation. If we want to prevail in the 2006 elections, we've got to start mobilizing now. To help kick-start this, I will make a contribution to support grassroots organizing at the Democratic National Committee in the amount of $1,000,000. Join me with a contribution of your own to show the incoming DNC Chair that you want to support organizing in your own community: http://www.democrats.org/BuildTheParty
|W|P|110797421896768345|W|P|A dramatic step|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/09/2005 09:48:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|John Kerry is supposed to make a big announcement on his website today about the DNC. ABC News' the Note had heard about it, but didn't know when and what it was about. However, I can tell you what its about. Sometime today, John Kerry will announce that he is giving $1 million of his remaining campaign funds to the Democratic National Committee for grassroots organizing. I don't know the details, but this is a pretty big donation and a huge announcement. And it comes at an interesting time, too, as Gov. Howard Dean prepares to take over the Chairmanship at the DNC. Dean and his campaign were known as exerts at organizing the grassroots, so this donation will be well taken. For any other news, please see the Daou Report (now with Salon.com; pick the free day pass to view the site). He just picked up the story too, and it can be found under "Buzz" in the middle column. |W|P|110796414290241561|W|P|Kerry to give to DNC|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/08/2005 09:49:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Josh Marshall posits an interesting question: Can blogs save Social Security? Apparently, as the AARP concludes (via their own blog!), and I concur, they can. Just look at the blogosphere right now. First, there is Bob Brigham's "There Is NO Crisis." One of the first blogs created to fight privatization, it has quickly drawn a huge following and regularly issues talking points to help win this fight. Then there is the DCCC's "Privatize This", their online web petition and resource center. Then we have all of the other blogs out there fighting against privatization; places like Daily Kos, Talking Points Memo, and Rob's Blog. Oh, and don't forget to include The Political Forecast. Even the folks with the opposition have started a website/blog to advocate privatization, but I won't be releasing their names or a link to their site. They don't deserve one, those liars. What we're seeing is the exponentially increasing importance of the blogosphere when it comes to political issues. And I must say, the liberal blogosphere has taken the lead. With group blogs like Daily Kos and MyDD, in addition to blogs like Democracy for America and the individual party blogs for DFA, we're seeing the advocacy and netroots activism of liberals increase all over the country. 2006 and 2008 will be pivotal years for Democrats, and the virtual realm of the world wide web will play a substantial role. |W|P|110792096676488831|W|P|Blogs to the rescue!|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/08/2005 04:31:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Juan Cole posts his final part in the Cole v. Goldberg debate. As much as I enjoyed watching Jonah Goldberg get sufficiently stomped by Cole, I'm saddened just as much as Cole is that it had to come down to Goldberg betting "on the backs" of innocent Iraqis. |W|P|110790188787824906|W|P|Cole v. Goldberg, the Final round|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/08/2005 04:09:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Steve Clemmon's posts some interesting excerpts from a soon to be released piece on the politics of the soon-to-be new Supreme Court appointments in the London Review of Books. No one on the left can deny now that President Bush will have the opportunity to appoint some new conservative or neoconservative judges, and that is exactly what Bruce Ackerman points out and discusses in his piece. Here are some excerpts, the article should be published soon:
"There are two very different kinds of conservative. The worldly statesman, distrustful of large visions and focused on the prudent management of concrete problems has long been familiar. But Bush has more often relied on neo-conservatives with a very different temperament. They throw caution to the winds, assault the accumulated wisdom of the age, and insist on sweeping changes despite resistant facts. Law is a conservative profession, but it is not immune to the neocon temptation. The question raised by the coming vacancies to the Supreme Court is whether American law will remain in conservative hands, or whether it will be captured by a neo-con vision of revolutionary change. The issue is not liberalism v. conservatism, but conservatism v. neo-conservatism."
I'll post a link to the piece when it comes out.|W|P|110790056107600809|W|P|The future of the SCOTUS|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/08/2005 03:55:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P| The vote should be held on Saturday. I'm not sure when he assumes the role of Chair, but good luck. |W|P|110789971988889250|W|P|Good luck, Chairman Dean|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/08/2005 03:47:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Check out the Swing State Project for the liveblogging of this interview with a potential 2008 presidential candidate, Sen. Russ Feingold. And from the polls on the liberal blogosphere, he's got a lot of support from Democrats across the country. |W|P|110789926752806270|W|P|Senator Feingold interview liveblogging|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/08/2005 03:26:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Now he's gonna be even more involved in domestic policy. God help us.
"Rove, who was Bush's top political strategist during his 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns, will become a deputy White House chief of staff in charge of coordinating policy between the White House Domestic Policy Council, National Economic Council, National Security Council and Homeland Security Council. Rove will continue to oversee White House strategy to advance Bush's agenda and will "make sure we have an open and fair process for the development of policy and to make sure the policy is complementary and consistent with the various councils," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said."
Open and fair process? Somehow that doesn't seem likely.|W|P|110789815121418074|W|P|Rove gets new job--but its still in the White House|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/08/2005 09:06:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|President Bush is giving a big Social Security speech in Detroit today at 12:20 PM. ThinkProgress will be live-blogging it and offering rapid response posts. Check it out if you've got the time. Me? I'll be class. Oh, and check out Paul Krugman's new op-ed today. Right on target, again. |W|P|110787518264455794|W|P|Social Security rapid response|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/07/2005 11:21:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Is quite well wrapped up by this post from Juan Cole. Its round 2 in the Cole v. Goldberg squabble, and it seems like Cole just scored a total knockout. If you disagree, let me know. |W|P|110784007865957319|W|P|A day of progressive ass-kicking|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/07/2005 10:55:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|President Bush, America's dunce and bully shows his true retarded side again.
"THE PRESIDENT: Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those -- changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be -- or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the -- like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate -- the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those -- if that growth is affected, it will help on the red. Okay, better? I'll keep working on it."
Yeah. . .you do that. Why is this moron president?|W|P|110783855606091713|W|P|Stupid|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/07/2005 09:30:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|A day after Vice President Dick Cheney discussed the massive costs stemming from the Bush privatization scheme, the White House acknowledged that the massive costs themselves. From Reuters:
"The White House Office of Management and Budget said the transition costs for the private accounts, which were not included in the budget that Bush submitted to Congress, would add nearly $80 billion to the deficit by 2010. A memo by Social Security Administration chief actuary Stephen Goss -- sent to Bush's top economic advisers last week -- shows the budgetary impact of Bush's plan will continue to grow annually after 2010, from $102.8 billion in 2011 to $176.8 billion in 2015 alone."
The article also points out that the White House is reluctant to send a specific proposal to Congress, and doesn't appear to be ready to deliver one any time soon. So where does that leave the privatization scheme? First, without a specific proposal, the GOP is going to lose a lot more House and Senate Republicans, practically dooming their plan to failure before even offering any real specifics. Second, by admitting the massive additions to the deficit, it almost seems like the White House is looking to lose this debate. Maybe they're overdrawing on Bush's "political capital." With the admission of the huge costs, traditional fiscal conservatives in the GOP and the deficit hawks will begin crawling out of the woodwork to an even great degree and tearing the privatization scheme even further apart. Bush is already facing heavy opposition from Republicans in deeply red states like Mississipi and Alabama. Where does that leave Democrats? Admittedly, in a very strong position. And it is one we should exploit. With success on this issue, and strong opposition on two of Bush's nominees for Cabinet posts, it is time we begin pushing a strong Democratic agenda and do what we can to drive opposition legislation through. In the House, that may be harder, but we have to go for it in the Senate. Harry Reid needs to dish out specific time blocks to other Democrats and let them rip apart the proposals Bush has offered so far, particularly his ridiculous budget. |W|P|110783345582153691|W|P|White House admits massive costs|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/07/2005 04:52:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Sen. Harry Reid, Senate Minority Leader, responding to reports that the RNC plans to attack him and his family:
"I've been in Washington enough to expect to be the target of criticism every now and then, but raising false accusations against my family is the sort of despicable politics the American people are tired of. It's disappointing to see the Republicans up to their same old tricks. Americans are tired of the same old Republican hackery, and it is incumbent on the President to stop it. You know, the day after the election the president called me and said, "now that I've been elected for the second time. I don't have to campaign again. I'm going to do everything I can to work with you." I believe he meant that. And it's time for him to show it. Actions speak louder than words Mr. President, and it's time for you to act. I call on you today to repudiate the plans of the RNC and tell them to cease and desist from spreading this document they have prepared."
Reid just told President Bush to end the hackery--or "Bring it on, Bitch." If only Tom Daschle had had this kind of spine. |W|P|110781675842571119|W|P|End the GOP hackery|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/07/2005 04:47:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|From "Stick" AKA SDCC:
"Why does today's budget submitted by the president leave out the cost of his Social Security plan?" Bush's Budget Leaves Out Social Security. "Bush's budget does not reflect the costs for his No. 1 domestic priority, overhauling Social Security by allowing younger workers to set up private investment accounts." [Associated Press, 2/7/05] The President's Plan Adds Over $4.5 Trillion in Debt. "Over the first ten years that the plan actually was in effect (2009-18), it would add more than $1 trillion to the debt. Over the next ten years (2019- 28), it would add over $3.5 trillion more to the debt. All told, the plan would add more than $4.5 trillion to the debt over its first 20 years." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "New Details Indicate Administration Social Security Plan," 2/2/05]
|W|P|110781643498529958|W|P|Something missing?|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/07/2005 04:30:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Oliver Willis might have to cheer. According to Bush's budget, NASA will be getting more money to further "Mars exploration"! Maybe we are going to MARS, BITCHES! |W|P|110781545174197361|W|P|Mars, bitches?|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/07/2005 03:58:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|I just finished reviewing the Bush Budget's proposed cuts for the Department of Education. Overall, the DoEd will face an overall 1% decrease in spending. Here are the significant numbers.
  • $8 million cut for 21st Century Community Learning Centers
  • $280 million cut in TRIO Upward Bound for 2006 (eliminating funding for the program in 2006)
  • $145 million cut in TRIO Talent Search for 2006 (eliminating funding for the program in 2006)
  • $1.195 billion cut for vocational education (with no funding in 2006)
  • $306 million cut for GEAR UP (no funding in 2006)
So, basically, the American education system gets screwed over again for wars. And let me tell you how important Upward Bound is. It is phenomenally important. I have a brother who is a junior in high school who has been in the program for two years. I also have a brother who is a freshman who is just entering the program. It provides them with the ability to take college classes over the summer at a local university/college as well as work and learn leadership/team-building skills. It also provides them with a monthly stipend of $15. The program prepares them with the rigorous lifestyle of college and helps them socialize and learn important communication skills. And the best part is that they are receiving information about college and other skills that they wouldn't be able to get at home. See, the program is for first generation Americans and for kids whose parents did not go to and graduate a four-year institution. The program is quite successful. And for more information on the TRIO Talent Search program that will be cut in 2006, check out this post on dKos. Talent Search has alos been extremely effective in Iowa, particularly in Des Moines. I was actually involved with it for a while, until they changed some kind of eligibility for it. |W|P|110781353717137864|W|P|Budget cuts money for education|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/07/2005 03:29:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Today, President Bush delivered his proposed budget to Congress. I've downloaded the entire ZIP file and unzipped it, but it'll take a while to read. Right now, your best place to go to understand the Bush Budget is ThinkProgress. I plan on reviewing the budget as much as I can tonight. I'll post updates throughout the evening on it. |W|P|110781180380778443|W|P|The Bush Budget|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/07/2005 10:10:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Jay Rosen (of PressThink) emailed another panelist of the forum at Davos, where Eason Jordan made his now infamous comments. The panelist is Director of BBC World Service and Global News, Richard Sambrook. Here is his official statement. I think it pretty much clears up a lot of what the right has been spinning.
"Statement of Richard Sambrook Director of BBC World Service and Global News Eason's comments were a reaction to a statement that journalists killed in Iraq amounted to "collateral damage". His point was that many of these journalists (and indeed civilians) killed in Iraq were not accidental victims--as suggested by the terms "collateral damage"--but had been "targeted", for example by snipers. He clarified this comment to say he did not believe they were targeted because they were journalists, although there are others in the media community who do hold that view (personally, I don't). They had been deliberately killed as individuals-- perhaps because they were mistaken for insurgents, we don't know. However the distinction he was seeking to make is that being shot by a sniper, or fired at directly is very different from being, for example, accidentally killed by an explosion. Some in the audience, and Barney Frank on the panel, took him to mean US troops had deliberately set out to kill journalists. That is not what he meant or, in my view, said; and he clarified his comment a number of times to ensure people did not misunderstand him. However, they seem to have done so. A second point he made, which in my view is extremely important, is that when journalists have been killed by the military in conflict it has been almost impossible to have an open inquiry or any accountability for the death on behalf of families, friends or employers. Very little information is released, we know investigations do take place but the results are not passed on. This culture of "closing ranks" coupled with hostile comments about the media from senior politicians and others, has led some in the media community (not necessarily Eason or myself) to believe the military are careless as to whether journalists are killed or not and to no longer respect the traditional right to report. As yet, for example, there has been no adequate explanation for the attack on the media hotel in Baghdad, the Palestine, which killed one Ukrainian Reuters cameraman and one cameraman for Spanish TV in 2003. The US tank commander suggested he had come under sniper fire from the building. That is now clearly not the case; it was well known, including in the Pentagon, that the Palestine was used by the media and yet it was attacked directly and purposely. Why? An absence of explanation unhelpfully feeds suspicion in some quarters. More than sixty journalists and media workers have been killed in Iraq since march 2003. Reporting from conflict zones appears to be more dangerous than ever. Check these reports from NewsSafety and the Committee to Protect Journalists. I am leading an international committee of inquiry into the reasons for the major increase in journalist fatalities around the world. It will make recommendations for improving safety and reducing risk and possibly suggest some changes to international law which ensure that when journalists are killed we can get a proper and open investigation and sense of accountability. Finally, some people say, if it's so dangerous don't go. I'm afraid I believe that bearing witness, first hand reporting from wars, is a fundamental duty of news organisations. We need to do all we can to ensure we can continue to bear witness, but to do so without carelessly losing lives."
|W|P|110779266913669760|W|P|BBC Director's release on comments by Eason Jordan|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/07/2005 09:57:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Well, I actually woke up today and ABC News' "The Note" was already in my email inbox. So, it actually gave me a good chance to look at some of the bigger reports from this weekend/today that I missed over the weekend. Here are some I think you should check out:
  • "States See Growing Campaign to Change Redistricting Laws"--Adam Nagourney of The New York Times takes a look at the new changes coming within the reapportionment debate. This is really an issue I've focused a lot on in the past two weeks, and will continue to study for the next two weeks in my Supreme Courts and Elections class. It seems that Arizona has followed Iowa's lead and created a nonpartisan independent commission to redraw district lines and its been a large success. Other states have simlar initiatives up for discussion in state legislatures, and with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's support behind the issue in California, it could be interesting to see changes made in the next year or two. However, you probably wouldn't see the biggest changes in districtions until 2011 or 2012, right after the next national census.
  • "Bush Budget Raises Drug Prices for Many Veterans"--Another NY Times article featuring President Bush's hatred of veterans; or at least his lack of willingness to help them take care of themselves after he's the one who got them hurt in the first place. Essentially, the proposal would double charges for prescription drugs and tack on a fee of $250 for those using the government system. What a joke--there seems to be no way that this could pass. However, if it does, it would be an injustice for our praiseworthy veterans.
  • "Foreign Aid Boost is Expected in Bush Budget"--The Washington Post takes a look at the massive foreign aid increases in President Bush's budget, including doubling the Millenium Challenge Account--to a total of $3 billion. Chase will be giddy after he reads that.
  • "$2.5 Trillion Budget Plan Cuts Many Programs"--The Washington Post takes a pre-emptive look at the cuts to be proposed in President Bush's budget, which is delivered to Congress today. The most disappointing part of the proposal seems to be the fact that of the 150 programs to be radically cut or elminated, 1 out of every three is an education program. So much for leaving no child behind, all of them are going to be left behind. All that ends up doing is helping more people like Bush (i.e.--folks who are dumb and got into college via legacies) end up being our leaders)
Enjoy the reading, but don't read them all at once. You'll go blind or something. |W|P|110779183869049509|W|P|Monday apportionment and budget reading|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/07/2005 12:02:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|The media better fucking pick this up. If they don't, I'm gonna go ape-shit. It only proves the idiocy of the Bush Regime's plans. VP Dick Cheney on Fox this morning:
"We're going to borrow $758 [b]illion over the next 10 years to set up the personal retirement accounts. We think that's a manageable amount ... Trillions more after that," Cheney said, acknowledging that the personal accounts will help younger workers but will not solve all the problems of solvency."
So, increasing our overall national debt will in the end fix our Social Security 'crisis'? Somehow, that doesn't make sense to me. And I'm not the only one who is befuddled by it. Here's what Josh had to say:
"Look what we hear from the administration's own collective mouth. Their solution to the problem does nothing to solve the problem -- not me saying it, them saying it. However, it does cost trillions of dollars. In fact, it will cost -- by their own estimation -- much more over the next 20 years than it would to keep Social Security going strong for the next 75 years. At what point does this proposed policy collapse under the weight of its own ridiculousness?"
Somehow, I don't think the idiotic proposal will ever collapse. Twisting the facts and fear-mongering are what the Bush Regime is good at doing--thanks to Karl Rove and Karen Hughes. Look, privatization just isn't a sound fiscal policy, and its a bad idea overall. Social Security is a guaranteed insurance policy for those who need it. But the government also promotes private pensions and other individual options for those who need it. Social Security was meant to be a last resort. When you privatize the system, you cut benefits and eventually phase out the system, which inherently eliminates the goddamn guarantee. And that is why we cannot and should not privatize Social Security. If only our media could understand this.|W|P|110775615349582023|W|P|Cheney admits massive costs|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/06/2005 11:49:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Damn Patriots. I just don't like them. I wish Philly would've won. Oh well. At least T.O.'s back in tip-top shape. |W|P|110775548388500467|W|P|Super Bowl|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/07/2005 12:07:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Rob|W|P|Was that today? I've fallen out of interest with pro sports...to me, they are a bunch of whiny, drug addled, overpaid twits.

I didn't even realize until I looked at the news a minute ago that it was being played in my old hometown (Jacksonville, FL), at the Gator Bowl (I refuse to use corporate names for ballfields). Neat...2/06/2005 12:10:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|The non-partisan group FactCheck.org released a statement last week criticizing MoveOn.org's anti-privatization ad which stated that future benefits could be cut by 46%. FactCheck.org, while providing a lot of useful and creative criticism on both sides of the political spectrum, was misleading and incorrect with their original posting. MoveOn.org has the proof to back it up. They have a letter from their director, as well as economics experts from the Brookings Institution, Center for Economic Policy and Research, Economic Policy Institute, and a few others. Read the letters and understand where MoveOn.org was going with the ad. I hope FactCheck.org offers a correction soon. |W|P|110771346376268023|W|P|MoveOn tells FactCheck to "Kiss my ass"|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/06/2005 10:16:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous|W|P|The LA Times brings national coverage to the Iowa GOP plan to kill taxes for everybody under 30. Aw, crap. They think we're hicks.|W|P|110770658821163655|W|P|An Iowa Leg story that you really DON'T want covered|W|P|chase.nordengren@gmail.com2/06/2005 11:15:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Rob|W|P|Who would want to live there...tax or no tax. There's nothing to do unless you want to farm.

I lived in a place similar to that in Missouri, where the only "industry" was baling hay. And parents would encourage kids to stay, despite the fact that getting a job pumping gas (in the pre-self-service days) was considered "doing good").

Iowa would do better to analyze how they could attract some industry.2/06/2005 11:22:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 'yeti|W|P|Yeah, don't worry, I don't think it changed anyone's perception in the first place ;)2/06/2005 12:21:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Chris Woods|W|P|Just to stick up for Iowa a bit. They have a couple of industries going for them. The biggest I can think of off the top of my head is insurance. Iowa, particulary the area around Des Moines and Polk County, is around the 3rd or 4th largest insurance market in the country, only behind Hartford, CT, and a couple other places. Almost everyone in my family is employed via the insurance/banking industry in multiple different functions. One aunt is a computer data specialist, another aunt works with claim compilations, my grandmother is an executive secretary in a credit union/insurance provider, my uncle sells life insurance and does other work with insurance. I'm trying to remember how else they're involved in the industry, but it is quite encompassing. And they all have different two and four year degrees with lots of other certification programs and master's degrees. So, Des Moines has a lot of options in that industry.

Oh, plus, Des Moines and Iowa City are great areas to grow up in Iowa. Compared to other parts of the state, we've got cultural influence and other entertainment stuff.

Sure, there a lot of hicks out there. But if rural Iowa developed more agri-science industries as well as research into other alternative energy sources (other than ethanol, stuff like wind power and wind-farms) we wouldn't always get the bad rep that we do get.2/06/2005 10:13:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous|W|P|In the LA Times today, John Dean discusses annonymous sourcing. But, more significantly, that Deep Throat is ill and that Ben Bradlee has already written his obituary. Yes, I know, bad pun. But still.|W|P|110770638138449389|W|P|Deep Throat Sore|W|P|chase.nordengren@gmail.com2/06/2005 01:52:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Here they are. Let me know if anything interesting goes down.
"ABC's "This Week" - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld; Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.; House Democratic leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California. CBS' "Face the Nation" - Rumsfeld. NBC's "Meet the Press" - Rumsfeld; Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. CNN's "Late Edition" - Rumsfeld; Sens. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Christopher Dodd, D-Conn. "Fox News Sunday" - Vice President Dick Cheney."
|W|P|110767643393072739|W|P|Sunday line-ups|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/05/2005 06:25:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Sorry, but I have to do this. When you start off or end your day and you're looking for some decent headlines to read that don't scream "I'm biased!" like the Drudge Report does, check out The Daou Report. The Daou Report offers a quick glimpse into what is going on in both the liberal and conservative blogosphere with links to all of the great political discourse that is occurring online. Plus, he's linked to me a couple of times and sent a lot of traffic. So, thanks Peter. |W|P|110764956535128147|W|P|Shameless plug|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/05/2005 06:16:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|UPDATE: Jonah's excuse can be found here, along with Atrios bashing his excuse a part because Goldberg is an asshole.
Juan Cole definitely has a temper. . .something most of us loyal readers probably didn't know. Oh yeah, and he's an Middle East expert. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Jonah Goldberg.
"Jonah Goldberg attacked yours truly in a column recently. I think it is time to be frank about some things. Jonah Goldberg knows absolutely nothing about Iraq. I wonder if he has even ever read a single book on Iraq, much less written one. He knows no Arabic. He has never lived in an Arab country. He can't read Iraqi newspapers or those of Iraq's neighbors. He knows nothing whatsoever about Shiite Islam, the branch of the religion to which a majority of Iraqis adheres. Why should we pretend that Jonah Goldberg's opinion on the significance and nature of the elections in Iraq last Sunday matters? It does not [...] Jonah Goldberg is a fearmonger, a warmonger, and a demagogue. And besides, he was just plain wrong about one of the more important foreign policy issues to face the United States in the past half-century. It is shameful that he dares show his face in public, much less continuing to pontificate about his profound knowledge of just what Iraq is like and what needs to be done about Iraq and the significance of events in Iraq [...] The reason Mr. Goldberg is alarmed that I pointed this obvious fact out [that the Iranian elections in 1997 were more Democratic than the Iraqi ones in 2005] is that he wants to kill thousands of Iranians and thousands of US troops in a war of aggression on Iran. If the American public knows that there is a lively struggle between hardliners and conservatives in Iran, and that an American intervention there would be a huge disaster and would forestall the natural evolution of Iran away from Khomeinism, then they might not support Mr. Goldberg's monstrous warmongering. That is why he attacked me. So let me propose to him that we debate Middle East issues, anywhere, any time, he and I. Otherwise he should please shut up and go back to selling Linda Tripp tapes on Ebay."
Read more of Juan Cole and his experise here at Informed Comment.|W|P|110762933019799530|W|P|Cole v. Goldberg|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/05/2005 08:14:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Rob|W|P|Goldberg sounds like a classic whiny ass. He makes all kinds of noise about the war being so necessary, but couldn't be troubled to lift a finger to actually do anything in it, for some really shitty reasons (age...plenty of National Guard over there in the 35+ range...income loss...again, plenty of folks in this situation and suffering from it...physical condition, well, a few weeks in country will fix that).

He's a typical chickenhawk boob.2/05/2005 05:17:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|I first read David Brooks' column this morning around 10 AM. I didn't know what to think of it. It seemed that he was just drinking some more weird juice, and I didn't want to post about that again. However, I was fascinated by what he wrote, considering I had actually read the book he referenced in his piece: Diminished Democracy by Theda Skocpol. His thesis seemed to be that Democrats were for now the party for the Liberal academic elites. The thesis is nothing new, but what he said in his column was fascinating. What interested me the most was his claim that professors at colleges and universities contributed the most money to Kerry's campaign and helped him out a lot. And he wrote about how folks from Daily Kos and other liberal blogs were quite liberal and helpful. I didn't know what to think. Mostly, I tried to figure out if his thesis was true: Were the Democrats really just full of academic elitists? And then I realized I was just being stupid because I was still tired and groggy. David Brooks was an idiot, and an elitist himself. Chris Bowers over at MyDD has come to the same conclusion. He destroys what Brooks wrote in his column with about 15 minutes of research. Evidentally the New York Times op-ed page didn't require any research of the columnists who wrote today. It is as simple as this: Sure, academics and scholars are mostly Democrats and they give quite heavily. But so do the netroots--and they are varying and diverse its impossible to term them Liberal elites. John Kerry had a 500% increase over Al Gore in donations from small donors. That was thanks to the folks at Daily Kos and other liberal weblogs. And they don't have sub-level requirements for the Democrats (or hell, anyone else) contributing. Just be a Democrat or a supporter of Kerry and others in the party. It is just like what Jerome said earlier today: There is only one price for entry. |W|P|110764814027723261|W|P|David Brooks and the newspaper column elite|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/05/2005 01:42:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Josh Marshall does just that in response to Nick Kristof's column (dicussed earlier in this post). It is by far the most comprehensive and simple explanation of Social Security and the impacts of privatization I have seen. Go read it and become enlightened. |W|P|110763254302752085|W|P|Defining the scope of debate|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/05/2005 12:55:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Jerome Armstrong of MyDD knocks my socks off.
"The only questions to ask is, are they a strong partisan Democrat that wants to beat Republicans? Do they walk the talk, and do they cut the crap? That's all I want to know. DLC, Deaniacs, Liberals, Centrists, Moderates.... it's all meaningless when you are in the minority. Democratic, that's the price of entry."
Quite possibly the best defense of the DLC AND Lefty Liberals I have ever seen. As a matter of fact, its the first defense I've seen of the two together. If Howard Dean is mentally on the same base as Jerome Armstrong, then happy days are on their way. I consider myself one of those Liberals on the left of the party. Not the fringe left, but pretty far left. But we need folks like the DLC to keep me grounded. It keeps the party active in the Beltway. And Deaniacs and other Liberals like myself can keep the grassroots and netroots active. And the Centrists and Moderates help shape a more appealing to Americans who don't know what they want. We are all a part of the same family. And it is damn time we started acting like it. |W|P|110762976808059150|W|P|The price of entry|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/05/2005 11:51:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|The right-wing blogosphere has been up in arms about comments that CNN's Chief News Executive Eason Jordan said at the World Economic Forum at Davos. Power Line alone has had six or seven posts dedicated to only that issue. On the left, I haven't seen all that much (to me: none), until today. Jay Rosen (who I consider to be on the left) posted something I agree with. We'll discuss that in a moment. I feel the need to step in and discuss about it now to counteract all of these claims that liberals are ignoring it. And just for the right-wing: Why isn't the MSM covering the story? I don't see your friends FauxNews talking about it at all? Let's first look at the situation. During a panel, which Jordan was a member of, he made some kind of comment stating that U.S. soldiers in Iraq were, or at least attempting to, kill(ing) journalists. There were two big reactions in the crowd: astonishment or solemnity. According to Power Line and Hugh Hewitt (I hate them, but I have to cite them), Rony Abovitz, the head blogger for the Davos, conducted an interview with Hewitt and tried to explain what happened. What Abovitz said that strikes me the most is the apparent emotion that Jordan showed. He's not an actor, so there was definitely something that happened to a journalist friend or close acquaintance in Iraq that made him burst out the like that. The other reaction, mainly from the Middle Easterners and the Europeans in the crowd, was that this was something they knew all along and it didn't surprise them. The Middle Easterners were surprised to seem him challenge the U.S. militarily so boldly. Here is how Abovitz put the story when he originally posted it in the Davos forum's blog:
"During one of the discussions about the number of journalists killed in the Iraq War, Eason Jordan asserted that he knew of 12 journalists who had not only been killed by US troops in Iraq, but they had in fact been targeted. He repeated the assertion a few times, which seemed to win favor in parts of the audience (the anti-US crowd) and cause great strain on others.

Due to the nature of the forum, I was able to directly challenge Eason, asking if he had any objective and clear evidence to backup these claims, because if what he said was true, it would make Abu Ghraib look like a walk in the park. David Gergen was also clearly disturbed and shocked by the allegation that the U.S. would target journalists, foreign or U.S. He had always seen the U.S. military as the providers of safety and rescue for all reporters. Eason seemed to backpedal quickly, but his initial statements were backed by other members of the audience (one in particular who represented a worldwide journalist group). The ensuing debate was (for lack of better words) a real "sh--storm". What intensified the problem was the fact that the session was a public forum being taped on camera, in front of an international crowd. The other looming shadow on what was going on was the presence of a U.S. Congressman and a U.S. Senator in the middle of some very serious accusations about the U.S. military."

And that is the rough sketch that I have of the whole situation. The event was videotaped, and the tape should be sent out to bloggers and the media sometime next week. Until then, I'll hold any real official judgment on the story. It looks like the right-wing is already issuing judgments, however, thus giving me permission to judge them, not the events at Davos. And they are quite cruel. Here's what Hindrocket (AKA John Hindraker) had to say on Power Line:
"What this story shows, I think, is how badly the left-wing media have damaged the United States with their incessant accusations and over-the-top coverage of stories like Abu Ghraib."
So, wait a second--Abu Ghraib's coverage was over the top? How is it over the top? They took picutres of the entire fucking escapade and they got published. If there had simply just been allegations of abuse, nothing would've happened. They were stupid enough to take pictures. And then allow them to get published. If you want to stand up for torture, that's fine with me. But if you're going to make judgments that because Jordan got upset and pointed out what's happening to journalists in Iraq and call him part of the left-wing media (WTF? That doesn't exist.) and then link him to the "over-blowing" of the Abu Ghraib story, then FUCK YOU. It is that simple. Now back to Jay Rosen's post at PressThink. Here's what he said that I agree with the most:
"The original account was too ambiguous for me. It had him saying United States soldiers targeted journalists, and then claiming that's not what he meant. He later explained it as: the soldiers were trying to kill these people, but did not know they were shooting at journalists. Not much of a scandal in that."
I'll wait until I see video. Then I can make some kind of official judgment. Until then, he's got a good number of links to follow-up on the story and understand the core issues. I definitely think it is worth checking out. Here are my final thoughts. The issue here is definitely worth investigating. Jordan's assertions have merit and therefore should be investigated. I don't take lightly comments from a chief news executive when talking about killings in Iraq. I'm sure he knows a lot more about the media situation there than most of the folks on the right hyping the story. But it rightfully deserves to be hyped until there is some kind of resolution on the story. However, hype doesn't mean issuing judgments. Therefore, I ask Power Line and Hugh Hewitt to reserve making judgment on Jordan. Give the man a break. If he got that emotional, something was definitely going on. I do think, however, that there are some media critics in the print modicum that need to take some time to explore this issue. Don't just leave it up to the investigative reporters, take some initial steps yourself. Finally, on the assertion by Eason Jordan himself: If it is true, then God help us. The freedom of speech will be added to another thing that the Bush Regime doesn't believe in, just like human rights.|W|P|110762589962116142|W|P|Eason Jordan comments|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/05/2005 10:51:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Is FauxNews' Brit Hume. Kevin Drum has all the details. |W|P|110762235779303741|W|P|Weekend Wanker|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/05/2005 01:28:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|WTF? I think Nicholas Kristof is drinking what David Brooks drank last weekend. I usually respect what Nicholas Kristof has to say for The New York Times. But as Kevin Drum points out today, he's just wrong and out of his mind. Essentially, Kristof says Democrats are wrong for obstructing Bush's privatization plan. But let's see what Kristof has to say about it:
"Mr. Bush is also right to try to promote savings - though financing a savings plan by borrowing is a lousy idea."
So, the idea is lousy? That means we shouldn't be for it, right? Wrong. Here's Kristof's plan:
"But what if we paid for Social Security reform by keeping the inheritance tax? Or by undoing Mr. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? Rescuing Social Security strikes me as a good use for that money - while paying for it with debt would not secure our children's future, but mortgage it."
He's living in a dream world. There is absolutely no way a GOP Congressman would ever vote to do something like that just to get Social Securty reform passed. They'd basically be conceeding their re-election bid. Even more likely is that no Democrat would be able to win re-election with such a mass movement in the grassroots against privatization. It's time to sober up, Nick Kristof.|W|P|110758840311970178|W|P|Kristof drinks some funky juice|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/04/2005 04:54:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Today, I received a letter reply from Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA), Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, on my correspondence to him about Social Security. In the letter, he said something that I find particularly fishy, and that I've emailed to a couple of bloggers covering Social Security, as well as Paul Krugman, to hopefully get a reply. So far, I've only received a reply from one person. But I'll keep you up to date on the replies. If I can't get my question answered via email, I'll make a trip to the Economics department here at Drake for help. Anyway, here is the email I've been sending out. If you can answer it, that'd be great. Leave a comment if you have an answer.
"I have a question on Sen. Chuck Grassley's (R-Iowa and Chair of the Finance Cmte.) information in a constituent letter he sent to me. Is he lying (or at least being misleading) when he writes: ---
Today, there are 46 million people collecting Social Security benefits. These benefits are funded by payroll taxes collected from 153 million working Americans. Because there are more than three workers for each beneficiary, Social Security is running a surplus. This surplus is invested in government bonds. Once the 78 million baby boomers retire, there will be only two workers for each beneficiary and Social Security will begin running deficits. At that point, Social Security will have to redeem its government bonds to help pay for benefits. Redeeming these bonds will cost the government more than $12 trillion over the next thirty-eight years. That means higher income taxes, less spending on other programs, or more government debt. Even if the government can afford to redeem all of these bonds, once they are gone, benefits will have to be reduced 30%, or the payroll tax will have to be increased 50%.
--- Is the claim that Sen. Grassley makes correct? Does redeeming governments require a $12 trillion cost, a benefit reduction of 30%, or a payroll tax increase of 50%? Somehow, that doesn't make sense to me. Paul Krugman's December 7, 2004, column says that the tax initiated by Greenspan and Reagan in 1983 should cover the large amount that will be required to pay out benefits to baby boomers. Moreover, in his article "Confusions about Social Security (in "The Economist's Voice") he said: ---
"What happens in 2018 or whenever, when benefit payments exceed payroll tax revenues? The answer, very clearly, is nothing. The Social Security system won't be in trouble: it will, in fact, still have a growing trust fund, because of the interest that the trust earns on its accumulated surplus. The only way Social Security gets in trouble is if Congress votes not to honor U.S. government bonds held by Social Security. That's not going to happen."
---
So, I guess my overall question is this: Is Sen. Grassley lying or being misleading in the letter he sent to me? Thanks for your help with this question."
The first reply I got was from JM, a guy who's been working on the privatization issue a lot. I'll let you guess who he really is. Here is what he had to say:
"To get all the specifics, you'd want to talk to an economist. But I would point out that at present there are 1.8 trillion dollars worth of bonds in the trust fund. So how that leads to a pay out of 12 trillion i'm not exactly sure."
So, Senator Grassley, where does the number come from?|W|P|110755766301153542|W|P|Sen. Grassley's magical SS math|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/04/2005 11:52:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Rob|W|P|Interest? I'm guessing, and I'm far from an economist.

But when your government has yearly record budged deficits (a la Duhbya), it likely will be hard to redeem those bonds. The Social Security "crisis" is a crisis of fiscal irresponsibility and the government trying to avoid addressing the real 10,000 lb rhino that is the federal budget, and how they are not going to be able to pay back the money they borrowed/stole from Social Security.2/06/2005 06:36:00 PM|W|P|Blogger paperwight|W|P|My bet is that Grassley is adding together the 1.8 trillion dollars in bonds held by the fund (and which the Republicans have been using to finance the tax cuts for the rich) and the 10.4-ish trillion dollar deficit that Bush and co have been using in their FUD campaign. The 10.4 trillion dollar number is actually the present value of the projected deficit of SSI compared to projected benefits *over infinity* given a lot of pessimistic assumptions.2/04/2005 01:59:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|You'll notice that on the right sidebar I've added something new. I call it my "Save Social Security!" sidebar. Right now, it's got some of the most important links, in my opinion, where folks can go for the latest information on the privatization plan, find out its inherent flaws, monitor the media's approach, and keep track of legislators for and against the proposal. I hope it is helpful to those who use it. If you have any suggestions for additions (or even subtractions) drop a comment below. |W|P|110754720458127220|W|P|SS Sidebar|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/04/2005 01:22:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|It has been confirmed: Simon Rosenberg had dropped out of the race for DNC Chair. Read his statement here. He's encouraging all of his supporters to back Howard Dean and has endorsed Dean for Chair. In other news, it looks like Dean pretty well has the Chairmanship wrapped up. Check out this post at MyDD for more information. The Political Forecast officially backs only one candidate now: Former Governor of Vermont Howard Dean, MD. |W|P|110754494844536669|W|P|Ronsenberg's race is over|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/04/2005 11:54:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|If you ever wanted a clear-cut example of how the DNC establishment deals with elections at the state level, and their lack of respect or help, take a look at this column from a Des Moines alternative weekly paper. The column takes a look at the money problems that occurred within the state Democratic party's office. In case you don't know, Iowa is one of the best states for party infrastructure. We have effective grassroots movements and a well organized party structure. But evidentally the DNC really doesn't care. Here are some excerpts:
"In 2002, [Jean] Hessburg ran the coordinated campaign (a field program for Democrats) that was successful in its efforts to help re-elect U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, U.S. Rep. Leonard Boswell and Gov. Tom Vilsack. It was a statewide absentee ballot initiative that was so successful (Vilsack has told those close to him that absentees elected him in '02), that for the '04 elections Hessburg and her same staff would widen the net to include legislative races. Usually, the legislature runs its own program, but with a long-time Republican stranglehold on both the Senate and the House, Democratic lawmakers. . .were ready to go with a winner. . .This is when the situation started to get sticky. "Jean [Hessberg] was adamant that the rural areas had to be taken care of with the absentee program," our statehouse source said. "But the Kerry people and the Democratic National Committee wanted all money coming into Iowa to go to the large metropolitan areas only, and to be spent on Kerry. She basically ignored them." But her move was not illegal. Iowa Democratic Party people canvassed the entire state and their first question when knocking doors, our source said, was always, "Are you supporting John Kerry?" And they didn't have to do that, we're told. Hessburg's folks were working hard for Kerry. They just understood there was more at stake. "But the DNC people had one goal: elect John Kerry," our source said. "They don't care about our state. They don't care that Vilsack isn't getting the support he needs from the legislature. And Jean told them that her people were going to try to elect all the Democrats running. It really rubbed people the wrong way. She didn't have the same idea of how the money should be spent, she wasn't shy about saying so, and it was up to her how to spend the money." According to an individual close to Hessburg, the former party chief was dismayed that the Kerry people didn't have a working state-by-state budget shored up until October, and that she didn't want candidates to get steamrolled because the DNC "didn't have a plan." "You think they were organized?" this individual asked. "They left half a million on the table during an election. Rule number one: you don't leave money on the table during an election. You spend every last penny. I mean, what are you doing, saving it for a rainy day? It was raining. And Jean wasn't going to wait around for people who had their thumbs up their ass."
This is why we need people like Simon Rosenberg or Howard Dean at the DNC. There is a lot of infrastructure that has to be dealt with. Winning the Presidency isn't the only to win elections. And the Iowa Democratic Party knew that. And look at their results: The Iowa Senate is split evenly at 25-25. The Iowa House gives Republicans a 2-seat advantage, compared to an 8-10 seat advantage only a few years ago. It is time for a change and for someone who "gets it."|W|P|110753967264775971|W|P|DNC and the state party on elections|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/04/2005 11:37:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|FactCheck.org (non-partisan and pretty damn bright) checks out President Bush's state of the union and looks at his claim that Social Security will be bankrupt:
"In his State of the Union Address, President Bush said again that the Social Security system is headed for "bankruptcy," a term that could give the wrong idea. Actually, even if it goes "bankrupt" a few decades from now, the system would still be able to pay about three-quarters of the benefits now promised. Bush also made his proposed private Social Security accounts sound like a sure thing, which they are not. He said they "will" grow fast enough to provide a better return than the present system. History suggests that will be so, but nobody can predict what stock and bond markets will do in the future. Bush left out any mention of what workers would have to give up to get those private acounts -- a proportional reduction or offset in guaranteed Social Security retirement benefits. He also glossed over the fact that money in private accounts would be "owned" by workers only in a very limited sense -- under strict conditions which the President referred to as "guidelines." Many retirees, and possibly the vast majority, wouldn't be able to touch their Social Security nest egg directly, even after retirement, because the government would take some or all of it back and convert it to a stream of payments guaranteed for life."
If you can't take anyone else's word for it, take their's. Their full analysis can be found here. It's important to that FactCheck.org also notes the problem of "benefit offsets" like so many other bloggers have as well. Opting into private accounts means you'll face significant benefit reductions if your account doesn't do well. And the government won't pay you back to cover the offset.|W|P|110753864899148977|W|P|Non-partisan group reviews SS "bankruptcy" claims|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/04/2005 11:06:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Numerous reports are going around today that Simon Rosenberg will officially drop out of the race for DNC Chair. In less than an hour's time, Rosenberg and his people are expected to have a conference call with the press where a "major announcement" will occur. Rosenberg has been pretty sick lately, though I don't know with what. If indeed he does drop out today, it is unfortunate. He was my first choice. However, The Political Forecast will throw its entire weight around to help the Dean campaign (though I admit I way about as much as a butterfly, at least in political terms). |W|P|110753680332500594|W|P|Rosenberg status?|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/04/2005 10:51:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|It looks the GOP is really beginning to feel the pressure from the anti-privatization advocates. From this morning's Note:
"And how's this for hardball? The RNC is asking television stations to stop airing the MoveOn.org ads, incidentally. This morning, the party sent out the letter from deputy counsel Michael Bayes that said the spot "falsely and maliciously" claims that the President's Social Security plan cuts benefits up to 46 percent to pay for private accounts, and reminded stations that as FCC license holders, they have a responsibility "to avoid broadcasting deliberate misrepresentations of the facts.""
To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing factually wrong the MoveOn ad (for all those interested, it is the one entitled "Working Retirement"--just another example of how Democrats are taking George Lakoff's advice). Just another example of how we're winning the privatization battle. And it looks like the GOP is trying to intimidate stations as well with the FCC warning. They don't have Michael Powell on their side for much longer, so they better make all the threats they can right now. |W|P|110753587982966791|W|P|Feeling the pressure|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/04/2005 10:45:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Atrios and Josh are right, this should be a bigger story!
"So basically the president is finding hardly any Republicans in any of these states who are willing to go on the record in support of his plan. This is why I would never make it in the news business. I woulda thought that'd be a big story."
Bush's entire tour this week (post-SOTU) is to try and convince red-state Republicans that private accounts are worth it. He's been to Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, and is heading to Arkansas and Florida today. Look--the only reason Bush is making this trip is because we're winning. This trip was supposed to be an easy sell for him, or at least that is what Karl and the GOP strategists said. However, Democratic opposition, or even more broadly a generall opposition, has quickly and loudly emerged to oppose his privatization plan. Some of the print media is picking up on this. But don't count on them for the correct story. Even worse, the major news networks, while expressing that there is significant opposition to privatization, still hype on the Bush and GOP word choice of "personal accounts" and offer false statistics to hype the "impending crisis." We're winning this battle, politically and in reality. Now we just have to keep going strong. Now is the time. Don't relent. There is NO Crisis. |W|P|110753552039678426|W|P|The big story no one is reporting|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/04/2005 01:07:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Well, there's so much news going-down right now over politicians positions on Social Security, whether it will actually solve the "crisis" that Bush talks about, and whether or not its even worthwhile (which we already know its not). Because of this, I'm going to just give a brief overview of some links to learn more about specific SS related issues that have come up in the last 48-72 hours.
  1. Check out Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo regularly. I'm sure he and his staff will continue working later into tonight and again tomorrow morning on keeping track of the Fainthearted Faction (Dems who are for privatization) and the Conscience Caucus (Repubs. against privatization). He'll also provide coverage of new stories as reported by the major news outlets.
  2. Check out There Is NO Crisis for links to news reportings debunking Bush's strategy. They're an excellent resource for research and other articles as well.
  3. Atrios has been doing a good job inserting his scholarly work into his posts. Duncan Black (AKA Atrios) is an economist by profession, so I'd say he's a pretty decent source for analysis on the issue. Check out this post, this post, and this post by him for more information.
  4. Kevin Drum at the Washington Monthly has been tackling the issue as well, usually providing some insightful graphs and pictures like this one.
  5. Finally, the biggest media guy out there supporting the effort to defeat privatization is economist at Princeton first and columnist for the New York Times second, Paul Krugman. Today's column has some memorable lines that I thought were worth taking a look at:
  6. Translation: If you put part of your payroll taxes into a personal account, your future benefits will be reduced by an amount equivalent to the amount you would have had to repay if you had borrowed the money at a real interest rate of 3 percent. Peter Orszag of the Brookings Institution got it exactly right: "It's not a nest egg. It's a loan." . . .The only way to get ahead would be to invest in risky assets like stocks, and hope for higher yields. But if the investment went wrong and you earned less than 3 percent after inflation, your benefit cuts would leave you poorer than if you had never opened that private account. So people are expected to take a loan from the government and use it to buy stocks, and if that turns out to have been a mistake - well, too bad.
The battle continues to rage on. Look for a special Social Security Section on the left sidebar soon. It will contain talking points and other important links and information on the fight against privatization.|W|P|110750084636483817|W|P|Privatization battle rages on|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/04/2005 12:42:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Echoing Oliver Willis: |W|P|110749942867600028|W|P|The Democratic Social Security Plan|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/03/2005 07:55:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|REUTERS: "Rumsfeld Says He Offered to Resign Over Abu Ghraib"
""I submitted my resignation to President Bush twice during that period and told him that ... I felt that he ought to make the decision as to whether or not I stayed on. And he made that decision and said he did want me to stay on," Rumsfeld said. He was speaking in an interview with CNN's "Larry King Live" program and a transcript was released in advance of its broadcast on Thursday evening."
Larry King airs on CNN in 5 minutes. This should be interesting to watch.|W|P|110748214956949484|W|P|If only Bush had taken him up on his offer. . .|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/03/2005 07:41:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P| George Lakoff would be proud.|W|P|110748127952182017|W|P|Say NO to the "Birth Tax"|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/03/2005 07:26:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|FINAL UPDATE #14 (7:26): One addition to the list of Democrats voting YEA (it was 6, not five like I posted below): Senator Bill Nelson (Fla.). I've also figured out that two Democrats were unable to be there and they are Max Baucus (D-MT) and Kent Conrad (D-ND) who were both busy fighting off Bush's privatization rhetoric in their home states. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATE #13 (4:13 PM): The vote has finished. The tally is thus:
YEAS: 60 NAYS: 36
Gonzales has been confirmed, unfortunately. However, he only got TWO more votes than John Ashcroft. I'm assuming that is why a fillibuster was not an option. As noted, four Senators were not present and did not vote. When I figure out who they were, I'll let you know. The five Democrats voting YES are as follows: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATE #12 (4:00 PM): Yeas: Pryor Nays: Lincoln ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATE #11 (3:54 PM): Yeas: Snowe, Ensign, Chambliss, Salazar, Landrieu, Lieberman Nays: Carper, Feinstein, Stabenow ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATE #10 (3:50 PM): Yeas: Roberts, Crapo, Shelby, Brownback, Smith, Lugar, Cornyn, Murkowski, Craig, Lott, McConnell, Stevens, Sessions, Hatch, Kyle, Greg, Hutchison, Talent, Santorum, Enzie, Bennett, Alexander, Vitter Nays: Kennedy, Kohl, Akaka, Dayton, Bingaman, Sarbaines, Jeffords, Widen, Clinton, Kerry, Obama, Biden, Schumer, Dorgan, Reed, Bayh ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATE #9: (3:42 PM): Yeas: Inhoffe, DeWine, Burr, Voinovich, Bunning, Nelson (NE), Domenici, Hagel, Martinez, Grassley, Nelson (FL), Coleman Nays: Rockefeller, Corzine, Harkin, Dodd ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATE #8 (3:39 PM): Yeas: Bond, Dole, Graham, Warner, McCain Nays: Levin, Byrd, Johnson, Mukulski ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATE #7 (3:36): Yeas: Allard, Allen, Chafee, Cochran, Thune, Coburn, Collins Nays: Boxer, Cantwell, Lautenberg, Leahy, Reid, Feingold, Durbin These aren't all of them. More to come. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATE #6 (3:30 PM): Allard-Yea ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATE #5 (3:26 PM): Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist is speaking now. Again, the same talking points given to all members of the GOP. The vote will follow. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATE #4 (3:16 PM): Sen. Reid has taken the floor. Sen. Frist is next. I presume a vote will follow. Live-blogging the votes as they occur. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATE #3 (2:55 PM): Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) just finished speaking. He's doing a good job. He wishes he could vote on his life story, but its time to vote on his record. The current speaker is Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) is speaking now, basically ignoring what Leahy just said. After Specter, Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) speaks and then Sen. Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) speaks. I'm assuming then that a vote will take place. Live updates on the vote as it proceeds. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATE #2 (2:15 PM): The New York Times has a story out today on the fact that Alberto Gonzales will be confirmed. I haven't read it yet, but I'm sure its decent. Sen. Joe Lieberman is speaking now. The bastard is voting for Gonzales. I guess he likes torture. There are a couple of irony jokes I could make about that choice, but I won't do it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATE #1 (2:03 PM): The vote should be occurring sometime today. About four hours of debate have occurred, according to C-SPAN. Eight hours have been scheduled. Let's see if they use up that full time. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1:59 PM) Debate rages on again today on Alberto Gonzales as nominee for the Attorney General. Our good friend, Ken Salazar (D-CO), is again speaking about Judge Gonzales. He still plans on voting for him. At least he's standing up for the issue of race, and saying that the race-card should not be used in the Senate as a dividing issue. Maybe he has some redeeming qualities after all. But I'm not holding my breath. |W|P|110746055847073527|W|P|Gonzales Update (Final Thursday Edition)|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/03/2005 03:14:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|The Los Angeles Times has this AWESOME passage today in a report on President Bush's SOTU:
"In a significant shift in his rationale for the accounts, Bush dropped his claim that they would help solve Social Security's fiscal problems — a link he sometimes made during last year's presidential campaign. Instead, he said the individual accounts were desirable because they would be "a better deal," providing workers what he said would be a higher rate of return and "greater security in retirement." A Bush aide, briefing reporters on the condition of anonymity, was more explicit, saying that the individual accounts would do nothing to solve the system's long-term financial problems. That candid analysis, although widely shared by economists, distressed some Republicans. "Oh, my God," one GOP political strategist said when he learned of the shift in rhetoric. "The White House has made a lot of Republicans walk the plank on this. Now it sounds as if they are sawing off the board."
So, essentially, the President's plan isn't a solution. It was originally characterized as one, but now it isn't. There is a crisis according to the Bush Regime, but they're not going to actually offer a solution? Look at what TPM Reader RT had to say to Josh Marshall this morning:
"So, the Bushies claim, "there is a huge crisis and our 'solution' will 'do nothing to solve' it." If this is the same White House source that briefed every other reporter yesterday it is Dan Bartlett."
Wow. . .if it is Dan Bartlett. . .then just wow. The GOP is going to have a mess on their hands if the media will ever pick this part of the story up. Remember, it doesn't matter though. There is NO Crisis.|W|P|110746526274207865|W|P|Bush: Privatization isn't a solution|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/03/2005 03:06:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Markos answers the question here. He points out that 60% turnout of registered voters is not that good, particularly when the US reaches 80-90% during national elections. His estimate: about 45% turnout overall. That number is still than higher than mine. It will be interesting to see what the final results say. |W|P|110746477973109341|W|P|How many Iraqis really voted?|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/03/2005 02:59:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|According to Voice of America, the first results of the Iraqi elections are in. The United Iraqi Alliance, under the support of Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, is clearly in the lead with 75% of the 1.6 million ballots that have been counted so far. Interim PM Ayad Allawi is in a distant second with about 20% of the vote. The Shi'ites are headed for control. |W|P|110746436255921322|W|P|The first results come in|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/02/2005 10:31:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|(Final) UPDATE #5 (10:31): I'm done for tonight. Entirely blogged out. Enjoy the commentary here and I'll see you folks tomorrow morning for what appears to be the final edition of the Gonzales debate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATE #4 (9:37): Ana Marie Cox of Wonkette fame and Andrew Sullivan of AndrewSullivan.com were both just on CNN dealing with the whole issue of live-blogging. It's amazing to see how important that we've become in the process. And Andrew Sullivan is just as bitchy and ignorant as most of the stuff he writes is. Thank God he's leaving the blogosphere. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATE #3 (9:21): A Marshall Plan for America? Amazing. The Democrats have a great message tonight. The comparison to Bush's SOTU and Bill Murray's "Groundhog Day" is one of the best pop culture references that the Democrats have given in a long long time. The articulation of Reid and Pelosi is great. The use of the term 'privatization' was critical for the Democrats and Reid followed through. Way to go Democrats. Now let's watch Pelosi hammer home on Iraq and the lack of training for Iraqi police forces. And the lack of economic development. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATE #2 (9:13): The Democratic rebuttal is set to begin soon. I'll be moving to another computer for a few minutes, so I'll try to update soon. Enjoy the spin and the response. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATE #1 (9:08): The pundits and reporters on CNN are right--the hug from the mother of the killed soldier and the Iraqi human rights activist will be remembered for quite a while. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is where I will focus on the spinning by the pundits and the Democratic rebuttal. |W|P|110740008217286587|W|P|Post-SOTU Reaction|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/02/2005 09:05:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|(Final) UPDATE #18 (9:05): Time for the Democratic response and the spinning to begin. Let's see what the Dems have to say and how the GOP pundits spin it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATE #17 (8:52): John Podesta and his pals at ThinkProgress.org are doing an amazing job with factual information on the FACTS behind Bush's speech and destroying the lies he offers. Please check the site out. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATE #16 (8:47): The final paragraph, before the customary "Thank you, and God bless America."
"As Franklin Roosevelt once reminded Americans, “each age is a dream that is dying, or one that is coming to birth.” And we live in the country where the biggest dreams are born. The abolition of slavery was only a dream - until it was fulfilled. The liberation of Europe from fascism was only a dream - until it was achieved. The fall of imperial communism was only a dream - until, one day, it was accomplished. Our generation has dreams of its own, and we also go forward with confidence. The road of Providence is uneven and unpredictable - yet we know where it leads: It leads to freedom."
How dare this jackass quote FDR? He's attempting to destroy his biggest legacy. I think it is ironic that according to FDR's words, the dream that is dying is his legacy of Social Security. The dream coming to birth--the Neoconservative agenda of destroying the good things for America. Oh, and nothing like a final reference to God, via the Providence reference. This dude really pisses me off. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATE #15 (8:41): No timetable. Looks like we'll be there for a while, unless the new Shi'ite government really, really wants us out of there.
"We will not set an artificial timetable for leaving Iraq, because that would embolden the terrorists and make them believe they can wait us out. We are in Iraq to achieve a result: A country that is democratic, representative of all its people, at peace with its neighbors, and able to defend itself. And when that result is achieved, our men and women serving in Iraq will return home with the honor they have earned."
Nothing like continuing the quagmire and the debacle. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATE #14 (8:37): Didn't we just tell Europe that we could basically handle this ourselves? I think we did.
"We are working with European allies to make clear to the Iranian regime that it must give up its uranium enrichment program and any plutonium re-processing, and end its support for terror. And to the Iranian people, I say tonight: As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you."
And it looks like we're now actively supporting the reform movement in Iran. Looks like we're gunning for revolution instead of war now. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATE #13 (8:34): Supporting the end of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict:
"To promote this democracy, I will ask Congress for 350 million dollars to support Palestinian political, economic, and security reforms. The goal of two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace is within reach - and America will help them achieve that goal."
This will be quite popular with the people of Palestine. Let's see how Israel takes it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATE #12 (8:30): No mention of Osama bin Laden in the entire speech, but this line does occur, however:
"Our enemies know this, and that is why the terrorist Zarqawi recently declared war on what he called the “evil principle” of democracy. And we have declared our own intention: America will stand with the allies of freedom to support democratic movements in the Middle East and beyond, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."
So, is Zarqawi wanted dead and alive now? And what about OBL? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATE #11 (8:28): Bush just got booed and groans from Congressmen and women in the House chambers!!!! A-FUCKING-MAZING!! Continue booing Democrats, We suport you. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATE #10 (8:21): And the First Lady gets a new job!
"Tonight I propose a three-year initiative to help organizations keep young people out of gangs, and show young men an ideal of manhood that respects women and rejects violence. Taking on gang life will be one part of a broader outreach to at-risk youth, which involves parents and pastors, coaches and community leaders, in programs ranging from literacy to sports. And I am proud that the leader of this nationwide effort will be our First Lady, Laura Bush."
It is a worthwhile cause, but the whole faith-based initiative part will turn Democrats away quite quickly. It is just another way for the religious Right to impose Christianity and faith on all Americans. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATE #9 (8:17): The radical lines you all were hoping for:
"Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be re-defined by activist judges. For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage."
Oh jeeze, nothing like kissing ass to Mullah Dobson and all of those on the radical Right. Here's more:
"Because a society is measured by how it treats the weak and vulnerable, we must strive to build a culture of life. Medical research can help us reach that goal, by developing treatments and cures that save lives and help people overcome disabilities - and I thank Congress for doubling the funding of the National Institutes of Health. To build a culture of life, we must also ensure that scientific advances always serve human dignity, not take advantage of some lives for the benefit of others. We should all be able to agree on some clear standards. I will work with Congress to ensure that human embryos are not created for experimentation or grown for body parts, and that human life is never bought and sold as a commodity. America will continue to lead the world in medical research that is ambitious, aggressive, and always ethical. Because courts must always deliver impartial justice, judges have a duty to faithfully interpret the law, not legislate from the bench. As President, I have a constitutional responsibility to nominate men and women who understand the role of courts in our democracy, and are well qualified to serve on the bench - and I have done so. The Constitution also gives the Senate a responsibility: Every judicial nominee deserves an up-or-down vote."
Oh jeeze, a "culture of life"? If that wasn't a jab at stem-cell research and abortion, I dunno what is. That line will be talked about for a while. And the issue of judicial nominees? That's code words for Frist to change the fillibuster rules so Bush gets his extra 10 judges out of 200 some appointed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATE #8 (8:13): Rate of return assumption:
"Here is why personal accounts are a better deal. Your money will grow, over time, at a greater rate than anything the current system can deliver - and your account will provide money for retirement over and above the check you will receive from Social Security."
This notion has already been dismissed. Read this post of mine from earlier this week. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATE #7 (8:04): Another lie on Social Security:
"So here is the result: Thirteen years from now, in 2018, Social Security will be paying out more than it takes in. And every year afterward will bring a new shortfall, bigger than the year before."
That is not true anymore. As has been reported earlier this week, the date has been moved back to 2020 by the Congressional Budget Office. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATE #6 (8:03): Next line:
"I have a message for every American who is 55 or older: Do not let anyone mislead you. For you, the Social Security system will not change in any way."
Social Security will not change for seniors. AARP may have just a lot of the force behind their movement. Hopefully they'll stay strong for the young folks like myself who are quite worried. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATE #5 (7:54): First line that I need to point out:
"My budget substantially reduces or eliminates more than 150 government programs that are not getting results, or duplicate current efforts, or do not fulfill essential priorities. The principle here is clear: a taxpayer dollar must be spent wisely, or not at all."
It will be interesting to see what these 150 government programs are. My guess is that Social Security might be one of them, if he passes his privatization plan. What's more, if he really wants to spend taxpayers' dollars wisely, he'll get us out of Iraq, repeal his ridiculous tax cuts, and quit launching wars. Finally, he'll work then to cure the budget deficit and save Medicare, which faces the biggest fiscal problems of any government program. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATE #4 (7:47 PM): ThinkProgress.org has the EMBARGOED VERSION OF THE SOTU! I'm going to start reading it right now. More posts to come soon. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATE #2 (7:41 PM): CNN has excerpts from the SOTU. Read them here. It reveals the bankruptcy law already noted below. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATE #1 (7:19 PM): Part of the major discussion on Social Security that will emerge in the SOTU tonight is the long-term solvency of Social Security. Reuters is reporting that Bush will state that without reform Social Security is headed towards bankruptcy. That's a flat-out lie.
"One of America's most important institutions -- a symbol of the trust between generations -- is also in need of wise and effective reform. Social Security ... on its current path, is headed toward bankruptcy. And so we must join together to strengthen and save Social Security."
Lie number one for the SOTU has been recorded. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It looks like I won't be watching or blogging all of the pre-SOTU hype on any of the major networks. The roommate has commandered the TV (by turning it off to study). I'm hoping that sometime before the SOTU comes on, I'll be able to turn it on. If not, I'll be live-blogging via C-SPAN, meaning I'll probably have a bit of a time-delay. Oh well. For a list of other sites live-blogging the SOTU, visit There is NO Crisis. |W|P|110739211442525966|W|P|SOTU Reaction|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/02/2005 07:53:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Steve|W|P|You can tell Bush is lying when his lips are moving....2/02/2005 06:31:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|In case you might've missed my announcement buried in a post from yesterday, I will be live-blogging the State of the Union tonight. Mainly, my reaction as well as others online will be profiled. I'm assuming Blogger will be quite overwhelmed with the number of people posting, so if updates seem infrequent, I apologize in advance. It's time to debunk the fallacies that Bush will offer. |W|P|110739081853798294|W|P|Live-blogging the SOTU|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/02/2005 04:42:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Reuters reports today that the Chairman of the House Ethics panel, Congressman Joel Hefley (R-CO-05), was replaced and a new Congressman was added to the panel: Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX-21), a man who contributed greatly to a defense fund for House Majority Leader Tom "The Hammer" Delay (R-TX-22). While Hefley's term as Chair was up, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL-14) could've chosen to extend it, which usually occurs. But because Hefley had led to admonishments of Delay by the ethics panel, he was replaced. Some excerpts from Reuters with Democratic reaction:
"The ethics committee last year admonished DeLay in two separate reports, on a total of three matters: a 2002 fund-raiser that it said gave the appearance of donors getting special access; enlisting the help of a federal agency in a Texas political spat, and offering a political favor to a member in an effort to win passage of a drug bill. Three of DeLay's associates were indicted by a Texas grand jury in September in connection with illegal fund raising. The prosecutor has said the investigation is not finished. DeLay has said he is confident he will not be indicted. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, said, "By ousting Mr. Hefley as chairman ... and replacing him with a party loyalist, the Republican leadership is sending a chilling message." "It is further evidence that there is a purge under way of any Republican who does not precisely toe the party line," Pelosi said. Craig Holman of Congress Watch, a citizen's watchdog group, added: "This is clearly an attempt by Tom DeLay and the House Republican leadership to shutdown House ethics enforcement."
Yep, the Democratic message is basically how I feel about it. To succeed in the GOP, don't be ethical or follow the rules--win and become the majority, then change the rules so that you can't get in trouble. The GOP and unethical folks like the Hammer give American politics a bad name.|W|P|110738415724333887|W|P|Rewarding the unethical ones|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/02/2005 03:55:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|FINAL UPDATE (3:55): The Senate has recessed for this afternoon, until 7:40 PM CST tonight when they will proceed to the House chamber for the State of the Union address. Debate resumes again tomorrow morning for another 8 hours. Expect a final vote tomorrow. There is still time to contact your Senator and encourage them to vote NO. Click here to find your Senator's contact information and phone numbers ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATE 4 (3:29 PM): Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) is speaking now. He's a douchebag too. He thinks Democrats are arguing about whether or not to confirm Gonzales because of the Hispanic issue. Senator Domenici thinks that Dems are mad because Hispanics don't just vote for Democrats anymore so we're trying to send a message that we're upset. In the words of Condi Rice, I don't take kindly to the "impugning of my character." What a fucker. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATE 3: (1:17): Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO) is speaking now, again reiterating "Alberto Gonzales: A True American Tale." I swear, I might know more about his history than my own parents. According to C-SPAN 2, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) will be speaking around 1:30 CST. Following Byrd, Sen. Ken Salazar (D-CO) will be speaking at 2:30 CST. His speech will be interesting to hear, considering what I reported earlier. Why is he standing up for Gonzales? I'm going to miss that speech, because I'm leaving for class now and won't be back until 3:30 CST. Leave comments if you hear Salazar's speech, and please include details if you can. Thanks. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATE 2 (12:53 PM): Sen. Orrin Hatch is speaking--again. He spoke once or twice yesterday. What I am trying to figure out is why the GOP and the Right continue to pound away on the fact that Gonzales is a minority and had an amazing life story? They did the same thing when debating Condoleeza Rice. Just because these two candidates happen to have amazing life stories and are minorities doesn't mean they deserve to confirmed. Taking gender and socio-economic status, and the nominees' ability to overcome the obstacles placed by bigots of American history, is simply not a political issue. The nominees' success has nothing to do with their ability to govern effectively and operate with respect and dignity in the position to which they have been nominated. The attacks on Condi Rice and Alberto Gonzales have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with race. To claim so is ignorant. The nomination of Rice and Gonzales is not a civil rights issue--it is a Constitutional and political issue! The Senate's role in the hearings and confirmation debates is to offer "advice and consent" to the President on his nominees. Alberto Gonzales is not capable of being Attorney General. His legal interpretations and decisions are quite flawed. Moreover, he was an advocate for ignoring prior obligations of the United States in the form of international treaties. Gonzales' respect for law only goes as far as his boss wants it to go. And his boss is the President of the United States, who is looking for legal ways to get around the law that says we can't torture detainees and prisoners. Gonzales is not an independent nominee--he has clear connections to the White House. A message to the GOP: DON'T MAKE THIS A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE. IT IS A POLITICAL ISSUE. Orrin Hatch is now asserting that liberals and Democrats are racist. What a fucker. I hate him. We are opposed to Gonzales because he's not the right man for the job--if you call us racists again. . . Vote No on Gonzales. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Debate has started against this morning. Sen. Dick Durbin (Deputy Minority Leader) was speaking the last time I checked. Feingold and Jeffords are slated to speak sometime today as well. I've got class until about 12:30 CST, so that is when you will see the next update. |W|P|110736091488085809|W|P|Gonzales Update (Wednesday Edition)|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/02/2005 10:12:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|UPDATE: Matthew Gross provides Salazar's contact information:
Washington Office: 202-224-5852 Denver, CO Office: 303-455-7600
Call him and tell him to vote NO! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Democrats had high hopes when we brought in two new Democratic senators, Barack Obama from Illinois and Ken Salazar from Colorado. Obama has pretty much lived up to expectations. Salazar hasn't. The Washington Post reports this morning:
"Ultimately, Democrats concluded they had neither the votes nor the political stomach to block confirmation of Gonzales, who would be the first Hispanic to hold the nation's highest law enforcement office. After a bruising debate last week followed by the confirmation of Condoleezza Rice as the first black woman to be secretary of state, some Democrats were concerned that they would be perceived as opposing qualified minority candidates. At a private luncheon yesterday, freshman Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), who is Hispanic, defended Gonzales to Democratic colleagues."
Well, it is settled. Salazar's an "empty suit" as Markos calls him. This is Salazar's choice--he is not being forced to vote yes on Gonzales. So many liberal and Hispanic groups would be proud of him for doing this--that means he isn't going to lose political capital by voting against Gonzales. As Markos wrote, "Salazar Votes for Torture. I won't forget it. I hope other Dems remember as well."|W|P|110736034284768335|W|P|Salazar for torture|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/01/2005 10:17:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|UPDATE: I must've missed Rob's post on this from yesterday. I'm making up for it by linking to it now. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- First off, hat-tip to Brian a.k.a. 'The Yeti' for the heads-up on this. I had read the headline and brief summary somewhere, but never really read the article. Here's the lead to the AP article, and its all you really need to read before it captures your attention and makes you read the rest:
"The way many high school students see it, government censorship of newspapers may not be a bad thing, and flag burning is hardly protected free speech. It turns out the First Amendment is a second-rate issue to many of those nearing their own adult independence, according to a study of high school attitudes released Monday."
It is just freaky to think that kids just a few years younger than me (and even my age) think that freedom of speech and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The only reason I can legally publish THIS BLOG is because of the freedom of speech and the freedom of all American's to dissent. When 17% of high schoolers think that unpopular views should be expressed, I understand why teens have become politically apathetic--they don't treasure the gifts endowed to us by our Founder's, as expressed in our Constitution. I was fortunate enough to have great Social Science teachers in middle school and high school who motivated me to take an interest in American politics and the current events of the world. If it wasn't for them, I might've ended up like the teens profiled in the survey. Their contribution means so much more to me now. So, I'd like to take the time to thank them: Kevin Klimowski, Tony Sunga, Rob Gloe, Mike Schaffer, Dr. Tom Forsgren, and Fitz. You guys (unfortunately, they were all males) had a really big impact on me. Thank you. You taught me the values of the Social Sciences. Oh, and I'd like to thank my newspaper/journalism teacher from high school--Ben Graeber. He's in Seattle now. Thanks for treating me well, making me proud to be a liberal, and always rooting for the Cubs. Alright, enough of that, back to the flesh of the post. I think part of the reason for this is the atmosphere in this post 9/11/01 world, where the GOP exploits the opposition on the left and makes dissent the equivalent of treason and treats those who are critical as freedom haters. But more than just the GOP, it is representative of the quality of American education. Something has to be done. Or we could end up with mindless and apathetic folks running our government. Or at worst, they could end up crazy like neoconservatives. |W|P|110731767697919641|W|P|Who needs the FULL First Amendment? Not America's youth|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/02/2005 12:13:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 'yeti|W|P|K, my post on this is up.

Wish my HS even had that many social s. teachers. or even a journalism dept. :-)2/02/2005 04:36:00 PM|W|P|Blogger furtherthanright|W|P|I must respond to this post. It has given me such great joy! All is going according to our plan!

Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste. I am very rich and powerful, but I am not in the limelight at all. Myself and my associates control the world from the shadows. Much like the X-Files. Only I am not a skinny smoker, but heavy and only cigars. I will now share our plan. I do this only because nobody will believe me, thinking I am writing this as paranoia or sarcasm. This only gives me more pleasure.

Our goal is to consolidate power and enslave all the human race as our rightful duty as masters. We have explored the use of force and find it neccessary, but not sufficient. Religion is one power we use, as well as economics and the media.

We met during the Clinton years and made our plan. Our first task politically was to find a stooge to be President of the USA. A puppet of mediocre intellect and effort who was visible on the national stage. We have been surprised ourselves how well this has worked out. I attribute it to our wonderful Ministry of Information. Propaganda and disinformation work wonders.

We next decided to implement our powers on the classic ruse of power-religion. Realizing a near majority of the USA bought into this Fundamentalist Fairy Tale, we had a ready flock of sheep. A few nonsense wedge issues like gay marriage and empty blather about values. We took the Pro-Life thing too. Even though we actually support infanticide and genocide as well as abortion. We pushed the stem cell issue while secret experiments are done so we can live longer healthier lives. We do experiments on live humans as well.

We took control of the media. We restrict via corporate dominance and monopoly. We just don't call it that. We control show content to entertain the masses with shallow crap. This keeps their feeble minds off real issues. A classic distraction. We then feed them a consumer psychology that keeps them on a work-spend treadmill. Wage-slaves. Credit helps promote this form of slavery. And plenty of toys to buy also add to the distraction.

The news is infotainment to influence you as well. You see politically what we want you to. Then we give something to scare you into submission. Then a cute story about a doggy or a kitty.

We financed our clandenstine wars with drug money and still do. This is why drugs are still illegal. We can make incredible money and no paper trails. Heroin and cocaine are our favorites. In the eighties we used scare tactics, using the fear of blacks to get your submission for the War on Drugs.

Now we knew about 9-11 and we let it happen. It was just too good to pass up. Now we could make real progress. We took the Patriot Act (Newspeak?) out of our secret file and rolled in through Congress in short order.

Don't kid yourself. Iraq is only about oil. We will be in the region a long time. Saudi Arabia is unstable and we will not let that go. We don't care about casualties. They are just low and working class fodder to us.

Our economic plan is pure genius. We used tax cuts, record spending, record debt and artificially low interst rates to hold it together for an electoral victory. Now the fun begins...

We will inflate. But we will manipulate the stats to hide the true rate. People will not see the slow bleed in their economic power, but have a sense of something wrong. Then when the storm hits as it must, we will have our scapegoats: Liberals, Democrats, the poor, the aged, Muslims,...

The people will be enraged and open to anything like 1930's Germany. We will have enough police power and data to supress all dissent.

Releasing a few plagues and disrupting the crops and water in the third world will make them ripe for slavery. Only we won't call it that.

Sorry but I have to go. I've told you enough. I must now go to a meeting. We are discussing if Jeb is our next puppet.2/01/2005 07:00:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|FINAL UPDATE (7:00 PM): The Senate adjourned at 5:52 PM CST, while I happened to be away from the computer. Debate will begin again tomorrow morning at 9:30 AM and go until approximately 4:30 PM. C-SPAN 2 will again carry the debate live. I hope to be able to liveblog more of the debate, as well as liveblog the State of the Union. I'll be doing my best to debunk Bush's speech as quickly as I can, with help from Think Progress. Updates will be scarce for the next couple of hours as I work on homework. Catch up on today's bloggage, both here and in the blogosphere abroad. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATE 5 (5:23 PM): I've learned that a fillibuster isn't going to happen. Reid has again confirmed that about 25-30 Democrats will vote no. The vote still is weak compared to the vote for John Ashcroft's nomination--he only got 58 votes. Gonzales could get around 70 votes. Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) is speaking now. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATE 4: I'll take this time while Sen. Tom Coburn is talking to point out the wonderful weblog, "Tom Coburn is A Big Fat Jerk." Tom Coburn is a douchebag, as well as a big fat jerk. If you disagree. . .oh well. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATE 3: Sen. Arlen Specter has asked for debate to be extended to 8:30 tonight. Then resuming at 9:30 tomorrow morning until 4:30. The next morning (Thursday morning) would set aside some time for debate, then vote, and finally inform the President of the Senate's vote. It was approved without objection. That is a lot of debate. Sign of a fillibuster, or at least trying to combat one? Keep checking in for updates ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATE 2: Ted Kennedy is speaking now. He's pissed. I would be to if I was in his position. A precursor to fillibuster, perhaps? In the words of Kennedy: "He doesn't know" anything! NO on Alberto Gonzales. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATE: Markos reports Reid and 30 Senators to vote NO. Phenomenal! The Associate Press confirms that 25-30 Senators will vote NO. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sorry I haven't posted at all on the Gonzales Confirmation Debate. I've had class from 9:30 this morning until 2:00 this afternoon and just got back to my room. For coverage of the debate so far, check out The New York Times report on the debate. Also, C-SPAN 2 is carrying the debate live. Sen. John Cornyn is speaking right now, and seems to be standing up for the torture that occurred in Iraq, because our "enemies don't play by the rules" so it is ok for us to violate the Geneva Conventions. What a douchebag. The bigger update, however, is coming from the Associated Press. The Times reports that a fillibuster looked unlikely, according to information from last week. However, it looks like Sen. Ted Kennedy and Sen. Dick Durbin are considering it and private meetings are going on. From the AP:
"Senate Democrats are considering filibustering Alberto Gonzales' nomination to be attorney general over his role in developing the Bush administration's policies on treating foreign detainees. No final decision has been made yet, but at least two Democrats -- Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and Democratic Whip Richard Durbin of Illinois -- planned to urge the Democratic caucus Tuesday to consider filibustering Gonzales' nomination, said a Senate Democratic aide, who spoke on conditions of anonymity."
Democrats must do this. They have to do this. Check back for updates regularly. POSTSCRIPT: Stealing from Markos:
"If you do not believe in torture, and vote against Gonzales, then you are casting a vote against torture. If you do not believe in torture, and you vote for Gonzales, then you are being partisan. If you do believe in torture, then Gonzales is manna from heaven."
|W|P|110729060310954338|W|P|Gonzales Update (Tuesday Edition)|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/01/2005 03:52:00 PM|W|P|Blogger bahiabob|W|P|If you want a little reality check out my blog http://spinnada.blogspot.com/
Maybe we can find some common ground if you are willing to read something that isn't from your propaganda trainers. By the way, here in Kalifornia we know Poison Pelosi only too well. Fox was right. She doesn't know anything about the REALITY of how are our troops are training the Iraqi's and the sucesses the Iraqi's are now enjoying in fighting and destroying the terrorists in Iraq. She certainly is clueless when it comes to the wishes of the Iraqi people to be truly free. And remember:
10,000,000 Iraqi's just confirmed that President Bush was correct all along. Of course you have to be ready to listen to someone you may not agree with to get the REAL truth. Can you? So it goes.2/01/2005 08:23:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Rob|W|P|The Iraqi's did not confirm that Bush was right. They voted in an election with the overriding desire to have us out of their nation.

Saddam Hussein was not by any means a "good guy", and honestly the world is better off without him. But that was not the reason we went to war, nor is it a valid justification to go to war. If it were, places like Sudan would be feeling our wrath right now.

And the real point is this...you only commit troops to battle when there is no other option. Why? Because once you start a war, it's a) bloody to both troops and civilians and b) really tough to get out of. There are always civilian deaths in war, there are always atrocities of some sort on both sides, and the old saying "war is hell" is really true. So before you jump into it, you should really be sure that the reasons warrant the action and that you've tried every other means and exhausted them to their limits, and there is absolutely no other option. Bush didn't do this...I doubt he understands the concept. But there are countless thousands dead (both our troops and Iraqi civilians) who are dead because of a war that was not necessary.

If democracy, free elections, and a free Iraq come of it...good. But that was not the justification for the war, and it does not change the fact that Iraq was a mistake. That good may come of the mistake is my most fervent hope; the people of Iraq deserve no less. But let's not kid ourselves into thinking Bush's foreign policy has been vindicated by the casting of ballots in Iraq. Elections are only the first step in democracy; the real work is ahead.2/01/2005 08:48:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 'yeti|W|P|Dear Chris,

Keep up the good work tomorrow - reading here will be much handier and more palatable than having c-span on all day.

----

Dear Bob,

I wasn't aware that elections = instademocracy. Or is democracy not what Our Leader wanted "all along"?

Also, could you please inform me who my propaganda trainers are, and why I'm not getting paid?

Love,2/01/2005 09:11:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Chris Woods|W|P|Hey, guys (the ones sticking with me), thanks for all of the comments. I appreciate them. Check out his blog and on one of the entries, I posted a reply.

Bob claims (like Bill O'Lielly) that his blog is the no spin zone. But read it. There's almost more spin in there than Ann Coulter on speed with Zell Miller (who is high) refuting everything said at the DNC convention for Faux News.2/02/2005 12:33:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 'yeti|W|P|Now now, let's let our "Militant Libertarian Cowboy" defend himself, because I'm sure he'll be coming back, any time now! Right?

...

Uhmm....

The phrase "Militant Libertarian Cowboy," as well as its correct spelling, does pique my curiosity.2/02/2005 12:56:00 PM|W|P|Blogger bahiabob|W|P|I think you need to check your facts. The Liberal point of view is always welcome when it is reasoned, measured and factual. Also, I am a Libertarian, that means I share some of your opinions on other issues. If you can find Spinnada to have actual spin, point it out with countering factual information and I will reinvestigate. I don't mind FACTUAL criticism as it is good. However, unfactual criticism is just more Liberal Bluba Ba or deflection from the truth. I don’t post things that I can’t verify from sources that I don’t trust. Quite a few liberal and conservative sources do not provide the real truth if it goes against their mantra. Some liberal and conservative sources I respect for always telling the truth and doing thoughtful analysis as well. I respect CATO and Heritage opinions as they are very well presented. I do not respect the liberal Media and the ”old news” organizations as they admittedly slant and distort their reporting to support their liberal point of view.2/01/2005 05:33:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|The Center for American Progress (via the American Progress Action Fund) has started a new blog, called "Think Progress", to debut just in time for the State of the Union. A statement:
"From the people who bring you The Progress Report – the daily electronic newsletter the National Review calls "the most aggressive, most energetic opposition research in politics" – comes Thinkprogress.org, a new blog ready to revolutionize the world of research-intensive rapid response. Debuting in tandem with the State of the Union address on Feb. 2, Thinkprogress.org will give journalists and the public real-time access to American Progress’s highly regarded rapid response operation for the first time ever. And in honor of the launch, American Progress CEO John Podesta will be a guest blogger, providing live commentary throughout the entire State of the Union address."
|W|P|110730080334979487|W|P|Think Progress|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/01/2005 05:17:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|UPDATE: Former Chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party, David Leland, has also dropped out of the race. Blog for America has the story. Leland endorsed Dean; Frost endorsed no candidate. Dean has it wrapped up. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Former Rep. Martin Frost has withdrawn from the race for DNC Chairman. The Chair's position now belongs to Dean or Rosenberg. My prediction: Dean will win. The full press release follows:
"I am calling my supporters to thank them and to inform them of my decision today to withdraw from the race for DNC Chair. I have also called Governor Dean and congratulated him for running a strong campaign. The challenge ahead for Governor Dean will be to unite the Party, rebuild the DNC and win elections in every region of the country. "This campaign was never about me or any other candidate. It was about rebuilding the Democratic Party so that we can better present to the nation our strong, hopeful alternative to the dishonest, corrupt and elitist Republican Government that keeps selling out the nation in order to reward its few, privileged friends. "Make no mistake, Democrats are the party that can best meet America's challenges - challenges like keeping our people safe and winning the war on terrorism, stopping the Republican attack on Social Security, solving the health care crisis, and ensuring that all Americans have good jobs and the opportunity to build a better future for their children. "With a strong, unified Democratic Party, a real 50-state party structure, and a commitment to working together and speaking directly to Americans' concerns and values, I am confident that we can and will elect Democrats at all levels and in all parts of the country. I look forward to continuing to play a constructive role in those efforts."
|W|P|110729930097270469|W|P|Frost and Leland are done|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/01/2005 04:43:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Josh Marshall has the fabulous news! According to Sen. Minority Leader Harry Reid (in CQ Today):
"Not a single Senate Democrat will support President Bush’s proposal to divert a portion of the Social Security payroll tax to personal investment accounts, Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Tuesday."
Social Security privatization is dead. Time of death: February 1, 2005.|W|P|110729783316289121|W|P|Fainthearted Faction is no more|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/01/2005 03:09:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Read the Reuters report here. If this doesn't show the fallacy in calling these elections "democratic" I don't know what does. Sure, some Sunnis boycotted the vote? But what about those that wanted to? Excerpts:
"Tens of thousands of Iraqis, notably in restive Sunni Arab areas, may have been denied their right to vote on Sunday because of insufficient ballots and polling centres, officials said. Iraq began compiling election results from around the country on Tuesday after a barrage of election day attacks by Sunni militants failed to deter millions from voting. But officials said many Iraqis arrived late to find ballot sheets had run out, possibly skewing results for the already disgruntled minority."
Let's see how the media covers this. Democracy in Iraq = illegitimate and non-representative.|W|P|110729220308813709|W|P|Sunnis were disenfranchised|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com2/01/2005 01:11:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|This one is full of math, but points out the inherent problems within the GOP's privatization rhetoric. It is well worth a read. Excerpts:
"Which brings us to the privatizers' Catch-22. They can rescue their happy vision for stock returns by claiming that the Social Security actuaries are vastly underestimating future economic growth. But in that case, we don't need to worry about Social Security's future: if the economy grows fast enough to generate a rate of return that makes privatization work, it will also yield a bonanza of payroll tax revenue that will keep the current system sound for generations to come. Alternatively, privatizers can unhappily admit that future stock returns will be much lower than they have been claiming. But without those high returns, the arithmetic of their schemes collapses. It really is that stark: any growth projection that would permit the stock returns the privatizers need to make their schemes work would put Social Security solidly in the black."
Atrios talks about it here, too. And Josh Marshall notes that the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) has realeased new figures pushing back the date in which Social Security will begin drawing on the trust fund--from 2018 to 2020. So, how's that privatization plan and message comin' along, Karl? |W|P|110724190503876464|W|P|Krugman again on Social Security|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com