"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.com
"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.com
"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.com
"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.com
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.com
Best Blog: Daily Kos
Best Pro Blog: Talking Points Memo
Best Writing: Hullabaloo
Best Post: "If America Were Iraq, What Would it be Like?" by Juan Cole
Best Series (tie): "The Rise of Pseudo-Fascism" by David Neiwert and "Cheers and Jeers" by Bill at Daily Kos.
Best Group Blog: MyDD
Most Humorous Blog: Jesus' General
Best Expert Blog: Informed Comment
Best Single Issue Blog (tie): TalkLeft and Grits for Breakfast
Best New Blog: Mouse Words
Most Deserving of Wider Recognition: Suburban Guerrilla
Best Commenter: Meteor Blades
"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.com
"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.com
"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.com
"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.com
"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.com
"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.com
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.com"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.com
"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.com
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.com"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.com
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.com
"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.com
"An eruption of lies from your lies volcano, Dr. Condaliezza-lies-a-lot!"|W|P|110810078335463093|W|P|Lying bitch|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"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.com
"[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.com
"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.com
"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.com
"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.com
"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.com
"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.com
"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.com
"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.com
"Next week, I will introduce the Count Every Vote Act of 2005, co-sponsored by Senator Barbara Boxer. This comprehensive election reform bill will: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.comIn 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!"
- 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 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|W|P|110797421896768345|W|P|A dramatic step|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com/BuildTheParty
"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.com
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.com"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.com
"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.com
"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.com
"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.com
"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.com
"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.com
"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.com
"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.com
"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.com
"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.com
"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.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: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."
"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.com
"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.com
"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: ---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: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."
"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.com
"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.com
"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.com
"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.com
"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.com
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.
|W|P|110749942867600028|W|P|The Democratic Social Security Plan|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com""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.com
George Lakoff would be proud.|W|P|110748127952182017|W|P|Say NO to the "Birth Tax"|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.comYEAS: 60 NAYS: 36Gonzales 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:
"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.com
"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, isLie 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.comheaded toward bankruptcy. And so we must join together to strengthen and save Social Security."
"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.com
Washington Office: 202-224-5852 Denver, CO Office: 303-455-7600Call 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.com
"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.com
"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.com
"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.com
"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.com
"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.com
"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.com
"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