Bush's Tax Cuts

If you missed President Bush's final State of the Union address this week, what was probably his most bombastic moment came when he demanded that Congress make his tax cut package, set to expire in 2010, permanent. His reasoning had much to do with its (supposed) help for the current state of the economy. However, in an article today on Newsweek.com, Daniel Gross lays that argument on its ear. It is worth a quick read.

30 January 2008

Tortured America

From David Kurtz at TPM:

This may be the most revealing bit of Michael Mukasey's testimony today: Whether waterboarding is torture, the attorney general says, requires a balancing test of the costs v. the benefits.

So there you have it. In the view of the Justice Department, there is no categorical prohibition against the torture of detainees, even under the Detainee Treatment Act.

Waterboarding has become proxy for a whole host of torture methods that traditionally would be considered torture, and so the balancing test set out by the attorney general is not limited to waterboarding.

This is not America as it should be. My government continues to bring me shame.

30 January 2008

Edit: Further information on the hearing can be found here.
.

Gov. Richardson --> Obama

I encourage my fellow citizens, especially my fellow New Mexicans, to ask Governor Bill Richardson to endorse Senator Barack Obama for President of the United States. Governor Richardson has announced that he will likely endorse a Democrat for the presidency at some point this week.

You can contact Governor Richardson via an e-mail form on the New Mexico State Government web site. A possible message might look something like this:

Governor Richardson,

Now that you have exited the race for the Democratic nomination for president, I urge you to endorse Senator Barack Obama for president. I believe that Senator Obama is not only the best hope for the Democratic Party, but also for America. Your support would go a long way in helping him carry New Mexico in both the caucus and the general election.

Thank you for your time.

29 January 2008

FISA Swing Votes

Once again, from an e-mail from Michael Kieschnick, President of CREDO from Working Assets:

The Senators listed below have been identified as swing votes on upcoming wiretapping amendments. If you have friends or family in the states below, please [contact them] and ask that they contact their senators to oppose retroactive immunity, sweeping new powers for the Bush administration, and any new legislation that violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Arizona -- John McCain, (202) 224-2235
Arkansas -- Blanche Lincoln, (202) 224-4843; Mark Pryor, (202) 224-2353
California -- Dianne Feinstein, (202) 224-3841
Colorado -- Ken Salazar, (202) 224-5852
Connecticut -- Joe Lieberman, (202) 224-4041
Delaware -- Thomas Carper, (202) 224-2441
Florida -- Bill Nelson, (202) 224-5274
Georgia -- Saxby Chambliss, (202) 224-3521
Hawaii -- Daniel Inouye, (202) 224-3934
Illinois -- Barack Obama, (202) 224-2854
Indiana -- Evan Bayh, (202) 224-5623
Louisiana -- Mary Landrieu, (202)224-5824
Maine -- Olympia Snowe, (202) 224-5344 and Susan Collins, (202) 224-2523
Maryland -- Barbara Mikulski, (202) 224-4654
Michigan -- Debbie Stabenow, (202) 224-4822
Minnesota -- Norm Coleman, (202) 224-5641
Missouri -- Claire McCaskill, (202) 224-6154
Nebraska -- Ben Nelson, (202) 224-6551
New Hampshire -- John Sununu, (202) 224-2841
New York -- Hillary Clinton, (202) 224-4451
North Carolina -- Elizabeth Dole, (202) 224-6342
Oregon -- Gordon Smith, (202) 224-3753
Pennsylvania -- Arlen Specter, (202) 224-4254
South Carolina -- Lindsey Graham, (202) 224-5972
South Dakota -- Tim Johnson, (202) 224-5842
Virginia -- John Warner, (202) 224-2023
West Virginia -- Robert Byrd, (202) 224-3954
Wisconsin -- Herb Kohl, (202) 224-5653

You can also contact these Senators via e-mail. Contact information can be found here.

29 January 2008

NM Domestic Partnership Rights - Senate Vote

In New Mexico, House Bill 9 passed in the House last week. Now, it is going to the Senate where it has narrowly failed in previous years. Passage would go a long way to giving gays and lesbians the same legal protections as marriage via so-called domestic partnership rights. I encourage all New Mexicans to contact their state senators to voice their support for the measure.

Look up your senator here. Alternatively, you can contact the Capital Hill switchboard at 505-986-4300. To see how your House member voted last week, and how your senator voted last year, follow this link.

If you want to send an e-mail, it might look something like this:

Dear Senator Doe:

I am a voter and a constituent of yours. I am writing to urge you to support the Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act. This legislation will provide basic legal protections that thousands of New Mexican families desperately need. I will be closely watching how you vote and I hope that you will vote for fair-mindedness and equality. Thank you!

John Q. Public
Albuquerque, New Mexico

Don't delay. Please make your voice heard now!

29 January 2009

Obama for President

I am endorsing Barack Obama for President of the United States. While I doubt that this act will tip the scales in his favor, I must do what I can for the good of my country. I see Senator Obama as the best hope for righting the Ship of State that President Bush has spent his entire presidency sinking.

Our government is without moral character, with no trust for its people and actively subverting the very document from which it gains its authority. We are seen as a pariah by the world at large. We are entangled in a meaningless, damaging war, while our real enemies move without fear out of our now-limited reach. We are on the brink of near-term economic ruin due to the lack of oversight by our government and its outright advocacy of a culture of greed. We are broken as a people and the government that is supposed to serve us is more broken still. Only a radical rethinking of our government will save us. Only a radically new vision of leadership will inspire Americans as individuals to do their part to reclaim America's position as a great nation, one worthy of respect. Among those running for president, only Barack Obama can be that leader.

Too many of our leaders believe that because it can be done, it must be right. Obama believes that because it is right, it must be done. Only through doing that which is right can America be saved from itself. And make no mistake, no matter what foes lie beyond our borders, we are our own worst enemy.

I urge you to support Barack Obama in any way that you are able. Make sure that you vote in the primaries. Donate to his campaign. Volunteer for rallies and other grassroots work. You can visit his web site to find out how you can contribute to his victory, to our victory.

Obama for President!

29 January 2008

Hillary Rules Redux

In my last post, I detailed how Hillary Clinton is making a despicable, against-the-rules play for the Democratic delegates of both Michigan and Florida. Josh Marshall of TPM has posted two pieces on the issue. They are worth a look.

Article One.
Article Two.

She's looking an awfully lot like George Bush stealing the 2000 election as she tries to win the Democratic nomination. Could there be a worse indictment?

26 January 2008

Hillary: Change the Rules!

Hillary Clinton is trying to change the rules set down by the Democratic National Committee governing the primary process. As you might expect, she's trying to change them in her favor. It is a shameless and shameful power grab. From Eric Kleefeld at TPM Election Central:

Hillary Clinton has now issued a statement about the DNC's action in stripping Michigan and Florida of their delegates due to their rogue primaries. Hillary has called for the delegates from both states to be fully seated.

On a campaign conference call with reporters, one Clinton adviser said that the candidate is really just listening to the voters of those states, and wants them to be heard. "I think that what the senator said is that she's hearing from a lot of people that they'd like to have their voices heard." He then added that he would like to hear from the other candidates where they stand on the issue.

A cynic would note that Hillary was the only major candidate whose name was on the ballot in Michigan, running against "uncommitted," and that she is also favored to win Florida after none of the candidates campaigned in the state.

So what would the actual effect of the Michigan/Florida delegates be? If the nomination is a settled question regardless, then it really doesn't matter, and either Hillary or Obama would ultimately have them seated. But if we were looking at a brokered convention, you'd see the Hillary camp fighting for a floor vote to seat those delegates, and use the issue as a public relations weapon — much like how the brokered conventions of old would have floor fights over the seating of disputed delegations.

25 January 2008

NFL's Best Ever?

There is a lot of relatively meaningless discussion going on about whether or not this years New England Patriots are the best NFL team ever. I am actually of the opinion that they are probably not, both in relative and actual terms. That said, on any given day, they could beat any time in history.

It is unfair to look at today's teams in actual terms versus earlier teams. Modern teams are much bigger and much better conditioned. The cut-off line that I've used in my head is about 1995 for the modern era. Thus, it is realistic to compare today's teams to a team that played in 1995 or thereafter. Comparing today's teams to those that played prior to that year can only be done in relative terms (e.g. compared to how those teams stacked up against the competition of their time).

Looking at it in relative terms, the teams from prior to 1995 that were the strongest -- in my humble opinion -- were the 1985 Bears, the 1972 Dolphins, and the 1978 Steelers. The strongest team in actual terms post-1995 was the Broncos of 1998. Any of these teams could play with this years Patriots -- in relative or actual terms as appropriate -- and be expected to win. This is not to say that these Patriots would not be justified in their head-to-head victories as well.

This has been a fun season to watch the Patriots. They are undeniably awesome. With my wife and so many friends being from New England, I'll be rooting for them in the Super Bowl.

Steve Greenberg of the Sporting News has an article today on this same topic. He outlines much the same argument that I have, and while including all of the teams that I've mentioned, his undoubtedly greater knowledge expands the list. I'm not sure where Greenberg would draw the line for the modern era, but I'd be interested to find out.

Now, if only the country put this much energy into health care, government accountability, and choosing its leaders...

25 January 2008

Failing Up

One can really only fail upward in the Bush White House. From the AP:

Former World Bank chief Paul Wolfowitz will head a high-level advisory panel on arms control and disarmament, the State Department said Thursday.

The move by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice marks a return to government for Wolfowitz, a conservative with close ties to the White House. As deputy defense secretary under President Bush, he was a major architect of the Iraq war.

Wolfowitz was replaced as World Bank chief last June after a stormy two-year tenure. His leadership was undermined by a furor over a hefty compensation package he arranged in 2005 for a bank employee who was also his girlfriend.

I have shoes smarter than Wolfowitz. /sigh

24 January 2008

Final FISA Redux?

Once again from an e-mail from Michael Kieschnick of CREDO from Working Assets:

Yesterday we wrote you and asked you to contact the three Senators currently running for President so they could return to Washington and defend our rights to privacy and the rule of law in the debate over wiretapping.

We've just learned that Senate leaders are now rushing to pass bad legislation -- legislation that gives retroactive immunity to telecom companies that helped the Bush Administration break the law and spy illegally on Americans. Will you contact your senators today and urge them to stop this legislation immediately?

Tell your senators to uphold their oath of office: no retroactive immunity and no warrantless wiretapping.

CREDO members have already sent over 68,000 emails to Senators Clinton, McCain, and Obama this week, asking them to say no to retroactive immunity and any laws that make it easier for the government to invade your privacy.

But now the fight is moving to the Senate floor. Bush and his allies have made it crystal clear that they will allow legislation designed to allow surveillance of terrorists to die unless that bill protects AT&T and Verizon. We need every senator possible to stand up against the Bush Administration and the telecom companies. Remind them once again to do their jobs, before they cravenly throw the rule of law out the window just because they're afraid of what their opponent's next attack ad will say.

This may be our last chance to stop warrantless wiretapping and retroactive immunity. Please take action today.

The big telecom companies are giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to Senate reelection campaign coffers. They want their get-out-of-jail-free card in the form of retroactive immunity. President Bush has indicated that he will refuse to sign a FISA law that does not include amnesty for AT&T and Verizon, making it clear that he cares more about protecting his cronies from prosecution than securing Americans against the threat of terrorism.

Click here to send a message to your senators today.

Now is the time for us to make our voices heard in the halls of the Senate. Please take a few minutes to contact your senators today.

Thank you for working to halt the big telecom companies' assault on our Constitution.

Michael Kieschnick, President and Co-Founder
CREDO Mobile / Working Assets

You can follow through on this call-for-action via a web form found here.

24 January 2008

The Wisdom of Adlai Stevenson

Today, Jonathan Alter noted an exchange between the late Adlai Stevenson and one of his supporters in the 1950s. It was too funny and too spot-on not to repeat here.

The last major presidential candidate from Illinois, Adlai Stevenson, was approached by a voter in the 1950s. "Governor, you have the vote of every thinking American," she said. "That's nice," Stevenson replied. "But I need a majority."

24 January 2007

Like the Right

Hillary Clinton has begun waging a campaign against Barack Obama that embraces the "politics of destruction." This technique has become a hallmark of Republican campaigns in the modern era and it is often effective (see Bush I and Bush II). That said, it is not America at its best -- to say the least -- and perhaps more importantly here, it hurts the Democratic party and its chances to recapture the White House later this year. Jonathan Alter at Newsweek.com has a good article discussing this tactical choice of the Clinton campaign.

The above issue is very much tied into my increasing displeasure with Bill Clinton. He's acting as both hatchet man and spoiled child. The man is completely incapable of keeping his mouth shut. Still, if he's going to flap his gums, one would hope that his discourse would be more in line with his position. I have no problem with a husband supporting his wife in this campaign. He should be saying all of the nice things that he can about Hillary in an effort to get her elected. What he should not be doing is attacking her Democratic rivals. Besides being Hillary's husband, Bill is also the head of the Democratic party. He has no business tearing down its members. It is hurting the party and it is tarnishing his image as a former president. (Here, George H.W. Bush would be a good role model for Clinton. Bush the First managed to forcefully speak out in favor of his son in the 2000 presidential campaign without ever speaking ill of his Republican rivals, even when he was given the direct opportunity to do so.)

24 January 2008

NM Domestic Partnership Rights

In New Mexico, House Bill 9 is coming up for a vote in the full chamber either today or tomorrow. Passage would go a long way to giving gays and lesbians the same legal protections as marriage via so-called domestic partnership rights. I encourage all New Mexicans to contact their state senators and representatives to voice their support for the measure.

Look up your representative and senator here. Alternatively, you can contact the Capital Hill switchboard at 505-986-4300.

If you want to send an e-mail, it might look something like this:

Dear Representative Doe:

I am a voter and a constituent of yours. I am writing to urge you to support HB9, the Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act. This legislation will provide basic legal protections that thousands of New Mexican families desperately need. I will be closely watching how you vote and I hope that you will vote for fair-mindedness and equality. Thank you!

John Q. Public
Albuquerque, New Mexico

Don't delay. Please make your voice heard now!

23 Junuary 2008

Will Candidates Defend Constitution?

From an e-mail by Will Easton of CREDO Action from Working Assets:

This week the Senate is set to resume debate on wiretapping legislation and whether or not the Bush administration and big telecom companies will be retroactively excused for previous violations of the FISA law. Three key senators (Clinton, McCain, and Obama) who have a unique voice in this debate due to their presidential candidacies are out campaigning; will they return to Washington and stand up for our civil liberties and the rule of law?

Unfortunately the Senate is considering legislation that violates the Fourth Amendment to our Constitution and includes retroactive immunity for telecom companies. Senators Dodd and Feingold, among others, have been fighting alongside us Credo Action members. Dodd has repeatedly voiced his commitment to stop retroactive immunity by any means necessary, including a filibuster.

But where are the Senators who want to be President?

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have both stated that they will support a filibuster of retroactive immunity. But last December both remained on the campaign trail while Senator Dodd forced a delay. John McCain, widely regarded as a political "maverick," has been silent on this critical issue.

If Clinton, McCain, or Obama want to be our President in 2009, they need to stand up for the rule of law now, in 2008.

Please contact Senators Clinton, McCain, and Obama today (through their presidential campaigns) and ask them to leave the campaign trail and return to Washington to protect our civil liberties and stop retroactive immunity from becoming law. After seven years of George W. Bush, we need leaders who will defend Americans' right to privacy. The opportunity for Clinton, McCain, and Obama to prove their mettle is here.

Will you call on them to stand up for the Constitution today?

We can win this fight, but we need our presidential candidates to put the Constitution ahead of politics to stop a bad wiretapping bill.

Thank you for working to build a better world.

Will Easton, Activism Manager

You can answer Mr. Easton's call for action using the form that is found here.

22 January 2008

Light versus Darkness

Political campaigns for time eternal have been ugly affairs. The earliest victims are usually truth, honor, and decency. That said, it is often the case that even given the ugly nature of American politics, stark differences between candidates in some races do emerge. One such fault line in our current presidential contest can be seen in the players of Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee.

Obama gave a speech in Atlanta last Sunday at the home church of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. It was a masterpiece, moving in text, much less when actually heard. It spoke to what should be humanity's ideals and prodded those in attendance, the African-American community at large, and the greater community of America beyond to both live up to and to fight for those ideals. In presenting his ideas, Obama did not limit himself to topics that he knew would be safe in that environment, to ideas with which his entire audience would agree. Instead, he challenged them to fight against anti-gay and anti-Semitic forces and not to harbor such ill beliefs in their own hearts.

In complete contrast to the hopeful speech of Obama came words from Mike Huckabee while campaigning in Sough Carolina. The issue was the use of the Confederate flag within the South Carolina state flag.

"You don't like people from outside the state coming in and telling you what to do with your flag," Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor, told supporters Thursday in Myrtle Beach, S.C.

"In fact, if somebody came to Arkansas and told us what to do with our flag, we'd tell 'em what to do with the pole, that's what we'd do," Huckabee said.

Indeed, the candidate made no mention of his own views on the subject, no mention of how he feels about the overt defense of both the slave-owning and segregationist South that this symbol represents. That in itself speaks volumes about this man's supposed morality. (I also liked the "pole" reference from a Southern Baptist Minister. Sheesh.) In response to Huckabee's words, the right-wing "Americans for the Preservation of American Culture" began running pro-Huckabee TV ads. To date, I know of no way in which Huckabee has distanced himself from these ads, although that would be difficult to do since they merely tout his own language. Still, the group itself is horrid, racist and xenophobic to its core, whatever we're-simply-pro-Southern protests it puts forth. The ads were purchased to run on all South Carolina radio stations that carry Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly. Ah, one really can learn a lot about a man from the company that he keeps.

22 January 2008

20 January 2008

This may be the most hopeful post of my blogging career. One year from now, George W. Bush will no longer be the President of the United States. Surely, the cries of joy and relief will be thunderous as he leaves office.

Of course, not all is wine and roses. We still have to suffer an eighth year under this foolish little man.

Buck up, America. The end is in sight.

Darwin in Action

On Christmas day last year, a young man was killed at the San Francisco zoo. He and two of his peers were attacked by a Siberian tiger, Tatiana. Early reports indicated two things: (1) that the wall surrounding the tiger enclosure may have been too short; and (2) that the young men may have been taunting Tatiana before her attack. Both suppositions have proven to be true. It was also revealed that the young men had been drinking vodka and smoking marijuana prior to leaving for the zoo. One of them was legally intoxicated.

Here is the way I see it. There were two tragedies that night. Both involved Darwin in action. The greater was that the tiger was killed. Siberian tigers are very rare and are to be treasured. Sadly, as powerful as they are, they are no match for humans with guns, radio equipment, and vehicles. The lesser of the two tragedies was that Tatiana was only able to kill one of her three taunters prior to her own demise.

Now, this will likely not be a popular viewpoint on my part, but I can live with that. If you are so stupid, so wretched as to taunt a tiger to the point where it will climb a giant wall and attack you, you deserve to die. What is more, humanity needs you out of the gene pool.

One of these "men" got what he deserved. I have no idea what California laws the other two may have broken, but I hope that there are some that will punish them severely.

17 January 2008

Muskrat Love

Uruguayan scientists have uncovered fossil evidence of a rodent that was the size of a bull, weighing in at 880-1,500 pounds! The animal had no tail and artist drawings based on the evidence believe the animal looked something like a modern hippopotamus. The closest modern relatives of such an animal are believed to be the guinea pig or the porcupine.

Scientists speculate that the animal, which lived roughly 2-4 million years ago, split its life between the land and the water. Some water-faring rodents behave in a similar fashion today.

I can't begin to tell you how much joy the story of a giant guinea pig has brought my day!

17 January 2008

Bush's E-mail Gate

There is a good article today by Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post on the criminal activity of the Bush Administration in regard to the improper deletion of e-mails both sent to, and sent from, the White House. There is strong evidence to support the idea that the e-mails were deleted to cover illegal activities by members of the executive branch and/or to save embarrassment to these same individuals. (I would stress the "and" there, btw.) Even if there was nothing to cover up, the deletion of these e-mails would still violate federal law in and of itself. It is yet another example of the Bush Administration's contempt for the law, for the nation, and for Americans themselves.

17 January 2008

Beast Master Huckabee

Last month, I noted that presidential candidate Mike Huckabee (R-AR) doing as well as he has thus far in the race has caused some alarm within the GOP. Largely, this is due to his radically-conservative views on religion, mixed with economic views that don't jibe too well with much of the rest of the party. In other words, they think he will fragment the party and that he is unelectable. Normally, I would be cheering for anyone who could do such harm to the GOP. This guy, however, is so reprehensible that I just can't sit on the sidelines and watch the carnage he wreaks silently.

One of his most vile views has been equating homosexuality with bestiality, something he's alluded to in the past. Now, he's no longer alluding, he's drawing outright parallels.

QUESTIONER: Is it your goal to bring the Constitution into strict conformity with the Bible? Some people would consider that a kind of dangerous undertaking, particularly given the variety of biblical interpretations.

HUCKABEE: Well, I don’t think that’s a radical view to say we’re going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we’re going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal. Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again. I think the radical position is to make a change in what’s been historic.

This quote came within the larger discussion of Huckabee's belief that "the Constitution should be subjected to Biblical standards." This guy is so scary and his views are so antithetical to the bedrock of American political theory that its shocking to think that anyone -- anyone! -- would be so foolish as to buy the snake oil that he's selling. If you support him, shame on you. If you don't actively oppose him, get on board.

17 January 2008

Huckabee & Aids

The HRC released a letter from its president, Joe Solmonese, today regarding presidential candidate Mike Huckabee (R-AR). It reads in part:

Last month, Republican presidential candidate Gov. Mike Huckabee stood by his absurd 1992 comments that AIDS patients should have been "isolated" (it was common knowledge in 1992 that AIDS couldn't be spread by casual contact).

After a public outcry erupted, he agreed to meet with the mother of Ryan White, who died of AIDS in 1990. Now, more than a MONTH later, Huckabee is blatantly ignoring Ryan's mother, along with HRC and The AIDS Institute.

If we back down, he gets off scot-free. Make sure Huckabee knows Americans won't accept empty promises - tell him to meet with Ryan's mother before Feb. 5th, the most important day of the presidential primary season.

You can follow his call-for-action via an HRC on-line form here.

16 January 2008

Obama's Jewish Defense

Yesterday, I blogged about a smear campaign against presidential candidate Barack Obama that some believe is coming from the political right of the American Jewish community. Today, TPM Election Central has a piece on Jewish leaders who are rallying around Obama, condemning the campaign of lies against him. You can see the piece, as well as read the open letter from these Jewish leaders, here. Kudos to them for their actions!

16 January 2007

Torture Tape Replay

Today's Washington Post has a good article detailing the events surrounding both the creation and the destruction of the CIA torture tapes currently at the heart of a criminal and political firestorm. TPMmuckraker has a good summary of the article with some "outside" analysis as well.

16 January 2008

Obama Switftboating?

There has been a fair amount of coverage lately within the political world regarding the spreading of the idea that presidential candidate Barack Obama is, if not outright anti-Semitic, then at least a danger to Jews. (Some have even tagged Obama as being a Muslim or a "half-Muslim." What the hell is a "half-Muslim" anyway?) The basis for these claims is that the daughter -- let me repeat that, the daughter! -- of the pastor of the church that Obama attends in Chicago chose to present an award to Louis Farrakhan. (The daughter is the publisher of a magazine that is linked to the church, but other than the existence of the church itself, there is no known link between the daughter and Obama.) One would think that anyone without a very sharp political ax to grind would see through such a flimsy connection with no trouble, but therein lies the rub. These whispers will hurt Barack Obama within the Jewish communities around the nation, especially in the larger populations of New York and California. These words will take hold with the far right of the American Jewish population, a population that pretty uniformly supports either Clinton or Giuliani due to their staunch pro-Israel positions. What is worse for Obama from a political angle is that some moderate Jews will also believe the allegations or at least keep them in the back of their minds as they form their opinions about the candidates in the days leading up to Super Tuesday. They are now more likely to do so because the allegations, which heretofore had been only whispered, have now been shouted from the highest tower in the form of a Richard Cohen op-ed in the Washington Post. (That it comes from Cohen should pretty much tell you all that you need to know.)

From where did this idea about Obama come? Is he being swiftboated by another presidential candidate? Some may believe that, but M.J. Rosenberg over at TPM Cafe lays out a pretty good argument that the idea comes from the politically far-right of the Jewish community itself. Whether you have previously read the Cohen piece or have heard of this unfolding story elsewhere -- or even if you are learning of it here for the first time now -- I recommend Rosenberg's article for a fresh perspective and a little sanity.

15 January 2008

Update 1: After thinking about it a bit more, I'd like to add a quote from the Rosenberg piece linked above regarding Cohen himself. It tells you something about Cohen, but also has something interesting to say generally about the Obama candidacy as well.

Richard Cohen was once a liberal. He often invokes civil rights activists Mickey Schwerner and Andy Goodman (who were murdered in Mississippi along with their African-American friend, James Chaney in 1964).

Does Cohen not understand that these two Jewish boys died in pursuit of a dream that Barack Obama embodies? Does he think Goodman and Schwerner would want the first viable black candidate for President in our history to be smeared because of something his minister did? Would they want him libeled because he is not a hawk when it comes to West Bank settlements?

The answers are obvious. Cohen should be ashamed. But, rest assured, none of the people involved in the race-baiting of Barack Obama are capable of it.

Update 2: I thought that I'd add a link to another relevant article on this subject. This article references still other articles on the subject.

Clinton & Early Iraq

One of the big questions regarding the 2008 campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination has been how Hillary Clinton will handle questions regarding her role in helping to authorize the war in Iraq. My opinion has always been that she should simply have said that it was a mistake, that she's learned from it, and that it will serve to motivate her all the more to find a workable solution once she's the president. She didn't take that tact, never using the "mistake" language. Most pundits believe that she didn't take this route because she feared looking weak, perhaps playing into the stereotypes of women generally, something that seems laughable today when Clinton is seen as tough as nails by pretty much all demographics.

How Clinton originally proceeded on this issue was to say that if she knew then what she knows now, she would not have voted as she did. This is a viable answer politically if you believe that the White House could fully mislead Senators as easily as it seemingly did the American public. My feeling is that every Member of Congress who voted to enable the war is at fault for it. They, including Clinton, could have done a better job to find out exactly what was up and if any questions remained, they should have voted against authorization. They did what was politically expedient, nothing more.

What makes that original defense of her conduct even more suspect is Clinton's new line on the issue. Yesterday on NBC's Meet the Press, Clinton indicated that she hadn't really voted to authorize the war. What she'd done was to further the cause to force Saddam Hussein to comply with weapons inspections resolutions.

In interviews and at a recent campaign event, they have said that Mr. Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, helped draft the resolution, which they said was proof that the measure was more about urging Saddam Hussein to comply with weapons inspections, instead of authorizing combat.

Mrs. Clinton repeated the claim Sunday during an interview on “Meet the Press,” saying “Chuck Hagel, who helped to draft the resolution, said it was not a vote for war.”

On its face, this seems to support her earlier statement that she was mislead and that currently-known facts would cause her to vote differently today. However, the comments about Hagel give me pause.

It was Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) who crafted the original draft the bill to authorize the use of force against Iraq. Hagel's original bill, unlike the bill that finally passed, authorized force only to secure the destruction of Iraq’s unconventional weapons, not to enforce “all relevant” United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. This was a much more limited and narrow authorization than the one that ultimately passed, a bill that gave the United States the "authority" to uphold all UN resolutions in the matter of Iraq. This broader bill that ultimately passed, with Clinton's vote, was actually crafted by the White House, not Hagel.

Clinton would have obviously known that the language originally sought by Hagel was nothing like that which ultimately found its way into the authorizing legislation. It seems to me that she's trying to twist the facts of history and I'm not sure why. Her old line was working politically. Now, she has something on which to be called out. Indeed, when called upon to answer for Clinton's seeming implication that it was Hagel who had crafted the ultimate legislation, her campaign had this to say.

Phil Singer, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, said Sunday that the statements by the senator and Mr. Clinton accurately reflected the role that Mr. Hagel played in the overall negotiations, even if it was not his bill that Congress voted on.

“Senator Hagel not only played a key role in drafting the 2002 authorization,” Mr. Singer said, “but has spoken about those efforts at length.”

The "funny" part about this debate is its semantics. Even if it had been the narrower version put forward by Hagel that had ultimately been used by Bush to invade Iraq, anyone voting for it would be just as culpable as they now are under the historical record as it played out. Bush would most certainly have done exactly what he did regardless of the language. Be this as it may, it does not excuse Clinton's current actions.

14 January 2008

"Bradley Effect" Real in NH?

Some of you may be aware of the debate still raging as to why Barack Obama went into the NH primary with up to an 11 point lead in the polls and Hillary Clinton emerged with a 3 point victory. Some contend that it is the result of the so-called "Bradley Effect."

In the 1982 California gubernatorial election, Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, an African-American, enjoyed a comfortable lead in the polls against his white Republican opponent George Deukmejian going into the election--but Deukmejian won. It turned out that a large number of white voters had either lied to the pollsters about their willingness to back Bradley, or had changed their mind on polling day and decided to vote for Deukmejian. [Judis, The New Republic]

Many pundits, including Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post and Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic believe that the Bradley Effect may very well be the root of the voting surprise. Others, however, are not so sure.

John B. Judis of The New Republic does not believe that this particular form of racial bias was at play in New Hampshire. While I hope that he is correct on moral grounds, he lays out a logical hypothesis for his argument on intellectual grounds. His analysis of various polls as they breakdown into educational and economic levels provides pieces of the puzzle that others relying on less precise methodology have been missing. Right or wrong, this piece is worth a look.

12 January 2008

Civil Rights Commission Follow-Up

I noted in my last post how the Bush Administration is illegally trying to pack Republicans onto the Civil Rights Commission, a panel that is supposed to be split evenly politically. New details have emerged that bolster this claim.

The packing scheme relies on the President appointing Republicans to the panel, having them switch their party affiliation to independent, thus allowing the President to then appoint other Republicans to the board. This has lead to a 5-2 majority for the President's picks, who -- whatever their registration may be -- are most certainly Republicans and in the President's pocket. An eighth member remains to be selected.

TPM posted another entry on this matter by Paul Kiel.

The packing scheme relies on Republican commissioners changing their party affiliation to "Independent" after they've been appointed, thus creating room for more Republicans to be appointed (there can be no more than four commissioners at any one time from a single party).

The Republicans who've switched their affiliation, of course, have denied changing them just to create more room for other conservatives. Abigail Thernstrom was no different, telling the Boston Globe's Charlie Savage that she'd just decided that she'd be "most comfortable" as an independent.

But her comfortability level appears to have abruptly changed. In December, the president reappointed her to the commission, but this time as a Republican, after one of the four Republican nominees left. The move also allowed her to become the commission's vice chairman. (Update/Correction: Bush actually promoted Thernstrom to be vice chair in 2004 -- ironically, six weeks after her first party registration change.)

So to retrace her steps: she was first nominated as a Republican, then registered as an independent, then was re-nominated as an Republican. With that move, the commission's conservative majority drops to five to two -- it's not clear yet who the eighth nominee will be, or what party he or she will represent. But not to worry: the committee can move forward on business with a simply majority, so the commission's direction shouldn't change that much.

10 January 2008

Civil Rights Stacking Scheme

Paul Kiel over at TPM posted an article titled Report: DoJ Wrong to Bless Admin Civil Rights Panel Stacking Scheme. It sums up so perfectly exactly what is wrong with the Bush Administration specifically, and the Republican party generally, that I'm going to quote the whole thing here.

Back in November, The Boston Globe's Charlie Savage reported on how the Bush administration had stacked the U.S. Civil Rights Commission with Republicans -- two GOP commissioners had switched their registration to independents after being appointed, clearing the way for the administration to appoint two more Republicans. The scheme was entirely legal, the administration said, and the Justice Department, in a memo from the Office of Legal Counsel, had said so. But now a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has found the OLC memo "problematic" and says that if someone were to challenge the arrangement in court, the administration would probably lose.

You can read the report, which was prepared at the request of counsels on the Senate Judiciary Committee staff, here.

The commission was created by the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and is supposed to serve as a watchdog for discrimination. But there hasn't been much of that during this administration. Savage reported that the coup shifted "the commission's emphasis from investigating claims of civil rights violations to questioning programs designed to offset the historic effects of discrimination."

Here's how the scheme works. The commission has eight members. By law, no more than four of them can be from any one party -- usually meaning that there are four Dems and four GOPers. But since two of the commissioners changed their party affiliation to independents after they were appointed, the commission now has only two Dems, two "independents," and four Republicans.

The whole thing unfolded in December of 2004. After two of the Republican commissioners re-registered as independents, Daniel Levin, then head of the Office of Legal Counsel, signed a memo finding that what really mattered for the political balance of the commission was "the party affiliation of the other members at the time the new member is appointed." So it was a-ok if the president tapped two more Republicans, even if they were joining four others who were Republicans at the time they were appointed. That was ancient history. Right after the memo was issued, Bush appointed the two Republicans, creating a 6-2 GOP balance.

The CRS report, prepared by a legal specialist, finds that the OLC memo ignored a whole lot to get that conclusion. Perhaps most importantly, the report points out that the law governing the commission had been changed in 1983 when President Ronald Reagan tried to stack the commission with his own appointees. The law was specifically tailored to prevent such scheming. But Bush found a way anyway. And so the report concludes: "it is likely that a reviewing court would find the OLC opinion unpersuasive and the recent appointments violative of the political balance requirements of the statute."

Update: We've add the original OLC memo to our document collection.

8 January 2008

Personal Credit Protection

With identity theft such a large issue today, I've developed an interest in the protection of personal credit and other information. I've found an article at MSNBC that gives an overview of a new service offered by the three credit agencies, one that allows individuals to "lock out" their credit profiles such that no one -- thieves included -- can use their information for nefarious purposes. This service offers almost fool-proof protection for your identity and credit. The bad news, it will probably cost you money to start and each time that you use the service. Also, since it locks out everyone, even those you want to be able to see your credit reports -- say mortgage companies or automobile dealers -- will be in the dark too unless you take additional steps. It sounds more complicated here than it really is and, if you've ever read the horror stories surrounding the repair of personal credit or identity theft, you'll think it is a small price to pay in terms of both time and money. Details for the three agencies can be found on the web sites for Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion. Note that the experts suggest that you take advantage of the annually-available free credit reports available by law to all US citizens. Info on this service can be found here.

One more thing to note, although it is only tangentially related. There is now a free service offered by the three credit monitoring agencies that allows you to opt-out of those annoying junk mail credit card offers, insurance offers, and other similar credit-necessary offers. To learn more about this service, see this link.

8 January 2008

Lott: Cash Over Country

It looks like the speculation was correct. Former Mississippi Republican Senator Trent Lott did leave the Senate to cash in on a loop-hole in the Senator-turned-lobbyist laws. It appears he's joining another former Senator, John Breaux (D-La.), in opening up a new lobbying firm. These two schmucks deserve each other.

8 January 2008

January Impeachment Reminder

Last August, I called for the impeachment of both President Bush and Vice President Cheney. At that time, I asked you to join me in writing letters to several members of the House of Representatives. I noted that I would continue to send such letters until such time as my call was heeded or these men left office. I have made good on my claim by again sending my letters. This is simply a reminder in the hope that you will do the same. For information on the entire matter, as well as sample letters and recipient contact information, see my original blog post here.

8 January 2008