Bailout Is Unsavory, But Doing Nothing Is Worse

There's plenty of blame to go around now, and yours truly is going to be among the first to point a finger. Back in 1984, I had a political opinion column for a short time (until we got a Republican owner) for a small-town daily paper. I was forecasting 24 years ago that the trend toward deregulation was a recipe for disaster.

OK, I told you so. Now we've got an economic train wreck, though, and blame should be sorted out later. Let's clean up the damage first.

Today the U.S. House defeated the proposed $700 billion financial markets bailout, 228-205. To set one piece of the record straight, the opposition was about two-thirds of House Republicans and about 40 percent of House Democrats. Call me distrustful, but I suspect that the House Republican opposition had less to do with small investors and borrowers on Main Street and more to do with big campaign contributors on Wall Street.

Onward.

I don't enjoy seeing the latter bailed out any more than anyone else with a populist streak. But it's times like these when Americans should see clearly what it means to be a "community." Rich or poor, or in between, we sink or swim together when it comes to national survival. Irresponsible wealth is mostly to blame for this. But as one of those small investors and borrowers on Main Street, I can tell you that my future, and that of others like me, will be the likely price of inaction.

There will be no way for lawmakers to work out an ideal solution for this. But this bill sounded somewhat reasonable, based on general descriptions available since yesterday.

Congress returns to session Thursday. If there was ever a time to call and e-mail your congressperson, this is it, and in favor of action, not inaction. These louts have pensions and health care for life -- they don't have to worry about where their food and medicine are coming from. Let's get them back in Washington and at the table, to forge an acceptable compromise.

There's more: "Bailout Is Unsavory, But Doing Nothing Is Worse" >>

While You're Not Looking, Bush is Grabbing More Power

While you're distracted - either laughing hysterically at Caribou Barbie and Droopy Diapers McShame, or frantically stuffing all your cash into a mattress - Smirky/Darth is pushing through Congress their biggest dictatorial power grab yet.

Forget the Patriot Act - the real stealth legislation has always been AUMF, and the proposed "reauthorization" is a four-alarm bitch.

Seven years ago Thursday, Congress passed a statute in response to the horrible attacks of 9/11, inflicted on our nation the week before. That law became the basis for sweeping assertions of government power, including warrantless wiretapping, detentions in the continental United States and at Guantanamo Bay, targeted assassinations, extraordinary renditions, and coercive interrogations. Now, in the few days it has left, the Bush administration wants to expand this law. That would be a mistake.

SNIP

(More after the jump.)

Although you would not know it from comparing the public responses to these two laws, the Bush administration has depended on the AUMF, not the Patriot Act, to authorize its boldest practices. Now, President Bush and his supporters in Congress are seeking a new AUMF because even conservative judges on the federal courts have trimmed the exaggerated readings that the administration has given the 2001 law.

SNIP

But reaffirming or expanding the AUMF would pose a number of dangers. The AUMF broadly states that the president may use "all necessary and appropriate force" to prevent future terrorist attacks. That breadth of language led the administration to claim the AUMF authorized a vast range of practices, such as warrantless wiretapping, that Congress never had any inkling of when it passed the law. Only some of those programs have come to light; we know little about what else lurks under the auspices of the AUMF.

The AUMF also has no time limit. The consequences are revealed in the administration's claims that it can detain an individual indefinitely in the war on terror, even after he has completely served the sentence imposed on him by a jury in a military tribunal. A law giving the president perpetual war powers is an anomaly in our constitutional system. Moreover, the AUMF gives Congress no ongoing oversight role in the war on terror. It does not mandate that the administration report to Congress on what it has done.

The AUMF has avoided political scrutiny because nobody, including members of Congress, knows what it allegedly authorizes. In many cases, including its warrantless surveillance program, the administration has never publicly acknowledged the policies it bases on the AUMF.

The new legislation before Congress would reaffirm "that the United States is in an armed conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces and that those entities continue to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens, both domestically and abroad." In addition, the new bill would explicitly confer broad and novel preventive-detention authority on the president. It also "reaffirms" that "the President is authorized to detain enemy combatants in connection with the continuing armed conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces, regardless of the place of capture, until the termination of hostilities."

SNIP

The phrasing of the new legislation has several aims. First, "reaffirm" acts as if the president already had this authority for detentions that are now being challenged in court, when in fact he didn't. Second, the language about "continuing armed conflict" and "associated forces" expands the scope of the original AUMF—those who attacked us on 9/11—to any number of interlinked groups around the world. Third, "regardless of the place of capture" would give the president authority to detain people right here in the United States, a power that has been hotly contested in the court cases of Jose Padilla and Ali al-Marri. And, fourth, "until the termination of hostilities" would provide for indefinite detention, purportedly preventing courts from imposing any sort of time limits.

Seven years ago, the AUMF made sense as an immediate response to 9/11. But now it can no longer be the legal foundation for the war on terror. Rather than doubling down by expanding the law, Congress should work with the next administration to lay out a clear statutory framework for what powers the president has, who exactly we are engaged in armed conflict with, and how long these powers may be used. Two must-haves: a sunset provision and detailed reporting requirements so that Congress knows what the president is doing in implementing the law. In fact, the Patriot Act just might serve as a pretty good model.

Read the whole thing.

Cross-posted at They Gave Us A Republic ....

There's more: "While You're Not Looking, Bush is Grabbing More Power" >>

Who's Afraid of the Fourth Amendment?

The determination of Democrats in Congress to hand dictatorial powers to Smirky-Darth and amnesty to lawbreaking telecoms who spied on innocent Americans is far more complicated that it appears, as Glenn Greenwald makes clear.

But in addition to cowardice, corruption, political calculation, plain stupidity and old-fashioned bribery and blackmail, the FISA debate was for a moment or two distinguished by the rarest kind of passionate rhetoric in defense of American Democracy and the Constitution.

Chris Dodd went to the Senate floor last night to speak against the FISA bill and delivered one of the most compelling and inspired speeches by a prominent politician that I've heard in quite some time. He tied the core corruption of the FISA bill's telecom amnesty and warranltess eavesdropping provisions into the whole litany of the Bush administration's lawless and destructive behavior over the last seven years -- from torture and rendition to the abuse of secrecy instruments and Guantanamo mock trials -- with a focus on the way in which telecom amnesty further demolishes the rule of law among our political class.

That speech signals that the small minority in the Senate devoted to stopping this bill have made this a priority. Small, vocal, passionate minorities in the Senate -- backed up by vocal, passionate and engaged citizens -- can do much to prevent a bill's quick and painless passage. Dodd's speech can be seen and/or read here.

As salon commenter Wabanatta put it:

"Damn, a speech like that reminds me of when actual patriots roamed the halls of congress."

Cross-posted at Blue in the Bluegrass.

There's more: "Who's Afraid of the Fourth Amendment?" >>

Time To Stop Small-Time Legal Bribery Of Doctors

For years, it hasn't been such an uncommon sight to keep a doctor appointment in the early afternoon and see leftover pizza, or Chinese takeout, or such, around the joint. Then, a pharmaceutical salesperson emerges from the back, a walking drugstore with a big valise, after making a "sale." This person has apparently treated everybody in the clinic to lunch. (And then, written it off on the taxes as a business expense.) There are free drug samples galore, and lots of Cialis pens and coffee mugs; but it's understood that prescriptions will be written along with distribution of those samples.

I've witnessed this firsthand, and so has my wife. It's under $100 worth of perks, so it's currently accepted practice (pardon my choice of words). Not every doctor accepts these small perks, but they are legal. And, this kind of unethical coziness between the medical profession and drug companies is one facet, among many, of the U.S. health-care debacle.

The Senate has a bill, the Physician Payment Sunshine Act (S. 2029), currently in the Finance Committee. It would, according to The Associated Press: "...create a database disclosing the names and addresses of doctors who receive gifts or payments. It would also include pharmaceutical company names and the value of the gift or payment."

More specific information is on WashingtonWatch.com. The bill would:

... amend title XI of the Social Security Act to provide for transparency in the relationship between physicians and manufacturers of drugs, devices, or medical supplies for which payment is made under Medicare, Medicaid, or SCHIP.

Sadly, this bill has been mired in committee since September, despite support from medical ethics groups. AP reported, tersely: "Drug companies oppose the act."

What are the "pro" arguments? I'll quote more from the AP story, which was not merely about doctors accepting perks. It was about doctors acting as actual shills, giving testimonials to peers for new drugs, under corporate sponsorship for damned good pay:

Pharmaceutical companies argue that doctors are an essential part of educating colleagues as new drugs are developed. ...

To summarize, their argument is: How can doctors know about new medicines, their potential side effects, their proper use, and so forth, unless they hear it from experienced peers? But, to have the symposiums sponsored by the drug companies, who are paying the doctors who are giving testimonials, seems like a pretty big ethical conflict of interest.

More from AP: PhRMA (the drug industry's lobbying arm) adopted voluntary rules in 2002 that limit the value of gifts to $100 or less and says that all forms of free entertainment, including sporting events, are inappropriate.

All very nice, but I'm offended by even seeing these reps feeding my doctor and his staff fully loaded pizza, beef broccoli and moo goo gai pan, and a lot of sales bullshit. The bill that's bogged down in the Senate committee isn't nearly strong enough. This is legal bribery, even if it's on a small scale. And I realize that any action won't have more than a tiny effect on the American health-care morass.

But on principle alone, it should be banned. And, any effect it has might work toward curbing what is clearly the chronic overmedication of the American people.

There's more: "Time To Stop Small-Time Legal Bribery Of Doctors" >>

For whom the bell polls

More Americans disapprove of Repubs (68%) in Congress than Democrats (64%), according to the USA Today/Gallup Poll (Dec. 14-16, 2007). That's not a commanding lead and I suspect it's mostly reflective of the Democratic failure to put the brakes on the Iraq War.

On the issue of Iraq, almost 70% of Americans oppose the war and want to withdraw some if not all of U.S. troops. Only 29% said to keep the same amount or send more troops. Via the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll (Dec. 6-9, 2007).

The CBS News/New York Times Poll (Dec. 5-9, 2007) gives Democrats a 15-point advantage (45%) over Repubs (30%) when asked,

Regardless of how you usually vote, do you think the Republican Party or the Democratic Party is more likely to make the right decisions about the war in Iraq?

For all the grousing we liberals do over the Democrats in Congress, the country prefers them over Repubs. The NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll (Dec. 14-17, 2007) among registered voters, asked the question,

What is your preference for the outcome of next year's congressional elections: a Congress controlled by Republicans or a Congress controlled by Democrats?

The results gave Democrats a 14 point lead (48%) over Repubs (34%). Yet, 18% remain undecided. I'm confident with Repubs backing Bush's unpopular war in Iraq and their unprecedented obstructionism, the Democratic lead will widen over time.

Looking to the presidential race, the Diageo/Hotline Poll (Dec. 10-14, 2007) among registered voters favors a Democratic candidate (46%) over a Repub (33%) with 17% undecided.

With Huckabee surging in the polls, the GOP establishment must worry. Both Hillary and Obama beat Huck as well as Romney and Giuliani in a variety of polls. Only McCain beats Hillary and Obama per the latest Faux News poll release (Dec. 18-19, 2007), which did not include John Edwards.

However, the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll (Dec. 6-9, 2007) among registered voters shows that John Edwards beats all the Repub candidates -- McCain by 8 points, Huck by 25 points, Mitt by 22 points, and Rudy by 9 points.

I would certainly like to see more current Democratic-Repub match-ups in polling that includes John Edwards instead of just Hillary and Obama.

Funny how you don't see Republicans jumping on the Edwards bandwagon like they do for Obama. Why is that?

[That's all. No more after the jump.]

There's more: "For whom the bell polls" >>

DoE will miss legislatively-mandated security deadlines

Over a year after congress told the Department of Energy to get their house in order and fortify the security measures around the nations stores of fissile materials (and over five years after Condi Rice breathlessly warned us that that we didn't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud) at least five of the eleven nuclear facilities in question will miss their deadlines - some of them by years.

The DoE has reportedly delayed compliance at some facilities with an eye to consolidating material handling to fewer sites. However, the Government Accountability Office testified in a Senate briefing that that project was also likely to run way behind schedule. Of course, there is an element of politics that comes into play. Everyone agrees that centralizing the nuclear fuel supply is a good idea, but Robert Alvarez, who served as an adviser to the Secretary of Energy in the Clinton administration explains why actually getting it done is like herding cats: “There’s a lot of pushback about moving fissile materials from a site, because then you lose a portion of your budget and prestige.”

[keep reading]

Danielle Brian, executive director for the private group The Project on Government Oversight (POGO) was prepared to hold the DoE accountable. She admitted that congress had set a tight deadline, but maintained that if the Energy Department “had taken seriously consolidating and making this an expedited effort, they wouldn’t be having these problems now.”

...Representative Edward J. Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who has taken a particular interest in nuclear security, said in a statement, “The department seems to think that the terrorist threat to its nuclear facilities is no more serious than a Halloween prank, as evidenced by its failure — more than six years after the 9/11 attacks — to do what it must to keep our stores of nuclear-weapons-grade materials secure.” Mr. Markey said the delay was unsurprising but unacceptable.

One site that will miss its deadline by years is the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, which holds a large stock of weapons-usable uranium. The laboratory plans to dilute the uranium, but that will take until 2015, the auditors found.

Two other sites that will miss their deadlines are operated by the National Nuclear Security Administration, which is responsible for weapons security. The agency was established in 1999 after a number of security breaches in the weapons complex, and in January its director was forced to resign because of other security lapses.

Now we all know that practically the entire damned country went collectively insane about 10:45 eastern on 11 September 2001, and only now is society starting to get their metaphorical meds adjusted.

But by the evening of 12 September, my husband (a former Air Force nuke guy) and I were talking about getting a handle on the fissile material that is out there - way too much for either of us to be comfortable.

A mole or two of uranium gone missing is the stuff my nightmares are made of (and with an atomic weight of 238, a mole ain't much volume, but it's a lot of mass.)

So when the Department of Energy changed it's “design basis threat” for weapons facilities, we thought that was good news. (A design basis threat is the level of attacking force a facility is prepared to defend against.) These details always, of course, remain classified, but the new protocols specified a larger, better armed and more capable commando-type group of attackers.

To underscore the preparations and their importance, Congress passed into federal statute that DoE weapons facilities must submit plans detailing the steps they would take to meet the requirements. Knowint the department's history of missed deadlines, the Congress inserted into the law the specification that all delays and missed deadlines be approved by either the Secretary of Energy or the deputy secretary. The DoE reports that they have finally managed to meet the standards set in the 2003 dbt protocol changes, but are still lagging on meeting the newer standards that were adopted in 2005, although they are working toward them.

According to declassified portions of the DoE's first report to the Congress, which took place in 2006 said that more than $420 million had been spent in an aggressive program that up-armored the vehicles security personnel used, and provided them larger caliber guns. The DoE told Congress at that time that six of eleven sites will meet the 2008 deadline, but the GAO says that one of the six, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, will fail to meet the deadline.

Kinda makes you shake your head in wonderment that we ever managed to get our act together to do the whole Manhattan Project/Race to the Bomb in the first place, doesn't it?

Then the wonderment passes, and you're left feeling pissed. One thing is for damned sure - if that hyperventilating scenario of Condi's comes true, we'll know who to blame - a feckless administration that lacks the fortitude and the political will to even take the security of the nations fissile materials seriously.

There's more: "DoE will miss legislatively-mandated security deadlines" >>

Cry Me a River, Ya Bastards

Representative Roy Blunt (R-Misery) protests heavy-handed Democratic tactics

When did the he-men of the GOP become such bitch-ass, whiny babies?

House Republicans are fuming over Democrats' decision to hold the next vote on the State Children's Health Insurance Program on Thursday -- when many Republicans will be in California as President Bush tours areas hit by wildfires.

"Five to seven members are going, all of whom would be 'no' votes, and [Democrats] know it," House Republican Whip Roy Blunt told CNN. "This is clearly designed to minimize the Republican opposition to this bill.

Yet, once again, it seems that leading GOPers are...umm...lying.

But Democratic House aides defended the scheduling of Thursday's vote. Stacey Bernards, spokesperson for House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, told CNN Democrats are affected by the fires too.

"The fires aren't partisan," she said. "We are very concerned for the victims of the fires but tomorrow's vote outcome will not be affected by Republicans and Democrats who will not be there."

What, Democrats in California? Shut up! Okay, to be completely fair, it is possible that a few members of the Republic Party™ may have had their toes stepped on since being trounced upon in November '06. I wonder where the Democrats might have learned such unfair tactics? Hmmm. Sucks the be marginalized, eh?

...there ain't no more...

There's more: "Cry Me a River, Ya Bastards" >>

My Wingnut Freakazoid Congress-Scum is Worse Than Your Wingnut Freakazoid Congress-Scum

Dear Hollywood: The above is the title of my enclosed reality-show "treatment" (that's what they call proposals on the Left Coast.)

Please send by return mail (self-addressed, stamped envelope enclosed) a six-figure check as soon as possible. You're welcome.

Episode One: Our First Contestant is six-term Republican Representative Ron Lewis, of Kentucky's Second District. Lewis is infamous for two things:

• Getting personally plucked out of rural obscurity to run for Congress by none other than the Godfather of Kentucky Republican politics, U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
• Earning a "power ranking" near the bottom of Congressional republicans in 2006, despite 10 years in office.

But don't think for a minute that Rep. Lewis is not on top of the issues that matter most to his constituents in the Second District, which is plagued by both rural and urban poverty, low education and high dropout levels, epidemics of both methamphetamine AND oxycontin abuse, high unemployment, growing crime, an agricultural economy flat on its back and no hope for alleviation of any of the former.

No, indeedy, Rep. Lewis knows exactly what the good people of the Second District need:

More mentions of god in government documents! (More after the jump.)

Oh, Hallelujah and praisethelord that Rep. Lewis was there to chastise the godless commies of the federal government for trying to take god away from an Eagle Scout!

(From the email sent today to Rep. Lewis' constituents:)

Earlier this month, Andrew Larochelle, a 17-year-old Eagle Scout from Dayton, OH, requested a flag flown over the U.S. Capitol as a gift for his grandfather. Andrew asked that the official certificate accompanying his flag read: "This flag was flown in honor of Marcel Larochelle, my grandfather, for his dedication and love of God, country and family." However, the Architect of the Capitol, who oversees flag requests, chose to remove God from the inscription, citing a recent policy to ban religious and political expressions on official certificates. Upon learning of this, I joined many of my colleagues in demanding that this policy be changed. It is an outrage that bureaucrats are able to unilaterally eliminate references to faith from public institutions. Each daily session of Congress begins with a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, affirming that we are One Nation Under God. I believe that the traditions of the U.S. House of Representatives should continue to reflect that truth.
Rep. Lewis greets Andrew Larochelle during his visit to the Capitol and to discuss changes in the Architect of the Capitol's policy on flag certificates
The acting Architect of the Capitol, Stephen Ayers, has since agreed to revise guidelines on Capitol flag certificates. Employees of the Architect of the Capitol's office raise and lower flags flown over the U.S Capitol Building during sessions of Congress to meet an estimated 100,000 requests per year. Constituents can purchase these flags at a nominal cost through their Member of Congress. I was honored to meet Andrew Larochelle and his grandfather Marcel at the U.S. Capitol Tuesday morning as they were finally presented with a flag and amended certificate that included God. The American flag is the unique symbol embodying this nation’s culture, values and history. I commend Andrew for successfully fighting to restore an important tradition that has endured in the U.S. Congress for generations.

HA! Let's see YOUR Wingnut Freakazoid Congress-scum beat THAT!

OK, in the first place, I do not believe this bullshit for a minute. I guarantee you that if anyone requested their U.S. Capitol-flown flag certificate mention god, Buddha, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or even Allah, no one would so much as blink, much less object.

In the second place, shame on them for NOT objecting. Anyone who thinks or even imagines that any mention of any deity whatsoever belongs anywhere within spitting distance of any federal, state or local government entity of any kind, shape or form should be stripped of the right to vote and made to write 1,787 times on the blackboard:

I will not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Cross-posted at BlueGrassRoots

There's more: "My Wingnut Freakazoid Congress-Scum is Worse Than Your Wingnut Freakazoid Congress-Scum" >>

Help Chris Dodd Save the Constitution

UPDATE After the Jump, UPDATE II

One - and only one - Member of Congress is at this moment standing in front of a stampeding horde of telecommunications companies, bushies and bought-off Senators determined to burn the Constitution to the ground in the name of giving the telcos amnesty for illegal spying.

Trust me on this: Go to Dodd's blog right now and add your comment supporting him. His office and campaign telephones are ringing off the hook, but so far the comment section on his blog is pretty open. Plus, it's more permanent and you can write rationally instead of screaming hysterically.

If you want the details, check out Glenn Greenwald's post on how the Senate is planning to cave completely to Smirky, the telcos and all the forces of UnConstitutional Evil.(More after the jump.)

UPDATE: To his credit, Chris Dodd has been, by far, the most vocal Democratic presidential candidate on the issues of executive power abuses and restoring our constitutional framework. Unsurprisingly, he has issued a very strong condemnation of telecom amnesty along with a vow to try to stop it:
While the President may think that it's right to offer immunity to those who break the law and violate the right to privacy of thousands of law-abiding Americans, I want to assure him it is not a value we have in common and I hope the same can be said of my fellow Democrats in the Senate.
For too long we have failed to respect the rule of law and failed to protect our fundamental civil liberties. I will do what I can to see to it that no telecommunications giant that was complicit in this Administration's assault on the Constitution is given a get-out-of-jail-free card.
The vow to "do what [he] can" to stop amnesty is interesting. Big Tent Democrat suggests he lead a filibuster to stop it (h/t Atrios), but I doubt, given Rockefeller's support, that they could get anywhere near the 40 votes necessary to sustain that. Dodd could, however, place a "hold" on any bill containing amnesty and prevent it from reaching the floor for a vote: "Senate tradition allows any senator to keep a piece of legislation from reaching the Senate floor by placing a hold on the bill." That is what Sen. Wyden did previously to prevent a vote on an anti-net-neutrality bill.
Dodd's emphasis in his campaign on constitutional issues -- along with his excellent voting record this year -- has generated significant positive feelings towards his campaign. But demonstrating real leadership on this incomparably important issue would almost certainly generate real, tangible support for his campaign in many circles.
Telecom amnesty implicates not only all of the issues raised by warrantless surveillance and the rule of law, but really calls into question the basic fairness of our entire political system, i.e, whether the wealthiest and most powerful corporations in Washington can literally buy their way out of lawbreaking. Anyone who boldly impedes what would be this bipartisan travesty -- and a "hold" on an issue of this magnitude would, in the context of Senate customs, be very bold -- is someone who will have demonstrated genuine leadership on a truly critical issue. There has been precious little of that thus far in the presidential race.
* * * * *
Amos Hochstein is the Policy Director for the Dodd Campaign. He can be reached at (202) 737-3633. It may be very helpful to have him hear from those who have appreciated Sen. Dodd's outspokenness thus far on constitutional issues to understand what Sen. Dodd's leadership on this issue here would mean. It is vital to have someone in the Senate take an emphatic stance against what would be the true atrocity of telecom amnesty (Atrios adds some insightful thoughts about the strategic rationale behind a Dodd hold).

Yeah, yeah, I'm committed to Edwards, and it's not really fair to compare him to Dodd on this one, since Dodd is right there in the Senate and Edwards is not, but I swear, if Dodd succeeds in stopping this abomination, his presidential campaign gets my Christmas Fund.

UPDATE, 2:50 p.m.: Senator Dodd has just successfully placed a hold on this disgusting piece of crap posing as legislation. Send the man some love!"

UPDATE II, 4:27 p.m.: Quote from Dodd: "It's about delivering results -- and as I've said before, the FIRST thing I will do after being sworn into office is restore the Constitution. But we shouldn't have to wait until then to prevent the further erosion of our country's most treasured document. That's why I am stopping this bill today."


Cross-posted at BlueGrassRoots.

There's more: "Help Chris Dodd Save the Constitution" >>

The Road Out of Iraq Leads Through David Vitter

The Rude Pundit gets way too much attention for his Triple-X-rated rants, and nowhere near enough for his dead-on and usually unique political insights.

On Tuesday, he revealed the possible way out for Democrats on Iraq by forcing David Vitter out of office before November.

Read the whole thing, but Rude starts from the premise that the only thing keeping Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats from telling Smirky and Darth to fuck off and die is the threat of Joe Lieberman throwing the Senate to the Republicans (Cheney tie-breaker.) So far, so conventional wisdom. But then Rude makes the leap that could save the dems' ass - and as a bonus, the nation and the planet.

(Excerpt edited from XXX to merely X-rated.)

So Senate Democrats have gotta get rid of the Lieberman factor. With one more Democratic Senator, Lieberman will no longer control which way the wind blows until 2009.

And that's where David Vitter comes back into the equation. The oughta-be-disgraced, whoremongering Republican Senator from Louisiana has been embraced back into the Republican fold, as if he's a big goddamn hero for having kept his crimes hidden until after the statute of limitations had run out on him being arrested for soliciting hookers. Of course it's the basest sexual hypocrisy that Republicans went after Larry Craig because the Idaho Senator's case involved gay fucking and because Idaho's got a Republican governor and Louisiana's got a Democrat.

But here's the deal on Vitter: Republicans only have to stand by him until the end of the year. Louisiana elects a new governor this year, in 2007, with an open primary in October and a general election, if needed, in November. And you can sure as s**t bet a Republican's gonna win post-Katrina and Rita, probably Bobby Jindal. So, in as much as the Rude Pundit does the prognosticatin', Vitter's gone in January, so that no Republican running for President has to deal with questions of Republican sexual hypocrisy (at least as relates to current scandals). And, barring any other surprises, the same Lieberman-centric Senate until 2009.

So here's the deal: Democrats have to go Rove on Vitter. They have only a few months to get him out of there, so it's time to bring out the political demons in a savage way that pussies like Bob Shrum have nightmares about. Get the prostitutes out in front of the cameras, talking to Larry King about how Vitter likes to s**t himself in diapers and then get spanked while getting wiped by big-titted sluts. Get front groups to make ads about what a sleazy motherf***er Vitter is. Get outraged Senators talking to the pumpkinhead of Tim Russert about how it's just impossible to work with a man like Vitter. Take different angles: Barbara Boxer can talk about his exploitation of women, Mark Pryor or Ken Salazar can talk about how Vitter demeans the Senate by his presence and how can they be expected to hold their vomit in while working with a man like that.

Chase that motherf***er out of town and do it for a good cause: to end the war. You get rid of Vitter, you save American lives. Surely Democrats can wallow in the mud for a little while for such a noble end.

Yeah, I know, what makes me think that this time the dems will actually show some spine.

But this time there's no downside, no risk, no way to lose. Attacking Vitter is win-win-win: acquire a real majority in the Senate, marginalize Lieberman, and grow a gigantic set of brass ones.

Hell, get Rahm Emmanuel out of the House to lead the charge - I hate him for a DLC stooge, but that Chicago boy knows how to play dirty.

C'mon, Harry: you have nothing to lose, and literally the entire world to gain.

There's more: "The Road Out of Iraq Leads Through David Vitter" >>

Statistical Gymnastics Come Under Close Scrutiny, Outed as Bullshit

Recent assertions by the U.S. military that violence in Iraq has markedly decreased in recent months has come under severe scrutiny from experts both inside and outside the government. Consensus is that that statistics offered by the military are questionable at best, as the pattern emerged that the military simply ignores negative trends. (Before anyone screams "Outliers are tossed all the time!" let me save you the humiliation of a lecture - I actually know what an outlier is. For the record, an outlier is a data point that is more than three standard deviations from the mean. You can't just call any data point you don't like an outlier and omit it to get the result you want and expect your findings to be taken seriously.)

The administration has pinned everything on the reduction of violence metric to prove that finally they have a strategy that is working! That is what Gen. David Petraeus is going to say in front of congress next week when he comes to give his aWol's report on the state of security in Iraq. He is expected to try to convince the congress that there has been a 75% decrease in sectarian attacks. (Problem there: I do not think that word actually means what they want us to believe it means.)

When others look at the full range of data, they find that the military cherry-picks the data for positive indicators and ignores the negative. "Let's just say that there are several different sources within the administration on violence, and those sources do not agree," Comptroller General David Walker told Congress on Tuesday in releasing a new Government Accountability Office report on Iraq.

Meanwhile, military officials would have us believe that the CIA, DIA and GAO are all using flawed methodologies that give an inaccurate picture.

The intelligence community has its own problems with military calculations. Intelligence analysts computing aggregate levels of violence against civilians for the NIE puzzled over how the military designated attacks as combat, sectarian or criminal, according to one senior intelligence official in Washington. "If a bullet went through the back of the head, it's sectarian," the official said. "If it went through the front, it's criminal."

"Depending on which numbers you pick," he said, "you get a different outcome." Analysts found "trend lines . . . going in different directions" compared with previous years, when numbers in different categories varied widely but trended in the same direction. "It began to look like spaghetti."

One of the troubling trends is the ommission of violence attributed to Shia militias fighting other Shia militias, which has gripped Basra and last month resulted in the assassination of two southern provincial governors.

According to a spokesman for the Baghdad headquarters of the Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I), those attacks are not included in the military's statistics. "Given a lack of capability to accurately track Shiite-on-Shiite and Sunni-on-Sunni violence, except in certain instances," the spokesman said, "we do not track this data to any significant degree."

Attacks by U.S.-allied Sunni tribesmen -- recruited to battle Iraqis allied with al-Qaeda -- are also excluded from the U.S. military's calculation of violence levels.

Here it might be beneficial to remember that the Iraq Study Group report that was released in December identified "significant underreporting of violence," noting that "a murder of an Iraqi is not necessarily counted as an attack. If we cannot determine the sources of a sectarian attack, that assault does not make it into the data base." The report concluded that "good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals."

They are bringing their wares to the Capitol next week and the hucksters, pitchmen and carnival barkers are hocking the cherry-picked data in a most full-throated manner.

I just have two words for my countrymen, especially the 535 of 'em that control the pursestrings: Caveat Emptor.

There's more: "Statistical Gymnastics Come Under Close Scrutiny, Outed as Bullshit" >>

"He Was a Victim of Circumstance, in the Wrong Place at the Wrong Time"

Chrismakwanzukkah™ may have come early (no pun intended) for those with hopes of picking up more Democratic seats in the 111th Congress, for it seems that GOP Senator Larry Craig may not resign after all.

"It's not such a foregone conclusion anymore, that the only thing he could do was resign," said Sidney Smith, Craig's spokesman in Idaho's capital.

"We're still preparing as if Senator Craig will resign Sept. 30, but the outcome of the legal case in Minnesota and the ethics investigation will have an impact on whether we're able to stay in the fight - and stay in the Senate."

It does not appear that the Craig camp meant to come out (no pun intended) publicly with these plans so early, but with all things with this bit of scandal, Craig seems to have misjudged who was on the other end of his machinations.

While Craig publicly announced his resignation at a news conference in Idaho on Saturday, CBS News correspondent Chip Reid reported that privately he was sending out a very different message.

In fact, just minutes before that press conference, he mistakenly called a wrong number and left a recorded message obtained by the newspaper Roll Call and confirmed by CBS News to be the voice of the senator.

"I'm willing to fight that. I've got quality people out there fighting in my defense and that this thing could take a new turn," he said in a call apparently intended for his lawyer.

This silly drama all started when Craig mistook who was on the other side of a public toilet's partition, and it lives on because he cannot dial a bloody phone number properly.

But, in all fairness to Craig, I hope he wins this fight, because after all he has not been found guilty of an sort of improper conduct in regards to his serving in the Senate, and truly he has only pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor, a plea he now regrets and recants. So, why not fight?

In fact, Senator Craig, I ask you please fight! Fight for and retain your Senate seat. Run for the nomination of your party in 2008 in Idaho. Rather than allow your party to abandon and throw you under the bus (then back up and run you down with said bus), let the voters of Idaho decide your fate. And eventually, make room for the new Democratic senator from Idaho, To Be Determined!

Crossposted at Welcome to the Revolution

There's more: ""He Was a Victim of Circumstance, in the Wrong Place at the Wrong Time"" >>

Falling for the Same Old Line

There are probably 57 different reasons why 16 Democratic Senators (including Jim Webb! - my heart's broken) and 41 Democratic Representatives voted to gut the Fourth Amendment and give The Usurper dictatorial powers.

But if the primary reason was that those 57 dems actually fell - AGAIN - for Rovian fear-mongering, Glenn Greenwald in Salon demolishes that excuse.

Read the whole thing, but here's a taste:

We do not need to wonder or speculate about what might happen if Democrats obstruct warrantless eavesdropping legislation and Republicans are then able to make an issue of it politically. That already happened in 2006. That was Rove's whole strategy. It failed miserably, across the board. And yet the Democratic leadership just permitted, and many Democrats supported, a wild expansion of George Bush's warrantless eavesdropping powers based on a jittery fear of this already-failed tactic, if not based on actual support for these increased eavesdropping powers.

In this post and this one Glenn also makes the point that the 57th Retreating Dems aren't as big a problem as the Democratic "leadership" in both houses, which could have put a stop to the disaster by simply rejecting Smirky's order to pass the law or else.

There's more: "Falling for the Same Old Line" >>

Takin' Names for 2008

I hereby nominate Sixth District Congressman Ben Chandler, D-KY, for the first name on the DINO Hit List to get a progressive primary opponent in 2008.

The treasonous schmuck was one of 41 "Democrats" voting to let the Usurper put the finishing touches on his American Dictatorship.

In January, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave Sophmore Chandler a seat on the powerful Appropriations Committee, as a fairly obvious incentive to get him to vote the straight and narrow on the Democratic agenda.

At first it seemed to work, too. Benny voted in line with the leadership on most of the important votes, most recently co-sponsoring a bill to impeach AG Alberto Gonzales.

But Benny's been a shill for this maladministration since his special election in 2004, and now he's reverting to form.

Look, I understand the importance of not eating our young, keeping the majority, red-state politics, blah, blah, blah.

But a vote that blatantly invites Smirky to shit on the Bill of Rights? An engraved invitation to declare himself dictator-for-life? When bush's disapproval rate is poised to exceed Nixon's? When republicans are running for the exits? When a significant majority of Americans trust DEMOCRATS more than republicans on the war on terror?

What. The. Fuck?

No, scratch that. I don't really care what slimy rationalizations float in Chandler's wingnut brain.

With Democrats like Chandler (and Nick Lampson and Henry Cuellar, the ungrateful bastards), what do we need with republicans?

We - real Democrats, liberals, progressive, members of the reality-based community, bush-haters all - WE got these assholes elected. WE handed them the House and the Senate.

WE brought them into this new Democratic world, and WE can take them out of it.

Next year, people will not only be looking for a way to punish republicans hard, they'll also be looking for a way to punish Democratic Collaborators.

2008 is going to be our best chance to not just grab huge majorities in both houses of Congress, but to replace Democratic Collaborators with Real Democrats.

Check out this vote roll to find out whether your Democratic representative is a collaborator. If he or she voted yes, start recruiting a primary opponent today.

Do it now, before voting Democratic makes you an enemy combatant, Guantanamo-bound.

I am extremely relieved and proud to announce that Louisville's own John Yarmuth, D-KY voted keep the Bill of Rights and deny Smirky a crown.

UPDATE, 6:42 p.m.: Logical Negativism has the full list of DINOs in the House.

There's more: "Takin' Names for 2008" >>

House Republicans Post YouTube Video--Democrats Are You Paying Any Attention?

Remember a few weeks ago when I asked "Where Is The Democratic Video Explaining Why Reid Pulled The Defense Authorization Bill?" I followed that up with a long post entitled The Video Press Release.

Well boys and girls, look who has a brand new toy.



Posted by HouseRepublicans on August 4, 2007.

A little further research shows that Nancy Pelosi is also publishing videos on YouTube. Here is one from this afternoon.



The difference is that Speaker Pelosi is primarily posting speeches from the house floor. The House Republicans have posted a political statement.

There's more: "House Republicans Post YouTube Video--Democrats Are You Paying Any Attention?" >>

Congress More Trusted Than Bush on Iraq

For months the Bush administration and Congressional Republicans have been telling Democrats not to micromanage the Iraq war.

Rice: Congress shouldn't micromanage war
Feb. 25, 2007

The White House said it does not want Congress to micromanage U.S. commanders in Iraq. . . .
February 27, 2007

Bush said some lawmakers see a chance "to micromanage our military commanders, force a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq and spend billions on domestic projects that have nothing to do with the war on terror."
March 17, 2007

GOP Rep. Christopher Shays said Congress shouldn't try to "micromanage" the war.
March 22, 2007

Republicans said the bill is an attempt by politicians to micromanage the war. “This bill is designed to bring failure. Failure in Iraq means chaos in Iraq,” said House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio).
May 10, 2007

But a new poll shows that most Americans would rather have Congress manage the Iraq war than Bush.

Most Americans see President George W. Bush as too inflexible on the war in Iraq and prefer that the Democratic-run Congress have the final word on when to withdraw U.S. forces, a Washington Post/ABC News poll showed on Monday.

Nearly 80 percent of those polled said Bush is not willing enough to change policies over the unpopular war that has taken a huge toll on his approval ratings, the Post reported.

The poll was conducted last week, after Senate Democrats failed to advance a plan that would force Bush to withdraw U.S. combat troops from Iraq by April 2008.

More than six in 10 Americans -- 62 percent -- said Congress should have the final say on when to pull out U.S. forces, compared with 31 percent who said the decision should rest with Bush, the poll showed.

A narrow majority, 55 percent, said they supported the proposed pullout plan, which the Senate may not consider again until after its August recess.

The percentage of Americans seeing Bush as too rigid on Iraq has climbed 12 percentage points since December, the Post said.

[snip]

But on the issue of Iraq, the Post/ABC poll showed that the public stands with Congress.

Fifty-five percent said they trusted congressional Democrats on the war, compared with 32 percent who said they trusted Bush, the Post said.

The poll of 1,125 adults was conducted on July 18-21 and had a three-point margin of error.

Polls taken during July show President Bush's approval ratings ranging from 26 percent (Newsweek, July 2-3) to 33 percent (AP-Ipsos, July 9-11; ABC/Washington Post, July 18-21).

However, approval ratings for Congress remain just as low, ranging from 24 percent (AP=Ipsos, July 9-11) to 37 percent (ABC/Washington Post, July 18-21).

Yet Americans say Democrats are doing a better job in Congress than Republicans. (ABC/Washington Post, July 18-21, 46 percent approve the way Democrats in Congress are doing their job; 34 percent approve the way Republicans in Congress are doing their job).

House and Senate Democrats need to take these numbers to heart and continue to push for a change in Iraq that includes a plan to pull troops out. Such efforts need to be accompanied by prompt responses to Republican smear attacks, as Corpus Juris has noted. After more than six years it should be clear to everyone that calm, civil discourse is not part of the Republican play book.

There's more: "Congress More Trusted Than Bush on Iraq" >>

Health And Human Services Appropriations Bill Passes The House

While the Senate has been in the middle of the Iraq tempest, the House has been steadily doing the nation's business. Yesterday they passed the eighth of eleven 2008 Appropriations Bills. H.R.3043 appropriates money for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. The bill is huge. This year's appropriation is $154 billion or as WashingtonWatch grinds the numbers $5,868.73 per household.

Donny Shaw at Congress Gossip Blog reports

the bill's discretionary spending is $10.6 above what President Bush had requested and he has threatened to veto it for containing "irresponsible and excessive level of spending."

The vote was

# Ayes: 276 (Democrat: 223; Republican: 53)
# Nays: 140 (Democrat: 1; Republican: 139)
# Abstained: 15 (Democrat: 6; Republican: 9)

You can follow the link to find out how your congress person voted. Sixty four percent voted in favor of the bill. That is very close to the 2/3 vote needed to override President Bush's threatened veto.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has analyzed the President's claims that the house bill's funding is irresponsible and excessive and has determined that after adjusting for inflation and population growth, the bill is actually a $4 billion dollar reduction from Republican bills passed in the years from 2002 through 2006. As you may recall, after losing in early November the Republicans stomped out of the 109th Congress unwilling to pass several routine 2007 appropriations. This year the Government has relied on continuing resolutions to pay its bills.

The CBPP has an interesting take on the President's veto threats.

The results show that after adjusting for inflation and population growth, the appropriations bills the President is likely to veto — including the Labor-HHS-Education bill — would cost less in 2008 than the corresponding bills cost, on average, during 2002-2006. . . .We also find that the appropriations bills that the President will likely sign will cost considerably more overall in 2008 than those bills averaged in 2002-2006.

In short, the President will likely sign those appropriations bills that are more costly than in the past (after adjusting for inflation and population growth). Yet he is likely to veto — purportedly on fiscal grounds — those appropriations bills, such as the Labor-HHS-Education bill, whose costs are lower than the corresponding bills he signed in the past.

I don't know how to reproduce the CBPP's table. It's worth a look. Any guesses as to which appropriations bills (which are much larger than comparable 2002-2006 bills) the President says he is likely to sign? Come on, you can guess.

There's more: "Health And Human Services Appropriations Bill Passes The House" >>

This (Political) Ball Needs a New Court

And that court should be the Supreme Court, I would imagine. Because, guess who decided that protecting her boss's ass is more important than serving the interests of the nation?

Loyal even after leaving the White House, President Bush's former political director Sara M. Taylor obeyed his instructions and declined to answer Congress' questions Wednesday about her role in the firings of federal prosecutors.

But Democrats insisted that the decision to cooperate with their subpoena - or not - is hers.

"It is apparent that this White House is contemptuous of the Congress and feels that it does not have to explain itself to anybody," Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said as he opened the hearing.

"I urge Ms. Taylor not to follow that contemptuous position and not to follow the White House down this path."

A court fight could take years, dragging on even after Bush leaves office.

Though I'd rather not wait years for a resolution, I don't think it is the worst thing that could happen. If it were to set real precedent for exactly how executive privilege could be wielded (and for once and all correct the incorrect assumption that some belabor under that said privilege creates an umbrella for all employees of the Executive), perhaps something good could be taken from this egregious administration's tenure.

There's more: "This (Political) Ball Needs a New Court" >>

Larry Flynt: Douchebag of Liberty

In all honesty, Larry Flynt is not the type of guy I want to be when I grow up. With that proviso, he is certainly a useful ally in the culture war against sanctimonious and hypocritical right wing moralists. The latest casualty of Flynt's meddling appears to be GOP Senator David Vitter of Louisiana.

Vitter's admission that he used the escort service is tied to a call from a telephone number listed in public records in his name in Washington on February 27, 2001. Until late last week, a federal judge had prohibited Palfrey from publicly releasing her phone bills, but the ban was lifted and the entire archive — which Palfrey has said would weigh in at roughly 46 pounds in paper form — has been placed on her website. Members of a team assembled by self-described pornographer Larry Flynt, publisher of Hustler, are understood to have identified Vitter's name through their own analysis of Palfrey's phone records. Flynt has a long record of exposing what he regards as "hypocrisy" on the part of politicians who tout family or religious values, while falling short in their own lives. Flynt recently placed a full page adverstisement in the Washington Post, asking, "Have you had a sexual encounter with a current member of the United States Congress or a high-ranking government official?" It went on to offer $1 million for documented evidence, and listed a toll-free number and email address.

For me, there is an extra frothy layer of icing on this schadenfreude cake, because Vitter is the hypocrite who replaced Bob Livingston in the House after he resigned owing to sleuthing by Flynt and his minions. As Blue Girl has posted, it's not the sex that is the issue for me, it is the hypocrisy. I would go so far as to say, it's the criminality. In this, I am seconded by the DC Madame herself, Debra Jean Palfrey.

And as the so-called "D.C. Madam" whose escort service Vitter says he used, Palfrey says the agency she ran was merely one-half of the alleged equation. "Why am I the only person being prosecuted?" she told TIME over the phone. "Sen. Vitter should be prosecuted [if he broke the law]" Palfrey has been battling prostitution-related charges in federal court in Washington, and became a celebrity of sorts in May when ABC's 20/20 ran a story on her service "Pamela Martin & Associates."

In his prepared statement Monday night, Vitter did not address whether he broke the law, how many times he used the escort service, when he stopped using it or whether he recommended the service to others. His office did not respond to requests for comment on those issues. But Palfrey argues that those potentially prurient details of Vitter's activity are key to her case. "If Sen. Vitter participated in any illegal behavior, illegal sex, illegal prostitution, intercourse or oral sex of any kind, you would have to wonder why he would not be prosecuted," she said. Palfrey's legal defense is that no prostitution took place because the escorts who worked for her business were issued strict written instructions not to engage in illegal sexual activity. Indeed, Randall Tobias, the senior State Dept. official who admitted using the service and then resigned, has claimed that he only received "massage." Palfrey's lawyer says Vitter will be called as a witness to testify under oath in her court case.

I must say I agree with Ms. Palfrey. I don't think Vitter has the class of even Livingston, so voluntary resignation is probably not on his agenda; but prosecution should be on the DC courts agenda. Censure, at the very least, should be on the Senate's agenda.

By the way, what's this wingnut obsession with "massage" therapy?

There's more: "Larry Flynt: Douchebag of Liberty" >>

Talk is Cheap

Playing the part of a dissenting senator can get you a few spins in the network news cycle, but until you put up, you may as well shut up (honestly, how hard is it for a GOP senator to come out against policies of a president whose popularity has fallen to 26%?).

Democratic Senator Jim Webb of Virginia is giving the GOP-Iraq doubting troika of Voinovich, Lugar & Domenici a low-cost (in terms of reputation) chance to do their putting up.

Following the three deadliest months of the war, Democrats are forcing President Bush and Iraqis to finally accept some measure of accountability for this war through the Defense Authorization bill this week. Starting off the debate, Webb will introduce an amendment to the bill that requires active-duty troops to have at least the same amount of time at home as the length of their previous tour overseas.

Why is supporting this amendment such a safe move for the troika? Because it is absolutely the least they can do both to demonstrate real support for our troops in harm's way and stick a finger in the eye of the (mis)administration which has so ill-treated our troops.

No mention of withdrawal timetables. Hell, no mention of even providing adequate body armor and properly armored vehicles for troops on patrol in dangerous forward areas. We're simply talking about a chance for returning troops to have an adequate chance to rest, recuperate and get their personal & family affairs in order before being fed back into the meatgrinder.

If these three GOP senators cannot do at least this much for our fighting men & women, then I sure as hell don't expect to see their fatuous faces on my Sunday talk shows again anytime soon.

There's more: "Talk is Cheap" >>