IMPALIN’ — Stop Sarah Palin for President in 2012

pemEven though Sarah Palin isn’t running for president, one Republican candidate is stepping into the void and asking a religious figure to pls refudiate something. After tonight’s Republican debate, America’s long national nightmare of not knowing Michele Bachmann’s thoughts on Slovakian politics will be over. And because retiring senators can’t get back at the president by ripping out the “o”s from their office keyboards and gluing shut the desk drawers, Jim Webb instead chose to vote against the American Jobs Act. This is HUFFPOST HILL for Tuesday, October 11th, 2011/em:/ppstrongJOBS BILL STRUGGLING IN SENATE/STRONG - The American Jobs Act, paid for with a tax on millionaires, is tanking harder than Slovakia’s government tonight, thanks in large part to opposition to moderate-to-conservative Democratic senators. The White House, meanwhile, spent the day tweeting about people’ll who’ll be hurt by the failure to pass this bill. The Senate does know how to pass a bill wagging its finger at China for currency manipulation, a bill the White House opposes. The House will resume its fantasy war against the environment this evening, as well as move forward on three trade deals that are billed as job creators. Yet the pacts come along with assistance for workers whose jobs will lost. But, anyway, yeah, Occupy Wall Street. What a bunch of idiots, iamirite/i?/ppStrongSEN. SHAHEEN NEARLY MISSES JOBS VOTE TO RECEIVE MEANINGLESS AWARD/STRONG - A cheap faux gold plaque affixed to a wood-plastic composite base caused a lot of trouble today. strongNew Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen nearly missed tonight’s vote on the American Jobs Act so she could receive the “New Englander of the Year” award from the New England Council. /strong The organization recognized Shaheen for her work on behalf of New England’s economy (Jeanne Shaheen invented the pink Red Sox hat???). Harry Reid held the jobs bill until Shaheen returned to Washington. [A HREF="http://huff.to/p5cumk" TARGET="_HPLINK"HuffPost's Elise Foley/A] /pbra href=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/11/huffpost-hill—jobs-bill_n_1005968.htmlRead More…/abr a href=”http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/video/”More on Video/a pa href=”http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/R3pZfg6tYcwrLptDfMSTp0qYcqA/0/da”img src=”http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/R3pZfg6tYcwrLptDfMSTp0qYcqA/0/di” border=”0″ ismap=”true”/img/abr/ a href=”http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/R3pZfg6tYcwrLptDfMSTp0qYcqA/1/da”img src=”http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/R3pZfg6tYcwrLptDfMSTp0qYcqA/1/di” border=”0″ ismap=”true”/img/a/pdiv class=”feedflare” a href=”http://feeds.huffingtonpost.com/~ff/huffingtonpost/raw_feed?a=kxasfffjtB0:GJzmX_kBX5c:yIl2AUoC8zA”img src=”http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/huffingtonpost/raw_feed?d=yIl2AUoC8zA” border=”0″/img/a a href=”http://feeds.huffingtonpost.com/~ff/huffingtonpost/raw_feed?a=kxasfffjtB0:GJzmX_kBX5c:F7zBnMyn0Lo”img src=”http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/huffingtonpost/raw_feed?i=kxasfffjtB0:GJzmX_kBX5c:F7zBnMyn0Lo” border=”0″/img/a a href=”http://feeds.huffingtonpost.com/~ff/huffingtonpost/raw_feed?a=kxasfffjtB0:GJzmX_kBX5c:V_sGLiPBpWU”img src=”http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/huffingtonpost/raw_feed?i=kxasfffjtB0:GJzmX_kBX5c:V_sGLiPBpWU” border=”0″/img/a /divimg src=”http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/huffingtonpost/raw_feed/~4/kxasfffjtB0″ height=”1″ width=”1″/

Read the rest here:
HUFFPOST HILL - Jobs Bill Sacked

To receive the Daily Kos Elections Morning Digest via email each weekday, sign up here . Senate : • MA-Sen : Let’s see if it translates into real support, but for now, NY Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand is offering a bunch of praise to Elizabeth Warren’s nascent senatorial run. “She would be an outstanding and much needed voice in the U.S. Senate” sure sounds like an endorsement to me. Meanwhile, the other Democratic Warren — Newton Mayor Setti — says he’s undaunted by Elizabeth’s quasi-entry into the race and promises that he’s “in this race for the long haul.” Meanwhile, Wicked Local Somerville reminds us that Dem Rep. Mike Capuano, who had promised to announce ” by the summer ” whether he’d run for Senate again, still hasn’t made any further public statements about his intentions. • OH-Sen, OH-16 : This story looks like it could get potentially very interesting. Businessman Benjamin Suarez has long been a big Republican donor, but now it seems his employees are getting in on the act. As Tony Cook of the Toledo Blade explains: But in the current election cycle, a large number of his employees and their wives — many of whom have never before given to federal campaigns — have contributed to two specific congressional candidates: Ohio Treasurer Josh Mandel, a Republican running for U.S. Senate, and U.S. Rep. Jim Renacci (R., Wadsworth), who represents Ohio’s 16th District. All together, 17 employees from Canton-based Suarez Corporation have contributed to one or both candidates, according to federal campaign filings. Sixteen of those employees (and six of their spouses) have given $5,000, the maximum amount allowed under federal election law. For some of the employees and their spouses, that adds up to $20,000. In all, Mr. Suarez, his employees, and their spouses gave $100,000 to Mr. Mandel’s campaign and $100,250 to Mr. Renacci’s campaign. A company spokeswoman says the firm “did not reimburse employees or provide money for the contributions,” which would be illegal… but I wouldn’t be surprised if there was more to this story. I encourage you to read the article, because Cook does a good job digging deep here. (Those of you with good memories may recall the bang-up job the Blade did on the Tom Noe scandal which helped send the Ohio GOP into a tailspin in 2005 and 2006. This one doesn’t look quite as big, but I’m glad the Blade is on it nonetheless.) • UT-Sen : I actually don’t think Sarah Palin holds a lot of influence among teabaggers anymore (if she ever truly did), so I’m not too impressed with her attempt to call the dogs off Sen. Orrin Hatch. Typically, unless it’s a big-money group that can actually back up words with deeds, these against-type endorsements (”No, really, he’s one of us!”) only seem to convince the true mouthbreathers that the endorser isn’t one of them any longer. Gubernatorial : • CA-Gov : In a move that seems like it presages a run for governor in 2014, Los Angeles’s Democratic mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa, launched an assault on California’s notorious Proposition 13, the infamous ballot measure from the late ’70s which requires a two-thirds vote in the legislature for any tax increases. The fiscal consequences of this law have been dire for the state, but no one has ever successfully taken it on. • MO-Gov : This doesn’t seem too good for Peter Kinder. David Humphreys, described as a “major GOP donor” who has given six figures to the party, is calling on Kinder to abandon his (still-not-officially-announced) gubernatorial bid — and resign as Lt. Governor. We’ll see if the drumbeat builds. House : • CA-02 : GOP Rep. Wally Herger, who seems to have been the target of some vague retirement rumors, says it his “intention to run for re-election.” (You won’t find that quote in the linked article, but it’s in the accompanying video, at about the 0:32 mark.) The piece also notes that Herger is subject to a primary challenge from local teabagger Gregory Cheadle, but with California’s move to a top-two primary, there’s pretty much no such thing as a bona fide primary anymore, except in the safest of districts. Lucky incumbents! • CA-03 : Colusa County Supervisor Kim Dolbow-Vann, a Republican, says she’ll run for the new 3rd CD. This district looks like it will be the new home of Dem Rep. John Garamendi, though it’s a bit swingier than his old 10th District seat. • CA-07, WI-07 : More ads from the House Majority PAC, this time targeting GOP Reps. Dan Lungren and Sean Duffy. You can watch the Lungren spot here . • CA-26 : David Cruz Thayne says he’s running for Congress in the new 26th, and he’s described as a “former professional tennis player.” It seems to me, though, that if you’re a tennis star of any note, you’d be likely to have a Wikipedia entry, wouldn’t you? (Thayne does not, so far as I can tell.) Anyhow, he joins Moorpark City Councilman David Pollock in the Democratic field; the GOP side is unclear, since the likeliest Republican, Rep. Elton Gallegly, still hasn’t said whether he’ll run again. • CA-44 : Rep. Janice Hahn is touting an internal from Fairbank, Maslin which shows her leading fellow Democrats Laura Richardson and Isadore Hall in a hypothetical matchup. Hahn takes 47, while Richardson (also a member of Congress) is at 24 and Hall (an Assemblyman) is at 7. In a head-to-head, Hahn is up 47-26 on Richardson and 53-17 on Hall. Note the poll had a small sample (300) and purported to talk to likely voters (quite a stretch this far out from the primary). • California : I’m pretty sure we’ve mentioned just about everyone on this list at one point or another, but the Sacramento Bee’s Torey Van Oot helpfully compiles a list of all current state legislators who are considering runs for Congress — at least a dozen so far. • IL-08 : While this Chicago Tribune piece on Joe Walsh is nominally about his driver’s license getting suspended for the second time in three years this past spring, it’s really a hook for a more detailed look about his various issues over the years, both before, during, and after his 2010 campaign for Congress. Amazingly, he refused to provide the Tribune with a proper chronological resume, but the paper nonetheless pieces together his peripatetic career — and the guy’s been all over the map. • NC-03 : Could this be the year that GOP Rep. Walter Jones’s apostasies finally cost him his seat? He’s been primaried several times in the past and survived, but maybe former New Bern Police chief Frank Palombo, who just announced a challenge, will be the one to make it happen. Actually, don’t say “challenge” — Palombo rather cleverly invokes a bit of Scott Brown here, saying: “I’m not challenging anybody for anything. A challenge implies that someone owns the seat. No one owns that seat. It belongs to the people of the 3rd district and every two years someone makes their case as why they should be there.” • NV-02 : A new survey from Republican pollster Magellan Strategies, taken on behalf of conservative dark money front group Americans for Prosperity, has GOPer Mark Amodei up 48-35 over Kate Marshall in the 2nd CD special election. Daily Kos will publish the results of a new poll (conducted by Public Policy Polling, natch) early this week. Relatedly, Amodei is on the air with two new ads attacking Marshall over matters fiscal. You can watch them here and here . • NY-09 : A rather good get for David Weprin: Republican City Councilman Peter Koo, first elected in 2009, will endorse the Democrat. Not only is this obviously a cross-party move, but Koo is also of Chinese extraction (born in Shanghai) and one of only two Asian-Americans on the Council. As Colin Campbell points out, the Asian population in Queens is “booming,” so this could be particularly helpful to Weprin. (Relatedly, Colin also has some interesting maps of “likely voters” in the 9th CD.)

Originally posted here:
Daily Kos Elections Morning Digest: 8/22

To receive the Daily Kos Elections Morning Digest via email each weekday, sign up here . Senate : • MO-Sen : So first she was against it, then she was an incomprehensible ‘maybe,’ and now she’s for it. That’s the series of ideological gymnastics that Sarah Steelman’s been through in the last half a week, concerning the flaming anvil of death that is the Ryan Plan. On Friday at a town hall event, she said that, yes, she would have voted for it, or at least that she “would love to be able to vote for” it. • MT-Sen : I don’t think Denny Rehberg ever gets thought of as a potential self-funder, even though he’s one of the House’s wealthier members. And now he’s looking a little less wealthy (and a little less self-fundy, if that ever becomes necessary): his net worth, according to the latest round of disclosures, dropped to the $1.8-$3.6 million range from the pervoius year’s $11-$52 million. That’s apparently after a reappraisal of his land holdings, partly because of fire damage to some development property (the root of his not-so-good-optics lawsuit against the Billings Fire Department). • VA-Sen : George Allen seems keenly aware of the same problem as Sarah Steelman, even though he seems to have a clearer path out of his primary: embrace the Ryan plan and stay in the hard-right’s good graces to win the primary, or pivot away from it in order to have a shot in the general election (but have a rougher primary). As seen in his latest interview, he’s also taking the same gibberish-strewn path as Steelman… his stance has been an unlikely-to-satisfy-anyone refusal to say ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ We’ll have to see how long he can keep that up. Gubernatorial : • NC-Gov : PPP’s latest look at the Republican electorate in the Tar Heel State finds that Pat McCrory, the presumptive GOP nominee to go against Dem incumbent Bev Perdue, could actually face a lot of trouble in a primary if someone credible stepped up to face him from the right. As much as they like the former Charlotte mayor (his favorables are 56/9), they’re still casting about for a more conservative alternative: 44% would like a more conservative candidate, while 34% would still vote for McCrory given the choice. • NH-Gov : He was the gubernatorial nominee back in 1996 (losing badly in the general), vanished after that, used the tea party movement to catapult himself back out of obscurity and almost won the GOP Senate primary last year, and now the mellifluously-named Ovide Lamontagne is about to come full circle. He’s calling around trying to nail down establishment support for a Gov. run next year (although he may still have to face a primary with John Stephen, the 2010 nominee). House : • AZ-08, AZ-07 : Hard-right Republican state Sen. Frank Antenori takes to Facebook to say that, in response to encouragement, he’s considering running for Congress. He doesn’t say what district he’s considering, though his state Senate seat, centered on retirement mecca Green Valley outside of Tucson, places him in the 8th (Republican-leaning, but currently held by Gabby Giffords). • CA-Carson-Compton-Gardena, CA-Long Beach Port : Democratic Rep. Laura Richardson looks like she’s going to face a primary no matter where she runs. Her house is drawn into the proposed district of “Long Beach Port” along with Rep. Linda Sanchez, but much of her turf winds up in “Carson-Compton-Gardena,” and there’s no incumbent there, making it a better bet for her to run in. However, Assembly member Isadore Hall has confirmed a run in this seat. Meanwhile, over in “Long Beach Port,” Dem state Senator Alan Lowenthal says he’s going to run, regardless of where Richardson and/or Sanchez run. With California’s stringent term limits, we may see many more legislators looking to take advance of the redistricting shake-up to get a promotion. • CA-Riverside-Moreno Valley : And over in the Inland Empire, long-time Republican Riverside County Supervisor John Tavaglione says he’s going to run for the newly created “Riverside-Moreno Valley” seat. This is a Dem-leaning and Latino-majority seat carved out of the core of Ken Calvert’s old CA-44 (Calvert will assumedly run further to the south now), although Tavaglione may hope to eke out a win here between his moderate reputation and that the district will probably have very low turnout. • IL-08 : If you were worried about a return engagement from Melissa Bean, the conservaDem former holder of the 8th who surprisingly got bounced by Joe Walsh by a few hundred votes in 2010, don’t worry: she just threw her backing behind Raja Krishnamoorthi, who seems to have quickly locked down establishment support en route to the nomination in the newly-configured and much-more-Dem-friendly 8th. • IL-13 : A fairly big Democratic name is scoping out the 13th, a downstate district that was designed to be swingy and potentially a Dem pickup (although that’s complicated by IL-15 Republican Rep. Timothy Johnson’s decision to run here, rather than in a primary against John Shimkus). Unfortunately, the name is not exactly, um, golden… ex-State Rep. Jay Hoffman is best remembered as a key Rod Blagojevich ally during that era. (He wasn’t implicated in any wrongdoing, for what that’s worth.) • FL-25 : Garcia to run in the 25th! However, it’s a totally different Democratic Garcia than we’re used to (not Joe, who ran in 2008 and 2010): it’s state Rep. Luis Garcia, who has a pretty solid resume. Before joining the state House, he was a city commissioner and the city’s first Hispanic fire chief. It remains to be seen whether he faces off against scandal-tarred GOP frosh David Rivera, or if Rivera gets taken out in a primary. • MI-11 : Well, after all that trouble, GOP state Rep. Marty Knollenberg sounds like he isn’t running for Congress (he was one of the key members of the redistricting committee, as a part of a seeming master plan to redraw a seat for himself and avenge his father’s defeat in 2008 in MI-09 by Gary Peters). Knollenberg’s Republican-friendly suburb of Troy wound up not in the new 9th, but in Thad McCotter’s 11th. He seems to be leaving himself an option, though, saying “No, [he is] not going to run against a Republican incumbent.” So, he could run, if McCotter doesn’t run again, in order to pursue a quixotic presidential bid or just to spend more time with his ego. Michigander Dana Houle weighs in with further thoughts on the possibility of McCotter vacating his seat, and on the new map in general. Meanwhile, Peters and the guy he was drawn together with, veteran Dem Sandy Levin, aren’t attacking each other yet (despite a likely primary faceoff); in fact, they put out a joint statement decrying the GOP-drawn map. DCCC head Steve Israel has apparently been encouraging Peters to leave the 9th and move over to the 11th (where McCotter hasn’t faced serious opposition before), although this swingy area gets a few points redder under the new map. (Peters and Levin aren’t baselessly crying foul about the aggressive gerrymandering of Oakland County; Greg Giroux points out that 14 of 16 municipalities in the county that went 59% or more for Obama wound up packed in the new 9th or 14th, while 21 of 23 municipalities that went for McCain were packed into the 8th or 11th.) • MT-AL : Missoula city councilor Dave Strohmaier announced that he’s running for the open seat left behind by Denny Rehberg. Strohmaier (from one of the state’s few islands of blue) will face state Rep. Franke Wilmer, and probably others, in the Democratic primary. • NV-02 : While it looks like we know who the major players will be (former state Sen. Mark Amodei just got the Republican back-room nomination, while state Treasurer Kate Marshall seems to have the Democratic establishment support), the when and how of the Nevada special election is still up in the air. SoS Ross Miller is now saying that he might use an entirely vote-by-mail election. (The courts will have to decide whether the parties get to pick, or if it goes back to a everyone-all-at-once ‘ballot royale’ format as Miller originally planned.) • NY-09 : Add two more names to the speculation pile, concerning who might get picked to replace Anthony Weiner (and when I say ‘picked,’ I mean it, as the choice is basically up to Queens Co. Dem party chair Joe Crowley). One conventional choice is Democratic Assemblyman Rory Lancman. A less conventional pick being suggested is Huma Abedin : state department official, Hillary Clinton right-hand-woman, and… um… wife to Anthony Weiner (entitled to a sort of ‘widow’s succession,’ to the extent that Weiner’s career is dead)? • VA-? : One-term VA-05 Rep. and netroots fave Tom Perriello says that he has “no plans” to mount a campaign for anything in 2012. (No mention of 2013, when a certain state AG slot becomes open…) • VA-11 : Gerry Connolly is probably gearing up for a third matchup with Keith Fimian, but an ex-Army colonel, Chris Perkins, is also in the GOP race, and, suggesting he’s at least one notch above Some Dude, claims the backing of a few current GOP Reps. Perkins, who seems to be positioning himself to Fimian’s left (more in terms of tone than actually policy, though) has his foot in the door for at least one news cycle for saying that the Ryan plan is good stuff, but just that Ryan “needs to do a better job selling it.” Grab bag : • IN-SoS : Mommmm!! Those Democrats are being mean to me! No, I’m not exaggerating… embattled Republican Secretary of State Charlie White, on the verge of losing his job after a few months in office because of his own voter fraud problems, is literally getting a lifeline from his mother. She’s suing the special prosecutors who targeted White, seeking $750K! (Not sure what exactly her standing here is…) • Dark money : The FEC is very politely going after Karl Rove-linked Super PAC American Crossroads, nicely asking them to please disclose the names of their donors. Since this seems unlikely to be honored, we’ll have to see if they move on to the second level: a sternly-worded letter. Redistricting : • South Carolina : The state House signed off on the proposed GOP congressional plan, which creates a sixth Republican seat instead of a theoretically-possible VRA seat. The plan heads back to the Senate, also GOP-controlled. The Dems’ only recourse here is a lawsuit, which is already in the works, they say, and/or intervention from the Obama DOJ. (The article also, while not providing maps, describes changes to the state legislative maps, with a number of districts shifting from the state’s middle to the fast-growing coastal lowlands, either around Myrtle Beach or the exurbs of Charleston.) • West Virginia : We haven’t thought much about West Virginia, although it’s worth watching, seeing as how the Dems control the trifecta here and they could mess somewhat with freshman GOPer David McKinley’s 1st district. They’ll be handling redistricting in a summer special session, which is set to begin August 1. Proposals should be made available in late July. This diary is brought to you by Daily Kos Elections, an official Daily Kos sub-site. Please read our Mission Statement . Our focus is on electoral politics rather than policy. Welcome aboard!

Here is the original post: 
Daily Kos Elections Morning Digest: 6/20

The John Birch Society, a debate co-sponsor, at a pre-debate exhibition.   So tonight’s the night: the Republican presidential campaign officially gets underway with the party’s first debate, coming to us live from Greenville, South Carolina. We’ll be livemocking it right here, and you can watch it on GOPtv Fox News Channel (online broadcast here ), its national sponsor. The debate is sponsored locally by The John Birch Society among others. Yes, you read that right. The John Birch Society is a co-sponsor of tonight’s debate. In fact, their president called Lindsay Graham a socialist and demanded his ouster at a tea party rally earlier today. He shared the stage with South Carolina’s GOP Governor Nikki Haley, who owes her political success to Sarah Palin, herself a fan of The John Birch Society. Of the the five candidates, only three of them have any sort of meaningful national political profile: Tim Pawlenty, the former governor of Minnesota who is a favorite of GOP insiders; Ron Paul, who has managed to turn the GOP far to the right since Fox banned him from the 2008 debates; and Rick Santorum, whose last name has a frothy texture . Herman Cain is the former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza and Gary Johnson was the governor of New Mexico. So far, most of the previews seem to focus all their attention on Tim Pawlenty since he’s the only candidate who GOP insiders seem likely to be willing to support as the party’s nominee. Every other “serious” candidate has bowed out, even including jokes like Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann, a fact that earned Pawlenty’s scorn . I guess the big challenge for Pawlenty will be to prove that he wasn’t a complete idiot for showing up a Bircher-sponsored debate that every other major candidate decided to skip. His campaign says he decided to do it because nobody knows who he is, but while honest, that’s hardly a demonstration of confidence. Bottom-line: if he can’t even separate himself from this pack of losers, it’s hard to see how he’ll separate himself when the real candidates are on stage. Update: Brett Baier is the host. He noted Pawlenty served two full terms as governor. Normally you don’t have to point out when governors complete their terms but I guess that makes sense for the GOP. Update: Baier clearly wants to keep the debate focused on President Obama, not the candidates. Each of the first two questions about have been about Obama. BTW, Santorum is the first one to credit Bush for getting Bin Laden, though Pawlenty said it was something that should be investigated. It wasn’t until the third question, for Ron Paul, that a question not directly having to do with Obama was asked. Update: Ron Paul says he wants out of Afghanistan. Paulbots applaud. Herman Cain says it’s not clear what the mission is in Afghanistan. Pressed by Baier to explain what he think the goal is, Cain says he’d have his experts make the decision. And he stopped mid-sentence when his buzzer went off. Gary Johnson says he is against Afghanistan, so now we have 2 of 3 candidates to speak about Afghanistan to explicitly oppose it, and one who said he has no clue why we are there, though maybe he’d stay. Update: Rick Santorum stands by his claim that Islam is fundamentally predisposed to violent extremism, but says he isn’t anti-Islam. (Does that mean he’s not against violent extremism?) Really, Santorum is a disgrace to the human mind. Update: Hahaha, there’s an empty seat in the third row behind Chris Wallace. So it’s not just candidates who don’t want to attend. Update: Three of the five candidates say they’d resume waterboarding. Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are the two that don’t. Paul is really fun to listen to on foreign policy issues. He won’t be as fun on domestic policy. Update: Gary Johnson’s economic plan: abolish the corporate income tax. “It will literally create tens of millions of jobs overnight,” he says. Update: Juan Williams wants to know if Tim Pawlenty supports any sort of job creation measure besides tax cuts. He points to the NLRB action with respect to Boeing, a big issue in South Carolina. Other than that, he doesn’t have anything to say, but it played well with the local crowd. Update: Herman Cain is an idiot. He believes we have enough fossil fuel inside the U.S. to fuel our economy without relying on any other country. I mean, that may be the stupidest thing said so far tonight. Update: Pawlenty passes on a chance to take a direct shot at Romney on RomneyCare, saying he won’t attack Romney because Romney isn’t at the debate to defend himself. Oh, that’s going to be a lot of fun when he’s actually forced to defend it at a debate. Update: And there’s a commercial break. Is it just me or are these guys incredibly lame and boring? And didn’t Pawlenty miss a chance to make headlines by nailing Romney? I’m not sure what his thinking is on not going after him. Seems sort of wimpy to me. Update: Chris Wallace basically asks Rick Santorum why is a raving lunatic (conditioning a debt ceiling increase on repeal of health care reform, and turning Medicare into a voucher program immediately). Santorum, who voted for prescription drug coverage for Medicare, says blocking health care reform is the single most important item on the conservative agenda and that the fate of America depends on its repeal. In other words, he doesn’t care that Chris Wallace thinks he’s crazy. Update: Ron Paul wants to go back on the gold standard. Update: This format is really stupid. Each candidate is asked a different question, and there’s no opportunity for the candidates to interact with each other. Maybe that’ll change in the rest of the debate, but so far, there’s no sign of it. Update: As Barb just pointed out to me, that’s probably the plan. (To avoid having the candidates interact with each other.) These guys are a bunch of jokes. Ron Paul is serious about his ideas, but he’s not a serious candidate. Gary Johnson is somewhat like Paul in ideology, but is nowhere near as articulate or charismatic. Santorum and Cain are just jokes. And Tim Pawlenty doesn’t really have anything to say. Update: Gary Johnson, a former border state governor, takes a pro-immigration position immediately after Rick Santorum tells a story about how his grandma didn’t speak English but that his dad wouldn’t teach him Italian. Update: Photo time. Update: Pawlenty’s big idea. Invade Libya! Kill Qaddafi! (Does he remember that it was George W. Bush, whose foreign policy he was praising earlier, that made peace with Qaddafi in 2008?) Update: Rick Santorum thinks Obama is weak with respect to Pakistan. Apparently he hasn’t been following the news. He says we need to tell Pakistan they are with us or against us. And then he brags about how much he supported Pakistan while in the senate. So I guess that means he supported a country that he thinks was trying to attack America? And he thinks that’s worth bragging about? Update: @MattOrtega : “Santorum looks like he’s got a short fuse… while talking about nukes. #NotGood #Temperament” Update: Another break. Yawn. Update: New thread here.

Read more from the original source: 
First Republican presidential debate

PPP: Obama lead ranges from 5-18 pts Public Policy Polling (PDF)  (4/7-10, Registered Voters, March results in parentheses) Barack Obama (D) 48 (48) Mike Huckabee (R) 43 (43) Barack Obama (D) 47 (47) Mitt Romney (R) 41 (42) Barack Obama (D) 48 (–) Chris Christie (R) 39 (–) Barack Obama (D) 48 (–) Rand Paul (R) 38 (–) Barack Obama (D) 52 (50) Newt Gingrich (R) 38 (39) Barack Obama (D) 54 (53) Sarah Palin (R) 36 (38) On first blush, these numbers aren’t bad. The President leads all the major players in the GOP field, despite still having very middling job approval numbers (this incarnation of PPP’s poll has the President languishing at a 47/48 spread). The margins are steady or incrementally increasing. Add to that the fact that the closest Republican challenger to Obama lay five points behind, which is only a couple of points beneath the margin Obama enjoyed in his landslide maiden voyage in 2008. So, given that, why does PPP’s Tom Jensen think that these numbers might actually be cause for alarm? Consider who is still on the fence : Here’s the catch though: in every one of those match ups the vast majority of undecided voters disapprove of Obama…they just either don’t yet know or not yet completely sold on the potential Republican candidates so they go into the undecided column. Chances are when push comes to shove those folks are going to vote against Obama if they don’t think he’s doing a good job. So we also calculated the numbers allocating the undecideds based on their approval or disapproval of Obama- when you do that Obama only leads Romney and Huckabee 51-49, is just up 52-48 on Paul and Christie, has a 54-46 advantage over Gingrich, and still wallops Palin if only by a 56-44 margin. In many ways, this result is the wholly understandable by-product of a very undefined multicandidate GOP field. Consider the independent voters: Obama has a slightly postive net approval with this group (49/42), but smokes the entire GOP field among Indies. Only Chris Christie keeps Obama within single digits with that swing voting corps. It is a reasonable assumption that Christie does the best with Independent voters simply because he is the least well-known with that group (he has a mediocre 27/28 fav/unfav with Indies). The peril for Obama lies in the fact that Republican voters, unless the primary devolves into total fratricide, will eventually coalesce around someone . When that happens, his job approval has to head north of the breakeven point. If it doesn’t, it is hard to imagine him holding onto a lead of 5+ points, as PPP’s allocation of the undecided votes already attests. As flawed and fractured as the GOP field seems to be, perhaps Obama can continue to rely on his success being aided by the weakness of his enemies. But it is probably not wise to simply presume that his good fortune will hold out for another 19 months. It is going to be essential for Obama to create a bit of luck for himself by regaining those critical few extra points of public goodwill that are the difference between victory and defeat.

Read the original post: 
PPP National poll: Obama leads, but…

ANGLE-TIME: The prayers of Nevada Democrats have been answered! Global events, both man-made and natural, have justifiably pushed the news from the electoral arena well off of the front page over the past week. That said, there is still no absence of headlines as we close the books on Winter and head into Spring. THE RACE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE NATIONAL: PPP does their now-traditional monthly presidential poll, and it appears to be same as it ever was in the battle between President Obama and the GOP. While the President still sports job approval ratings that are, at best, middling, he still has solid leads over the Republican opposition. The simple reason? While he is marginally popular, they are decisively less popular. While the President sits on a dead-even 47/47 split, he holds leads ranging from 5 points (Huckabee and Romney) to 18 points (Herman Cain). Other pollsters weighed in this week on the President’s job approval, and found roughly similar numbers. CNN found Obama in slightly positive territory (50/47), while ABC/WaPo were incrementally more affirmative for the President (51/45). Allstate’s collaborative effort with National Journal finds the President under 50%, but still in net positive territory (49/44). Meanwhile, the internet poll conducted by YouGov joins PPP with President Obama exactly at parity (45/45). Indeed, in an ironic twist that will no doubt make wingnut heads explode, the most pessimistic look at President Obama’s job approval came this week from…well… us . As David Nir noted Thursday, our own DailyKos/SEIU State of the Nation poll actually found the President slightly underwater (45/51) on the job approval front. THE STATES: We see a smattering of new data this week. As has been the trend thus far in 2011, it has been our friends at PPP out in front with the numbers. In the Buckeye State , Ohio voters are mirroring the nation. While their verdict on President Obama is split pretty evenly, they rather clearly prefer him over the GOP alternative. President Obama sports a 47/46 job approval split, but nonetheless holds leads ranging from 6-16 points over his GOP rivals. Mitt Romney comes closest (46-40), while Sarah Palin resumes her place as the least likely to succeed (Obama leads her 52-36). Meanwhile, down East in Maine , the President’s approval numbers have dipped to 51/44 (he won the state easily in 2008). But that doesn’t prevent him from having sizeable advantages over the field. Mitt Romney again comes the closest (49-41), while Sarah Palin gets absolutely boat-raced by the President among Maine voters (57-35). THE RACE FOR THE U.S. SENATE THE POLLS: Two new Senate polls came out this week, with mixed results for the Blue team. In Ohio, freshman Democrat Sherrod Brown appears to be the beneficiary of some serious buyer’s remorse for newly elected GOP Governor John Kasich, according to a new PPP poll. His numbers are in the crapper, and the undertow seems to be hurt the list of prospects eyeing the Senator. Brown has leads ranging from 15-19 points over the six-pack of potential GOP rivals which range from comedian Drew Carey (who has indicated he won’t run) to Congressman Steve LaTourette. Meanwhile, Republicans have to feel a little bit better about a Western New England College poll out of the Bay State. In that poll, Massachusetts freshman Sen. Scott Brown (R) also sports double digit edges over his potential opponents. WNEC touted Congressman Mike Capuano and Elizabeth Warren as Brown’s potential Democratic rivals, and gives the rookie Republican leads of 13-17 points. There was also one primary poll to peruse this week, in the open Senate seat in the Land of Enchantment. A new poll sponsored by Defenders of Wildlife by Tulchin Communications declares that sophomore Democratic Rep. Martin Heinrich is the early leader for the Democratic nomination. Word of caution, though: a tiny sample here (just over 200 respondents) means a cartoonishly high 6.7% margin of sampling error. ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL: Arizona: Normally, an endorsement in a race doesn’t mean much, especially from a freshman Senator. But when said freshman has made a pair of endorsements in other states, but has remained conspicuously silent in his own home state vis-a-vis a challenge to his senior mate in the Senate, it’s worth at least a smirking reference. Rookie Mike Lee has pointed his anointing figure towards Congressman Jeff Flake in Arizona, following his endorsement of Ted Cruz in Texas. Orrin Hatch, meanwhile, remains lonely and unendorsed by his home-state colleague. Maybe Lee jumped the gun, though–since a certain former half-term Governor from another state starting with the letter “A” is said to be moving into the neighborhood (run, Sarah, run!!). Connecticut: Lots of interesting news out of the Nutmeg State this week. Chris Murphy is consolidating support on the Democratic side–this week, he announced the support of all of his House colleagues (including Joe Courtney, who was contemplating a bid at one point). That Democratic field might be growing, however, as both state Rep. William Tong and former state treasurer Frank Borges are contemplating bids. One name not in the mix, it seems, is Paulite and first-class blowhard Peter Schiff , who is threatening to leave the state because of 0.2% income tax hike that he likened to…wait for it…rape! Indiana: Dee-licious! So, the big news out of the Hoosier State this week is that embattled veteran Senator Dick Lugar got the mother of all endorsements this week when second-term Governor (and 2012 Presidential prospect) “My Man” Mitch Daniels offered his enthusiastic thumbs-up. That’s not the great news, though. The great news is that it took approximately 4.9 seconds for the teabaggers to get worked up into a lather, offering threats to Daniels that his act of treachery would not go unnoticed in 2012. Whee!!! THE BATTLE FOR THE U.S. HOUSE No data here this week, unless you count Rasmussen’s weekly look at the Congressional generic ballot (and I prefer not to). But a few headlines here, as well. CA-03: Good news for Democrats–one of their most impressive prospects from an otherwise dreary 2010 cycle is angling for a rematch. Dr. Ami Bera, who lost 50-43 to Dan Lungren last year, is planning to make a second bid for Congress in 2012. CA-36: With Jane Harman now officially out of the House, California Governor Jerry Brown has set the dates for the election to replace her in this Dem-friendly district based in the suburbs along the coast to the southwest of Los Angeles. The all-party primary will roll on May 17th. If no one emerges with a simple majority (and, with over a dozen candidates in the field, a majority seems unlikely), the runoff will linger into July. The conditions of the new electoral laws generated by California’s Prop 14 mean that the runoff will be populated by the top two candidates regardless of party. With a trio of potentially viable Democrats, and a trio of active Republicans, I’d lay early money on a Dem vs. Dem runoff here. NV-02: Because once just wasn’t enough–apparently Democrats in the Silver State will have Sharron Angle to kick around for another cycle. With Dean Heller making his long-suspected bid for the U.S. Senate, Angle has decided to seek elective office again, this time with a House bid. A lot is going to depend upon redistricting here (Nevada is gaining a seat), and Angle is going to have a load of company in Heller’s old district. What’s more–Nevada political guru Jon Ralston says that he has seen some numbers in the district, and they aren’t pretty for Angle. As the field fills, however, Angle might benefit from a multi-candidate field. NY-26: I suppose this can be logged into the “better late than never” file, but nearly a month after Republicans picked their standard bearer in the May special election to replace disgraced former Republican Rep. Chris Lee, the Democrats have finally followed suit. They will officially nominate Erie County Clerk Kathy Hochul tomorrow evening, according to sources. Hochul had long been considered among the likeliest choices for Democrats, who will be underdogs in this red-leaning upstate district. THE BATTLE FOR WISCONSIN This received a lot of attention earlier this week, but it deserves another look as we close the week. As David Nir told us earlier in the week, a trio of GOP state Senators would currently be endangered by a proposed recall, as a result of their fealty to Governor Scott Walker in his efforts to bust unions in the state of Wisconsin. In gravest danger is Republican Dan Kapanke, who would fall 55-41 to a generic Democrat if the election were held today. Another of the embattled Republicans (Randy Hopper, who trails 49-44) is running extremely scared . He has taken to the airwaves with a defensive ad that takes some poetic license with the truth, according to WaPo’s Greg Sargent. And all that political pain may well be for naught, as a Dane County judge has issued a restraining order blocking the bill, which is being challenged for violation of the 24-hour rule under the state’s open meetings law.

Originally posted here:
DK Elections: The week that was

Great news for the GOP! Former Govs. Mike Huckabee (Ark.), Sarah Palin (Alaska) and Mitt Romney (Mass.) make up the top tier of the 2012 Republican presidential field, according to a new poll from the Washington Post and ABC News. Huckabee took 21 percent of the vote while Palin received 19 percent and Romney 17 percent among Republicans and GOP-leaning independents. No other potential candidate made it into double digits, although former House Speaker Newt Gingrich received 9 percent and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie took 8 percent. The rest of the field received 3 percent or less support. As Dave Weigel notes, the new NBC/WSJ poll finds essentially the same thing , with Palin and Mitt swapping spots but Huckabee still leading the field and Newt creeping into double-digits with 10 percent support. So the top tier of the GOP field is comprised of Mike Huckabee, who is the the second-laziest Presidential candidate ever (leading only Fred Thompson), Sarah Palin, who could be the the most politically toxic Presidential candidate ever, and Mitt Romney, who imposed an individual health insurance mandate as part of RomneyCare in Massachusetts (and let’s not forget his attendance at a Planned Parenthood fundraiser). And then leading the second tier is a Newt Gingrich, who lied about having an affair with an aide while impeaching President Clinton for lying about having an affair with an aide, and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie who wisely has ruled out a presidential bid given that he’s got a shorter resume than Sarah Palin. With such a crowded field of outstanding candidates it’s no wonder that PPP found that just 47% of Republicans are content with the top of their field. Only 35% say they want a fresh face, however, so even though less than half of Republicans are happy with their leading candidates, the GOP might end up getting stuck with them.

More here: 
WaPo/ABC: Huckabee, Palin, and Romney in double-digits

Editor’s Note: Due to the holidays, the Weekly Mulch will appear on Thursday afternoon both this week and next week. We’ll resume regular Friday morning posts in 2011. by Sarah Laskow, Media Consortium Blogger It’s the naughty children who get coal in their stockings, and it seems like Americans must have been naughty this year. Because across the country, we’re awash with coal, carcinogens, and other toxins. And our government is not doing to much to change that. Waste not After the massive coal ash spill in Tennessee two years ago, the EPA began working on more stringent regulation of the waste, a byproduct of coal mining. But, as Kate Sheppard reports at Mother Jones , the industry has been pressuring the administration to adopts weaker regulations than it could. “Two years after the largest toxic spill in the nation’s history, there is still no regulation of deadly coal ash dumps–nor is there clear direction from EPA on the timing or content of a final rule,” Lisa Evans, senior administrative counsel for Earthjustice, told Sheppard . “For the communities enduring damage from aging ponds and leaking landfills, time has run out. There is no reason on earth that their health should be compromised by such an easily avoidable harm.” What’s in the water? Coal ash is one of those pollutants that clearly poses a problem. It looks dangerous. But not all pollutants are so obviously dangerous. This week, for instance, the Environmental Working Group, an environmental health non-profit group, released a report showing that much of the country’s tap water is contaminated with the carcinogen hexavalent chromium, with levels high enough to pose a risk to human health. “Exposure in tap water has been linked to cancers of the stomach and gastrointestinal tract in both animals and people,” Rebecca Sutton, a scientist for the Environmental Working Group, wrote at AlterNet . Thirty-one of the 35 cities that the group examined had dangerously high levels of the contaminants in the tap water. How did this happen? As Sarah Parsons explains at Change.org , “The reason so much chromium-6 winds up in tap water is that industries spew it into waterways, utilities fail to test for the substance, and the EPA doesn’t regulate it in drinking water.” What the EPA does do, Parsons reports, is limit the total chromium in drinking water, “the combined amount of hexavalent chromium and trivalent chromium.” She explains, “The problem is that trivalent chromium is actually good for you–in fact, it’s necessary for metabolism. Hexavalent chromium, on the other hand, is a noxious carcinogen.” Moving forward These prevalent toxins are just two reminders that, for all their successes in recent decades, environmentalists still have much work ahead of them. How should they approach that work? Earth Island Journal ’s Jason Mark , considering lessons from the 1980s-era environmental leaders, who focused on moving toward the center and working within the confines of D.C. politics, offers this thought: “The new leaders of 2010 say what we need is less focused group messaging and inside-the-Beltway maneuverings, and more heartfelt spirit and energy directed encouraged at the grassroots. I hope their instincts are right. Because at this point I don’t think we can wait another 25 years to figure this stuff out.” This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment by members of The Media Consortium . It is free to reprint. Visit the Mulch for a complete list of articles on environmental issues, or follow us on Twitter . And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit , The Pulse , and The Diaspora . This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets. Read More… More on West Virginia Mine Disaster

Read the rest here: 
The Media Consortium: Weekly Mulch: Coal Ash in Our Stockings

Enter any bookstore today and you will likely see a sign for Mitt Romney’s book No Apology, The Case for American Greatness . America is great if you’re Mitt Romney and he’s not about to apologize for how great things are for him. I don’t understand why he got to write a book about it. Go to Google and enter the words “political book deal.” You will learn that the inconsequential dropout former governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, recently signed another multi-million dollar book deal. You will see that Scott Brown had a been a Senator for about 30 days before getting his own book deal. Mitt Romney has a book deal. Gov. Bobby Jindal has a book deal. President Obama’s half-brother George has a book deal. Yes, even Rod Blagojevich has a book deal. On and on and on. Name any politician, no matter how great or awful as a public servant. Chances are, they’ve got a million-dollar book deal. I find it interesting that very few politicians actually write the book before they get the deal. I’m not a writer, but I assume that most book writers create their manuscripts in some lonely cottage in New England. Or maybe they are doing research and putting in hours within the tombs of some major library. But if you happen to be a politician, you don’t have to have a particularly literary bent. Hell, you don’t even have to write the book! They have people for that. You just show up to take the cover art photograph, go home with a check, and wait for the tour schedule. Must be nice to be able to get rich selling something you didn’t create and don’t own. Washington has learned a thing or two from Wall Street. Many of these politicians were awful in office. Why do they get paid millions of dollars to literally write the book on being awful? Sarah Palin, I presume, is getting a book deal so that she can teach the public about how government is supposed to work. When she had that responsibility, she did a shoddy job and then quit before her term was up. Next stop? Million-dollar book deal. Rod Blogjevich got himself impeached, convicted, thrown out of office, and subsequently arrested on corruption charges. I guess while making his way to central booking, he stopped into sign…you guessed it, a book deal. Right now, Carly Fiorina, a woman who is listed as one of the worst CEO’s of all time , is right now a major party candidate for U.S. Senate. After cutting the value of the company she ran in half and being fired for doing it, what did she get for her efforts? $20 million severance package and a book deal. What, exactly, do publishers believe these people know that deserves to be recorded and cataloged for all eternity? Imagine I attempted to build a treehouse, screwed up and built a claptrap doghouse, and then quit. Am I qualified to write the book on outdoor carpentry? Should I be paid a million bucks for it? You’d think our society had taken a wrong term somewhere, right? Worse, Scott Brown’s book deal indicates you really don’t have to do anything at all to get a book deal showcasing your expertise on government. Don’t get me started on the quality of the books themselves. There is a reason why all the political books are always piled up high on a table at the book store. President Bush has jumped into the book deal game recently, and why not? His presidency, one of the worst of all time, is a case-study in rank incompetence, short-sightedness, corruption, and disregard for the Constitution. From allowing the country to be attacked despite warning, to failing capture or kill the attackers, to ruining the budget, to wasting a mountain of blood and treasure on an unnecessary war, to allowing a major city to be completely destroyed, and having it all culminate in a massive economic crash, the Bush presidency should be considered the owner’s manual on how not to run a superpower. Therefore, it was only fitting that he be rewarded with a $7 million book deal . President Bush’s book, Decision Points will be released November 9. Talking about the book and his presidency recently, he said this : “In terms of accomplishments, my biggest accomplishment is that I kept the country safe amidst a real danger.” What is wrong with him? I don’t know. What we should be asking is what is wrong with America? George W. Bush, of all people, gets to write the book on keeping the country safe from attack?! Only two modern presidents have experienced a domestic attack form a foreign power, and Bush was the one who failed to bring the attackers to account. He gets to write the book on keeping the country safe for seven million? Have we lost our minds? These things, and these sort of things, are a sign of the complete moral bankruptcy of our political elite . The people who are a part of this machinery, the lobbyists, literary agents, publishers, lawyers, publicists, consultants, advisers, researchers, ghost writers, media pundits, billionaires and the politicians themselves, constitute a modern day American Ancien Regime that Madame Defarge would easily recognize. It is as if we are living in France just prior to the French Revolution . It was a time of high debt and high unemployment brought about by a financial crisis brought on by debt, which was brought on by a pointless war . King Louis XVI’s government refused to raise taxes on the nobles and clergy because of the false belief it would hurt the economy. It was a time of excess and vanity on the part of the regime while the suffering of the masses knew no end. The regime knew no limit to their greed and villainy. In the end, the callous disregard for the people exhibited by the self-indulgent elites who failed to live up to even the minimal standards expected of them, proved to be the source of their own undoing. I’m no expert on morals or ethics, but I do know right from wrong. It is terribly wrong to reward failure with wealth. Yet that is what keeps happening among the people at the top. Don’t they have any sense of decency and proportion? Guilt? Shame? How could a person like Fiorina or Bush seriously believe they, after all they’ve done to ruin so many lives, deserve to get rich? How could someone with so much wealth and power look around and see the great suffering so many in this country endure and think that what the people deserve most is an opportunity to buy and read their drivel? I don’t know about you, but I pass by these books by at the bookstore. I wish I couldn’t see the signs. Still, the signs are there.

The rest is here:
A sign of the times

Defeated incumbent Lisa Murkowski, still apparenly in deciding mode about trying to keep her job, stayed in Alaska today , even though the Senate has returned to work. Her schedule for the remainder of the week hasn’t been released, since she must not have figured out what it is yet, but there’s one element of her decision that got easier. The Libertarian in the race, David Haase, has decided to stay in the race. This means the only option available to Murkowski is as a write-in candidate. National Republicans have warned her against that . Texas Sen. John Cornyn, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, told POLITICO he didn’t believe Murkowski could continue serving as vice chairwoman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee if she decides to mount a third-party bid, challenging GOP nominee Joe Miller and Democratic nominee Scott McAdams in the November elections. “It’s hard to see how you stay as part of the Republican leadership if you are no longer running as a Republican,” Cornyn said in an interview. “I think that’s pretty much the end of that.” She also gets a threat from, who else, Sarah Palin, who says a write-in bid would be “futile.” Via DavidNYC at Swing State, here’s a more informed view on the issue from Smart Politics blogger Eric Ostermeier, which nonethless comes to the same basic conclusion. He writes “No Alaskan candidate for statewide office has won more than 27 percent in a write-in campaign; Senator Ernest Gruening’s model for potential Murkowski write-in candidacy netted just 17 percent in 1968.”

Excerpt from:
AK-Sen: Murkowski watch, Libertarian not stepping aside

On Tuesday, voters in Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, and Minnesota took to the polls to decide which candidates would advance to face-off in general election match-ups come November. Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet scored a win in Colorado against primary challenger Andrew Romanoff and in doing so arguably earned a proxy victory for the White House. Karen Handel’s presumed defeat to Nathan Deal in Georgia’s GOP gubernatorial runoff, could be viewed as a loss for Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney, who backed the conservative hopeful. Who’s up and who’s down in the aftermath of the August 10 primaries? Take a look: More on 2010 Elections

See original here: 
August 10 Primary Elections: The 8 Biggest Winners And Losers

Andrew McCarthy, one of the dependable frothers over at what experts call ” American’s Shittiest Website ,” has some indignant things to say about Islam and Islamists–and in so doing, he has deeply insulted both me and America. How? In a minute. First, though, everyone wants to know: Does McCarthy’s latest bleat meet or exceed standard National Review Online (NRO) specifications for dishonesty, fake “thoughtfulness,” and barely-contained scaredy-cat pants-pissery? It certainly does. What the GZ mosque episode powerfully demonstrates is the growing divide between the American people and the progressive ruling class. The latter, I believe, are gradually surrendering. Yes, it’s all good old American wingnut fun, from the pipe-puffing “I believe” to the frankly ludicrous term “the progressive ruling class.” This is a phrase of oxymoronic power equal to that of “the attractively self-effacing Bill O’Reilly” or “the damned sensible Glenn Beck.” Only in the total intellectual vacuum of NRO (where they don’t allow comments, and where the sublimely clueless Kathryn Jean Lopez reigns as editrix) can someone with a straight face use the term “progressive” and “ruling class” in the same sentence without satire. The world knows, even if McCarthy doesn’t, that National Review has spent every day since its founding defending the actual ruling class from progressives. Still, if the piece featured merely the rote recitation of the usual papier-mache -patriot tropes (”ultimate victory…appeasement…surrendering…American credibility…”), I would laugh raucously in its face and mention it no more. But Mr. Andrew McCarthy goes so far as to presume to speak for America. And, in the words of the philosopher, this aggression will not stand, man. Most of the American people are in a much different place. They see Islamists advancing, they are beginning to grasp that Islamists (not just terrorists but the whole Islamist movement) mean to change us in very fundamental ways, and therefore they understand that every such advance is a defeat for freedom. (snip–but wait! Don’t you love that “are beginning to grasp”? The Great American Wad struggles toward consciousness. It’s exciting! Thanks, Marx!) Americans also realize that when our country looks like it doesn’t have the stomach to face down bad people and noxious ideologies, we are significantly less safe. Though weary, the people of the country want to see resolve. They think they understand their principles a lot better than the ruling class does, and they are tired of lectures from the Obamas and Bloombergs who, in the name of abstractions that they presume to call “our values,” would have us sell out our principles and our security. (snip–although…huh. “Bad people and noxious ideologies”…does that include South American dictators? And the House of Saud? No? Pity. And aren’t “our principles” also “abstractions”?) Most of all, Americans are tired of the shroud of political correctness the ruling class has placed around Islam. We don’t object to anyone’s freedom of conscience, and we abide countless places for Muslims to gather and worship even though we know a very high percentage of the Islamic centers and mosques are heavily influenced by Islamists. But we’re tired of being told things that aren’t true: e.g., that Islam is peaceful, tolerant and non-threatening; that sharia — which is relentlessly authoritarian, discriminatory, and, in parts, savage — is something we need to accommodate; and that there is no connection between Islamic doctrine (which is supremacist and belligerent), Islamist terror, and the broader Islamist threat to our civilization. We’re tired of being told that people who can’t bring themselves to condemn Hamas are “moderates” deserving of being taken seriously and having their endless grievances against America addressed. And we’re tired of being told that we shouldn’t examine or object to an authoritarian ideology just because it travels under the label of “religion.” No, it isn’t you. All of it has the tone of a clarion call to duty and patriotism, and none of it makes sense. The figure spearheading the (so-called) Ground Zero mosque, Faisal Abdul Rauf, is a bridge-building figure with allegiances to both the Islamic world and to the U.S. He has said things the chest-thumpers on the American right don’t like, and I’m sure he’s said things their chest-thumping counterparts in militant Islam don’t like, either. The best way to see “Islamists advancing” is to subvert him, pollute our (supposedly sacred) idea of religious freedom, and polarize the situation. Similarly, McCarthy deplores anyone who would “sell out our principles,” but cannot see past the flare of his nostrils that allowing the worthy (the 9-11 relative) and the unworthy (assorted loudmouths and yahoos) to restrict Muslim religious freedom is, in fact, to sell out our values–cheap. According to this gentleman, all of Islam is a militant, authoritarian “threat to our civilization.” If that’s the case, how is it that any of us are still alive? (Guess how many Muslims there are in the world. No, come on, just guess. Give up? ReligiousTolerance.org says, “As of mid 2010, we accept the Pew Forum’s estimate 1.57 billion as the most reliable estimate.”) And us with a measly 300 million (some of whom are Muslims). Perhaps McCarthy is so “tired” because he lays awake at night, trembling. Oh, and if it’s Islam’s authoritarian ideology he abhors, what’s his position on Catholicism? Does he abide countless places for Catholics to gather and worship, in spite of the fact that the Church’s history of authoritarian tyranny is even longer than that of Islam? But that’s not the worst part. The worst part is that this individual presumes to speak for America. And he most certainly does not speak for America. I do. Granted, like McCarthy, I–like all Americans–am weary and tired. But we Americans aren’t tired of Islamists. We’re tired of Andrew McCarthy. We’re tired of places like National Review Online publishing nonsense like the above-quoted. We’re tired of the Republican Party and its nihilistic obstructionism. We’re tired of transparent liars, frauds, mutants, and grifters like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann and Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh being taken seriously by anyone except giggling children. We’re tired of Fox “News” and its daily spew of propaganda and race-based alarmism. We’re tired of the screaming Tea Baggist idiots, with their silly Colonial dress-up and their misspelled signs, and the cretinous religiosity of Sharon Angle being accorded serious media consideration. We’re tired of John Boehner’s tan and Mitch McConnell’s hideously smooth face. In short, we’re tired–and weary–of how the political right of this country has devolved into a fall-of-Rome orgy in which the ignorant and the bigoted are manipulated by the mendacious and the demagogic into making the rich richer and everyone else poorer. Or is it just me? Whatever. I need a nap. More on Islam

Continued here:
Ellis Weiner: I’m America, and I’m Tired

There was something distinctly amusing about watching Sarah Palin’s piece of performance art last week defending the Bush tax cuts. In truth, there were lots of amusing things. In progressive circles, there are plenty for whom the mere mention of the name “Karl Rove” engenders nothing more than the gnashing of teeth–or perhaps the occasional howl of execration. But his admirers and detractors alike can agree on one thing: he had a rare gift. He could turn his candidate’s weakness into a strength, and his opponent’s best strength into a devastating weakness. Have a candidate who’s afraid of horses? Turn him into a kickass cowboy. Have an opponent who’s a bona fide war hero? Turn him into a cowardly Frenchman. Have a vice-presidential candidate who got five deferments to avoid Vietnam? Turn him into the Dark Lord of the Sith. The idea is clear. Fortunately, Sarah Palin lacks this skill. Her weakness is that she’s an overmatched lightweight who has to scribble notes on her hand during interviews. And how does she decide to overcome that? By doing it again and reminding everyone that she did, in fact, scribble notes on her hand during an interview–though admittedly, the attempt to blame it on liberals for actually expecting a potential presidential candidate to have basic math skills deserves some plaudits. Let’s just call it an attempt to appeal to the baser elements of her base. Even more amusingly, the half-term governor managed to take her biggest strength and turn it into a weakness. Chris Wallace did his absolute best to do her a favor: He emphasized the point repeatedly that the tax cuts being defended by the Governor Who Quit were blowing a hole in the budget of around $600 billion per year and that they had benefited only the very wealthiest of Americans. But Mama Grizzly continued unbowed in their defense, repeating the tired talking points of failed Reaganism: that the tax cuts would hurt small businesses. That rich people employ everyone else, so increasing their marginal tax rate would prevent employment. That “raising taxes” will hurt the economy and slow growth. All of which, of course, is utterly false . But you wouldn’t know that from hearing Republicans talk about tax cuts–especially marginal tax cuts for the wealthy–as if they were some sort of panacea, equally effective regardless of the illness. Conservative tax policy has long been centered on the hypothetical Laffer curve –a parabolic graph demonstrating a presumed relationship between marginal tax rates and total government revenue. At tax rates of zero percent and a hundred percent, government revenue is zero: after all, zero percent of zero is zero, and if the government takes all your income, there is no longer any incentive to work. The idea is that somewhere in the middle of that curve is the “peak”–the ideal rate at which government revenue will be the highest. Here’s a basic example . Now, just to recap: This so-called Laffer Curve underwrites much of the theory behind taxation policy in supply-side economics, because the default assumption is universally that tax rates are on the upward slope of the curve–namely, that tax rates are too high. If tax rates are lowered, that fact simply goes down the memory hole and is forgotten, and the new tax rates, such as they are, become the readjusted baseline. This was precisely the framing that the ex-governor used to promote the extension of the Bush tax cuts: according to Palin, Obama has a “proposal” to end the Bush tax cuts–even though by their nature, they were designed to be temporary and it would take a proposal to continue them, rather than to end them. According to Palin, Obama would be “responsible” for the largest tax increase in history, rather than simply standing by while they reverted to the levels they were at during a period of unrivaled economic prosperity. The conservative perspective on tax policy is something like a ratchet: it only goes one way. The Laffer Curve is an extremely simplistic way of viewing tax policy, given the inherent complexities of the subject, but it is illustrative of a fundamental point: If conservatives were intellectually honest about their views on tax policy and the existence of a “peak rate” at which government revenues would be maximized, there would be a serious debate about which side of the  hypothetical Laffer curve we were on. It would be especially important to have that debate–especially regarding tax cuts for the wealthy–in light of the history of the top marginal tax rates in this country, which were as high as 77 percent in 1964, and have now decreased to as low as 28 percent during the presidency of George H. W. Bush before settling at the current rate of 35 percent — half of its 1964 level . It would seem even more important to have that debate in light of the deficit we currently face, and the supposed concern that conservatives have about it, especially given the fact that tax cuts for the wealthy are one of the less productive ways of providing economic stimulus. Intellectual honesty, however, is not the conservative strong suit. Promulgating self-serving policy, on the other hand, is quite a different story. So as the battle over the Bush tax cuts heats up, just remember: The governor who quit isn’t seriously interested in reducing the deficit. She’s not even intellectually curious about whether the current tax rates are the best for the economy as a whole. Rather, she’s very interested in making sure she gets to keep as much of her six-figure speaking fees as she possibly can. And if the people who were forced out of a job by her party’s policies can’t get unemployment benefits because of that? Tough luck. They just didn’t have the drive to spend time giving Rich Lowry starbursts .

More:
The tax ratchet

Originally posted on Can I Get a Man with That? Name: Helena Andrews Status: Single, Head of Household Position: Authoress In her new memoir, ” Bitch Is the New Black “, Helena Andrews pokes fun at the stereotype that says “successful” and “bitch” are synonymous. With the help of “Grey’s Anatomy” creator Shonda Rhimes, her eccentric childhood as the kidnapped daughter of the town lesbian and subsequent roller coaster ride to single, overachiever approaching 30 is being adapted for film. Today the self-described smart-ass answers our 15 Questions on love, career and the modern bitch. Who is your favorite couple, living or dead, real or fictional? Lucy and Ricky. “Lucy Ricardo” was the most subversive Stepford wife in the history of the world. Being a wife and a mother was never enough for her even when it was supposed to be. And Ricky, despite being the stereotypical archetype of machismo, always gave in because he knew she needed more than a baby and a tiny ass apartment. Have you ever offended anyone on a date? If I have, I was totally oblivious to it. Once I showed up to a “date”–a lecture on volcanoes in outer space–in a Sesame Street T-shirt and black jeans. I was trying to fit in with all the other geeks, but apparently I was “under dressed.” In 140 characters or less, what is Bitch is the New Black? In Tweet-speak, #BITNB is this woman’s journey from Catalina to catcalls. It’s about my dog Miles, getting mugged twice, loved up often and Michelle Obama. The word bitch has obviously evolved from the time Queen Latifah demanded, ‘who you callin’ a bitch?!’ in 1993 to when Tina Fey coined the title phrase of your memoir on “Saturday Night Live”. How do you define bitch? The Queen also said, “when we playing it’s cool,” which I always thought was funny. The first time I called another girl a bitch I was 12. She was like the coolest girl in sixth grade and I wanted to be friends. Go figure. Since then the word has evolved to encompass any woman who isn’t cute and cuddly. I reject the Care Bear approach to life. Sure, I like to laugh, but I also like to laugh at people. I also think I’m way too cool for everything except making fun of myself, which is always a blast. Lady Gaga told “Cosmo” earlier this year, “Some women choose to follow men, and some women choose to follow their dreams. If you’re wondering which way to go, remember that your career will never wake up and tell you that it doesn’t love you anymore.” Is this ‘hypothetical mumbo-jumbo’ or a real choice modern women have to make? Claire Huxtable really fucked a lot of girls up. Nobody can pop out five kids, run a brownstone, be a partner at a law firm, speak fluent Spanish and still have sex with her husband on a regular basis. It’s just not done. That being said, I don’t think my business cards will stop me from falling in love. But at the end of the day something’s gotta give (my favorite movie btw), and although careers can’t walk out on you (allegedly) they also can’t put the curtains up. The assumed checklist of a successful, presumably bitchy, modern woman: her guy must have an Ivy League degree, six figure salary, et al. You said in a previous interview that this list is outdated. What’s in vogue? I don’t know many women who look for husbands on Monster.com. I’m not a headhunter. I don’t match my resume to someone else’s and then assume after a few prerequisite years of dinner and a movie we’re on our way to the White House together. The new rules are that there are no rules. Do I want my man to have a job? Umm duh. I know plenty of folks with Ivy League degrees and Ivy League debt and no dates. Still, I don’t subscribe to the Tyler Perry paradox–that someday I’ll look up and the bus driver will be reading Toni Morrison and we’ll live happily every after. Like attracts like and I seem to be a magnet for masters degrees. A lot of women are stuck in the ‘in between’ referenced in your memoir –more than a friend less than a girlfriend. But the problem isn’t that we’re stuck in this gray area, it’s how we got there in the first place. What are the telltale signs a woman is headed towards the in between? You know you’re in a more than less than equation if he introduces you to his coworkers as “my friend” at a work thing. The “work thing” is key. Not even a family thing can measure a man’s seriousness for you as much as a work thing. The people you spend eight hours a day with know you better than the women and men who raised you. Speaking of family, you’re really close with your mom. How has having a hippie lesbian mother influenced your relationships with men? Not all lesbians are Amazons with only half a chest and armpit hair. There were men around when I was a kid. Were they necessary? Sometimes. Either way being raised by a single woman who worked a thousand jobs so I could go on a ski trip with a bunch of rich kids meant that I appreciated the value of being spoiled. No man can pamper me better than I can pamper myself. At least no man I’ve met yet. What message do you want women to take away from your memoir? I don’t have a PhD in anything but being me and I haven’t even mastered that subject yet. If women take away anything from my book it’s that “we” aren’t a monolith–black women, single women, educated women are all different. We’re all not die-hard “Sex and the City: The Movie” fanatics–but everyone hated the second one. Who do you want to portray you in the film adaptation? My head is huge–in size not like ego (okay, well ego too)–so whoever plays me should have an abnormally large cabeza. But not like Oprah big. It’s time for, ‘Can I Get a Man With…’ (we link the trend and you tell us if we can get a man with that) Bedazzled Rainbow Louboutins — Absolutely, but he might wanna borrow ‘em. Big Butts — Big butts win championships, just ask the Kardashians. So yes if you’re dating an athlete and no, if you’re dating a Mormon. Gay Best Friend — Can’t get one without it Texting — As long as you don’t put an “s” in front of it, then you’ve got a 12-year-old boy not “a man.” What is the biggest obstacle keeping single women from getting a man with that (whatever that is for them)? It’s hard to get a man with a dog. My awesome pug, Miles, fulfills every and all of my unconditional love needs and all I have to do is feed him and pick up his poop. I don’t have to be like a better person or anything. I don’t have to be less selfish to get a very sincere lick in the face and for now I’m super okay with that. Photo by Rebecca Lim courtesy of Helena Andrew’s Facebook fan page

Originally posted here: 
‘Bitch Is The New Black’: Helena Andrews Dishes On Love, Careers, And Claire Huxtable

Illinois’ Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate Mark Kirk ran from the press on Monday rather than answering questions on all of the “misremembering” he’s done about his military carreer and his alleged teaching job … and today he can only wish that he could run from the coverage of his ignominy. Here’s just a few of the headlines: Mark Kirk Runs From Reporters. Literally. Mark Kirk makes like bunny, flees from press Senate candidate Kirk ducks questions on military This excerpt from the first article says it all: Kirk ran through the kitchen and into the back loading area, where he jumped into an SUV which was idling with its engine on. Despite the calls of reporters, the SUV then sped away. The only thing missing is Kirk’s height, race, and a description of what he was wearing. And what about the T.V. coverage? This is from Chicago’s ABC affiliate: It’s beyond pitiful when the Kirk campaign’s official response to the story was: He had other events on his schedule and walked out the door when the event was over. Yes, good answer. Now about that resume padding …

View original here:
IL-Sen: Mark Kirk is running … away

As long as I live, I’ll never forget the night that Elena Kagan and I got drunk together. It was November 4, 1980, to be exact. OK, before I go much further with this, I should make clear: I’ve never actually met President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, and on the night that we got drunk, I was in Providence, R.I., and she was at the Brooklyn Academy of Music. It was Election Night, and while the booze may have been flowing on elite college campus and in liberal enclaves, the election of Ronald Reagan and fellow conservatives was, oddly, enough, a seeming moment of numb clarity for a big chunk of my generation. That would be the generation of people born between 1954 and 1965 — a generation so lost that for most of its existence it didn’t even have a name, until some sociologist guy came along to call us ” Generation Jones ,” for reasons that are typically vague. Anyway, on 11/4/80 I was on a battered sofa in front of my 9-inch black-and-white TV screen, the only one in my dorm. I was a future journalist, a poltical junkie majoring in poly-sci, and with the final weekend polls showing Reagan in a dead heat with Jimmy Carter, we dug in for what was sure to be a long election night. But at 7 p.m. NBC’s John Chancellor came on the air and said, ” Ronald Reagan will win a very substantial victory tonight, very substantial .” We tossed our empty first beers toward the tiny screen. The rest of the night is a little hazy — at the time, we blamed the boozing on boredom, but there was something else, numbing the fear that America was veering away from a righteous course that appeared to be set in the Watergate years. A couple of hundred miles to the south, Elena Kagan was at a political wake, drinking vodka tonics and mourning not only Reagan’s victory but also the defeat in New York’s Senate election of Elizabeth Holtzman, a liberal hero of the Watergate scandal, by a GOP machine hack named Alphonse D’Amato. “I got kind of drunk that night,” wrote Kagan, a top editor at the Daily Princetonian, six days later . “A lot of people did.” She concluded: I can say in these moments that one election year does not the death of liberalism make and that 1980 might even help the liberal camp by forcing it to come to grips with the need for organization and unity. But somehow, one week after the election, these comforting thoughts do not last long. Self-pity still sneaks up, and I wonder how all this could possibly have happened and where on earth I’ll be able to get a job next year. It was a weird time to be a college student — the late 1970s and early 1980s. Our Generation Jones — people like me and Kagan, the Class of ‘81 — arrived on campus half wanting to relive the 1960s and half embarassed by them, which is probably why Nick Lowe and Elvis Costello felt the need by 1979 to ask what was so funny ’bout peace, love and understanding . Besides — everything had flipped in less than a decade. The threat of getting drafted and dying for nothing halfway around the world did not loom anymore, and the easy battles over race — voting or riding in the front of a bus — were long over as well. And while in the booming 1960s things like long hair or a few drug busts didn’t seem like such a bad career move, in the stagflated 1970s and early 1980s we were all asking the same question as Elena Kagan…where on earth we’d be able to get a job next year. There is a lot going on in Kagan’s 1980 article — it is kind of a Rosetta Stone for what was happening and would happen with our generation, Jones. The Reaganites were rising, and the jobs seemed to be disappearing. This was not the time to make waves. This was a time to keep your head down, to bury any progressive ideas deep in your heart, to make damn sure you got a job and rose the ladder and got to the place where, magically, you would know it was time to take off your mask and finally change the world. Jump ahead 30 years and right on schedule, Generation Jones is taking over. Kagan (b. 1960) is nominated to the High Court, just like she’d planned, appointed by the first Generation Jones president, Barack Obama (b. 1961), advised by his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel (b. 1959). In Obama’s White House, they worry about their deadly Generation Jones adversaries on the other side of the planet, people like Osama bin Laden (b. 1957) and Mahmoud Amhadinejad (b. 1956), or the political opposition of the far-right backlashers, Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck (both b. 1964). Generations Jones runs the business world, too, in person of Bill Gates (b. 1955) and Steve Jobs (also b. 1955). (And let’s not forget Michael Jordan and Prince, Madonna, and Michael Jackson — more on them in a minute.) The Next Greatest Generation? Hardly. The reality is that Generation Jones is showing up just in time, when the planet really does need saving — and we are blowing it, big time. The challenges faced not just by the United States but by the entire world — global warming, a deadly addiction to fossil fuels , governments addled by debt yet unable to stop spending billions on weapons — require bold, boat-rocking risk-takers, people who have looking into the abyss of humankind and are not afraid to make daring moves. This is simply not my Generation Jones — a generation in which (for Americans, anyway) there was no war from the time I was 14, when the last regular troops came home from Vietnam, until Operation Desert Storm, when I was 32, and when economic woes brought “malaise” but not the Great Depression and then disappeared for a key time for young professionals in the 1980s and 1990s. Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter described us as “the perennial swing voters, with residual ’60s idealism mixed with the pragmatism and materialism of the ’80s.” He’s right — except that the pragmatism won out years ago. We are careerists — clinging to our conviction that we can change the world not by forceful ideas but by the mere force of our own often-coddled personalities, even if the ideas and passions that once animated our humanity have been buried under pages of resumes and cover letters The roadmap for people who wanted change was no longer the 1960s mantra of “stickin’ it to the man” but now “working within the system,” and now that the system is collapsing underneath us in 2010 there is no Plan B — just more calls for compromise, more reason, more digging in to be — in the words of another 1979 hit, Supertramp’s “Logical Song”, the product of “a world where I could be so dependable, clinical, intellectual, cynical.” Exhibit A is the man at the top, Barack Obama. No doubt he was a young man filled with a passion for what he would later advertise as “change” — studying how to rid the world of nuclear weapons as an undergraduate at Columbia , where he graduated in 1983, and heading to Chicago as a community organizer poised to do battle against Reagan’s “trickle-down economics,” but the reactionism of the 1980s clearly changed him. When he returned to Harvard Law School at the end of the decade, those experiences made Obama less a promoter of ideas than a seeker of compromise…while promoting himself. “I come from a lot of worlds and I have had the unique opportunity to move through different circles,” Obama told the Los Angeles Times when he was elected the first ever black editor of the Harvard Law Review in 1990. “I have worked and lived in poor black communities and I can translate some of their concerns into words that the larger society can embrace.” But even back then, some saw him as too prone to compromise, like second-year law student Christine Lee, who said nearly 20 years ago of Obama: “His election was significant at the time, but now it’s meaningless because he’s becoming just like all the others (in the Establishment).” The same could be said of President Barack Obama today — from his ridiculously cautious picks to run the Pentagon and the Treasury to his stubborn search for compromise in areas like health care where no middle ground actually existed to his willingness to ” look forward ” and ignore the blatant and serious law-breaking of the previous administration. He is more than willing to accept the vast presidential powers in areas like state secrets that had been grabbed by the Bush administration, because a long time ago Barack Obama began believing less and less in the power of ideology to do the right thing, and more in the power of Barack Obama. Which is why Elena Kagan is his ideal Supreme Court nominee. Like the president, she has been sublimating the starkly liberal ideas that were nurtured in her 1960s and early 1970s childhood — first as an “objective” student journalist at the Daily Princetonian and then as a Supreme Court wannabe who learned quickly that to reach her ultimate goal that she would have to say little of controversy — or consequence — for 30 long years. The Canadian academic Gil Troy — who not coincidentally wrote an excellent cultural history of the Reagan years — penned an analysis of Kagan’s legal career that gets it exactly right : This woman, who posed in judicial robes for her Hunter College High School yearbook, may have been too calculating in climbing to the top. She has taken remarkably few public stands, entered into surprisingly few public controversies for a woman of her prominence and power. Even her academic writings focused on safe analyses of administrative law while other law professors debated issues passionately. In this way, Ms. Kagan reveals she is one of Bork’s Babies, a product of the searing battle that resulted in the Senate’s rejecting Ronald Reagan’s Supreme Court nominee Judge Robert H. Bork in 1987. At the time, ambitious law clerks like Ms. Kagan watched how critics vacuumed through Mr. Bork’s past, blasting decades-old articles he authored, even snooping into his video rentals seeking something embarrassing - turned out Mr. Bork liked Fred Astaire movies. From then on, many of my Washington-oriented friends openly worried about their “paper trails.” Their moral calculus was blunted, replaced by the ubiquitous question, “How will it look in my confirmation hearings?” In a way — and it pains me to say this, because it sounds so much like a popular right-wing conspiracy theory, and I don’t mean it in the same way — Obama and Kagan really were a kind of “Manchurian Candidate,” a type who thought they could only promote their progressive ideas in the 2010s after mostly hiding them in the 1990s and 2000s. But once you veer off that course it’s almost impossible to get back, as you realize what Jackson Browne did between Kagan’s freshman and sophomore years at Princeton that “I don’t know when that road turned onto the road I’m on .” Generation Jones also dominates the profession that I and thousands of other young people pledged allegiance to in the heady days following Watergate and “All the President’s Men,” which is journalism. We saw Woodward and Bernstein rid the nation of the scourge of Nixon not through sit-ins but through dogged professionalism — an idea that was like catnip to unflowery children of the ’70s. It didn’t work that way. The temple of supposed objective journalism — just like Kagan’s Way to the Supreme Court — became a kind of warped religion incapable of effecting change, that suffered complete paralysis when a rogue White House decided to invade a foreign country for no valid reason. Writing that true story could have been a bad career move, you see. Careerism. Not rocking the boat. It is a disease that came to affect different kinds of people from Generation Jones in different fashions. On the conservative side of my generation, the two most popular figures in 2010 — radio’s Glenn Beck and the cultural phenomenon of Sarah Palin (born, amazingly enough, on consecutive days in 1964) — have both have the power and the right-wing incarnation of charisma to move millions of people. But they prefer to use all that political capital to make only millions of dollars for themselves . With the arrival of Generation Jones, pop culture went from the drug-addled chaos of Woodstock to the stage-managed perfection of Madonna — who proudly sang that she was a ” Material Girl ” — and Michael Jackson, who not only shunned any political role but moved toward a metaphorically appropriate neutrality even on racial appearance and gender. In the end, perhaps no figure has epitomized Generation Jones than basketball superstar Michael Jordan, who turned down a chance to endorse a black candidate against race-baiting Sen. Jesse Helms with the ultimate careerist come-on: ” Republicans buy sneakers too .” Unfortunately, those Air Jordans might be mired today in the muck left by the BP oil spill — one more sign of a generation’s failure to tackle the problems confronting the world. Taking on the corporate powers that dominate this country is a risky business — more risky, apparently, than anything our current leaders are eager or willing to tackle. I don’t believe the so-called “Greatest Generation” of the 1930s and 1940s is really inherently greater than the ones that came before or after it, but rather they were people asked to take great chances at an age when they were too young not to refuse the challenge. Generation Jones never faced anything quite like that, and the world is watching the unintended consequences. That said, I’m not ready to give up on my generation, not yet. I know from my own experience and the people I’ve grown up and am now growing older with that the desire and the passion and the know-how to save the world is actually there, just buried under decades of accumulated junk. Who knows — many Elena Kagan and Barack Obama and some of the rest of us simply need to get drunk together again, the way it was back on Nov. 4, 1980, back when we still had a road map and we weren’t running on empty. More on Gulf Oil Spill

Read the original:
Will Bunch: Along Came "Jones": Why My Generation Isn’t Saving the World

If there is any night in the 2010 primary elections calendar that merits the designation of “Super Tuesday”, it has to be the night that awaits us in roughly 48 hours. Not only does June 8th take the cake when it comes to volume, as voters go the polls in a dozen states, but it is also a night that will clarify the electoral picture in several of the most high-profile races on the docket for November. So, let’s take it state-by-state, crisscrossing the nation to look at a night where the number of intriguing matchups numbers, on my scorecard, in the low forties … ARKANSAS: AR-Sen, AR-01, AR-02, AR-03 For a lot of people in the netroots, the post-primary runoff election in the Natural State is priority #1 for Tuesday evening. In the battle to determine the Democratic nominee for the Senate , it is hard not to designate incumbent Senator Blanche Lincoln as a slight underdog going into the evening. As Markos has accurately noted on numerous occasions, Lincoln’s poll numbers have scarcely budged off of the 45% or so that she attained in the May 18th primary elections. A lot of third-place finisher D.C. Morrison’s voters are staying home, but those that aren’t are more likely to head to Halter than Lincoln. That has moved the challenger from a narrow deficit to a narrow lead. This one should be mighty interesting. Meanwhile, there are also a trio of House runoffs to be decided, as well. In AR-01 , the Democrats are squaring off, with the Chief of Staff for outgoing Congressman Marion Berry (Chad Causey) squaring off with ConservaDem Tim Wooldridge. Wooldridge led after round one, but Causey has chalked up the better runoff endorsements (including former President Clinton). Next door in AR-02 , it is a classic right vs. left showdown between state House Speaker Robbie Wills and progressive state senator Joyce Elliott. Elliott held a 40-28 lead after the first round, and earned the endorsement of third-place finisher (and outgoing Rep. Vic Snyder’s CoS) David Boling. Finally, there is quite a battle of conservatives in the GOP primary to replace Senate nominee John Boozman AR-03 . Look for a showdown between round one leader Steve Womack (the mayor of Rogers) and state senator Cecile Bledsoe, the latest Republican to feel the (reverse?) Midas Touch of a Sarah Palin endorsement. CALIFORNIA: CA-Gov, CA-Sen, CA-08, CA-11, CA-19, CA-36, CA-42 The Golden State will be the final act in Election Night (indeed, it will likely be after midnight before East Coasters see a critical mass of data emanating from California), but it should have some results worth staying up late for. The two major statewide races have turned a bit more dull in the final days, as what promised to be tight primaries on the GOP side have seen clear leaders emerge. In the battle for Governor , Meg Whitman has resumed her flood the zone media strategy, and it has paid off with a late resurgence and a reclamation of her substantial lead over state Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner. On the Democratic side, Jerry Brown’s nomination is all but a foregone conclusion. And while Democratic incumbent Barbara Boxer does have a primary in her bid to remain in the Senate , virtually no one expects Mickey Kaus’ primary to bear fruit . The excitement was supposed to have been on the GOP side, but former HP executive Carly Fiorina has pulled away in the closing days, and now is looking at a potential double-digit win over both former Congressman Tom Campbell and teabagger favorite Chuck DeVore. There are nip-and-tuck contests to be had, however, down the ballot. One of those will take place in the Central Valley ( CA-19 ), where state senator Jeff Denham seems to have a bit of daylight between him and the pack, which includes former Fresno Mayor Jim Patterson and former Congressman Richard Pombo, who jumped districts to take a shot at a comeback. Further north, where CA-11 goes from the East Bay to the Central Valley, several Republicans are lining up to take a shot at Democratic sophomore Rep. Jerry McNerney, including another district hopper in the person of 2009 (CA-10) special election candidate David Harmer. Southern California, meanwhile, has a pair of incumbents that are looking at potentially explosive primary challenges. Along the L.A. coast, Jane Harman ( CA-36 ) faces a second contest with peace activist Marcy Winograd. Meanwhile, in inland LA/Orange County ( CA-42 ), longtime Republican Rep. Gary Miller is getting a potential teabagging from self-financing CPA Phil Liberatore. Lastly, in a sign that fools and money are soon parted, over $2.3 million has been raised between a pair of Republican candidates vying to take on Speaker Nancy Pelosi in CA-08 , one of the most Democratic districts in America. Walsh spent over $637K in 2008 to earn the honor of 10% of the vote versus Pelosi (she actually came in third, behind Pelosi and Indie candidate Cindy Sheehan). This year, she did more than double down, raising nearly $1.7 million. Not to be outdone, her primary opponent, Paul-ite candidate John Dennis, has put together a mid-six figure warchest of his own. Democrats everywhere should presumably thank the small but vibrant community of anti-Pelosi activists for tossing away seven figures worth of cash that could have gone into tight races, but instead will be funnelled into a district where the Republican would shatter all existing records to get 35% of the vote. IOWA: IA-Gov, IA-Sen, IA-01, IA-02, IA-03 In Iowa, the race to watch is a coronation gone somewhat awry for former GOP Governor Terry Branstad. Every expectation was that Branstad, a former four-term Governor in the state, would cruise to a primary win and then defeat Democratic incumbent Chet Culver to reclaim his post as Governor in November. The problem is that his primary win is by no means assured. Branstad has been getting bludgeoned from the right by activist candidate Bob Vander Plaats. This has created an ideological fault line between activist social conservatives and the “country club” set focused almost solely on economic affairs. Polls in this race have been all over the map. After two polls last week showed Vander Plaats holding Branstad under 50% and within striking range, a Sunday poll taken for the Des Moines Register gave Branstad a huge lead (57-29), though half of the voters identified themselves as still persuadable, even at this late date. Culver has to be hoping for a Vander Plaats upset (Culver polls much better against the lesser known, more conservative underdog) or, failing that, permanent damage to be done to Branstad in a close primary. Democrats are concerning themselves, meanwhile, with a primary to challenge longtime incumbent Chuck Grassley for his seat in the Senate . Attorney Roxanne Conlin is the candidate of choice for national Democrats, and she is heavily favored over poorly funded rivals Tom Fiegen and Bob Krause. General election polling has been all over the map in this state, with some pollsters suggesting that Grassley, who has not been held 60% of the vote since his initial Senate win three decades ago, could be in for an actual battle against Conlin. Meanwhile, downballot, there are competitive GOP primaries in all three Democratic-held districts. Bruce Braley ( IA-01 ) is probably the safest of the three, with a 16-to-1 funding edge over his most well-financed GOP challenger (former Hill staffer Ben Lange). In IA-02 , it is a re-run of the 2008 Senate primary, as Harkin opponents Christopher Reed and Steve Rathje meet again (joined by 2008 House nominee Marianette Miller-Meeks and first-time candidate Rob Gettemy) in a bid to take on sophomore Democrat David Loebsack. The most competitive primary, however, might be in the Des Moines-based IA-03 , where the field is large enough, and closely bunched enough, that a little-practiced quirk in Iowa election law will take effect. If no candidate hits 35% of the vote on Tuesday night (a possibility also in the 2nd district), then a special convention will need to be held to determine the party’s nominee. MAINE: ME-Gov In Maine, the story is the race for Governor , and the almost absurdly wide-open battles on both sides of the partisan aisle. Even with a pretty good memory for polling, it is hard to recall a race where, roughly a week out, neither primary had a candidate commanding more than 17% of the vote. Yet such is the case down East, where Democrat Libby Mitchell and Republican Les Otten appear to be the narrow frontrunners. The general election could easily be just as muddled, with no less than eleven Independent candidates declaring an interest in the office. NEVADA: NV-Sen and NV-Gov Most of the attention in the Silver State is focused on the Senate , where Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has struggled for most of the cycle with abysmal poll numbers. Reid does face a handful of challengers in a Democratic primary, but no expects him to lose. There might be some interest, however, in looking at his vote totals. If his percentage is markedly low, for example, that could be a sign for concern in the Fall. Reid’s path to victory has gotten easier in the past month or so, however, because Sue Lowden’s once frontrunning campaign has positively imploded. A weekend poll from Mason Dixon now had Lowden running third (23%), behind both former Assemblywoman Sharron Angle (32%) and Danny Tarkanian (24%). Clearly, the Reid campaign is guessing that the hard-right Angle will be the nominee , as they have started a research job on the past public statements and policy pronouncements of Angle. Meanwhile, Reid’s son is the runaway favorite in the Democratic Primary for Governor , while the GOP primary is also quickly becoming settled, as well. After a brief and blissful (for Democrats, anyway) moment where it looked like scandal-ridden Governor Jim Gibbons might hang onto his job, recent polling has put former federal judge Brian Sandoval back into the lead by a solid double-digit margin. SOUTH CAROLINA: SC-Gov, SC-Sen, SC-01, SC-03, SC-04 There are a lot of races on tap in the Palmetto State, but the race that everyone is watching is the primary to replace disgraced Governor Mark Sanford. Sex became the front-and-center issue in the closing days of the campaign, amid allegations that frontrunner Nikki Haley (another in the stable of Sarah Palin endorsees) had an extramarital affair with Republican staffer-turned-blogger Will Folks. Haley seems to have held her lead, and still is favored over state Attorney General Henry McMaster, state Lt. Governor Andre Bauer, and Congressman Gresham Barrett. She will probably need to wait two weeks, however, as she is unlikely to score enough votes to avoid a runoff. Meanwhile, an equally close contest might develop on the Democratic side, where state Education Superintendent Jim Rex is battling with the well-financed Vincent Sheheen, a state Senator. Fellow state senator Robert Ford rounds out the Dem field. Republican incumbent Jim DeMint actually faces a Senate primary from Susan Gaddy, who might have the most comprehensive website since the dawn of the Internet. Meanwhile, Vic Rawls is favored over on the Democratic side. Downballot, there are stacked primaries in SC-01 and SC-03 to replace outgoing Republican Congressmen Henry Brown and Gresham Barrett. In the 1st district, it is the battle of the famous progeny as the children of Strom Thurmond and Carroll Campbell (whose son has the wonderful nickname of “Tumpy”) are among the nine candidates in the GOP field. In the 3rd district, a half dozen Republicans are vying for the nomination, which is tantamount to election in the heavily Republican 3rd. Meanwhile, a number of Republicans are gunning for Bob Inglis in SC-04 , presumably for the crime of straying for the orthodoxy a time or two. VIRGINIA: VA-01, VA-02, VA-05, VA-11 With no statewide races, all the interest in the Virginia primaries is downballot, where four Republican primaries are definitely worth eyeballing. A personal favorite is in eastern Virginia ( VA-01 ) where incumbent Rob Wittman is getting teabagged by one of the original teabagger candidates, Catherine ” Ballots or Bullets ” Crabill. A half-dozen Republicans are up for the challenge against Democratic freshman Glenn Nye in VA-02 , which could get interesting since Virginia is one of the only Southern states NOT to have a runoff election. In VA-05 , another freshman Democrat (Tom Perriello) has drawn a crowd, with establishment candidate Rob Hurt getting hammered from all sides. Divided opposition might be his ticket to victory. Lastly, one of the more intriguing high-profile primaries of the cycle happens in NoVa ( VA-11 ), where Fairfax County Supervisor Pat Herrity and 2008 nominee Keith Fimian go heads-up. OTHER CONTESTS There are five other states going to the ballot box on Tuesday, but the contests there are not drawing quite the same level of attention. In Georgia, a new Congressman will be elected as Republicans Tom Graves and Lee Hawkins try to out-flank one another on the right wing in their bid to replace Nathan Deal in GA-09 , one of the reddest districts in America. Meanwhile, in the Plains, the battle for SD-Gov , if Rasmussen is to be believed, could dictate whether the Democrats have a legit shot at victory in this red-leaning state. Unopposed Democrat Scott Heidepriem actually polls well against some of the GOP flock vying to be Governor. Heidepriem might need to wait a while, however, as South Dakota is practically the only state outside the South to utilize a runoff (which will take place on June 29th). A runoff might also be needed in SD-AL , where Secretary of State Chris Nelson leads a three-candidate GOP field challenging three-term Democrat Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin. Elections are also on tap in Montana, New Jersey, and North Dakota.

The rest is here:
Primary Night Preview: The Guide to the Tuesday Night Fights

Can the Internet fix politics? The question, of course, presumes that politics is broken which, in my view, it isn’t. I think that politics - meaning a two party representative democracy built upon a separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government - actually works relatively well in this country. America just elected an unusually talented and charismatic young President who, in my opinion, has done an extremely credible job appointing and managing our best and brightest to confront deeply rooted economic, environmental, educational, foreign policy and healthcare problems. The American electoral system - give or take perhaps the odd Supreme Court decision on hanging chads - is uncorrupt. The military mercifully keeps well out of politics. The lobbying system, much as it offends purists who believe politics should be free of financial influence, works. The press is free and healthily irreverent, particularly on the Internet. Powerful corporations - like BP, Google or Goldman Sachs - are generally willing to abide by law, even when that law undermines not only their profitability but sometimes even their viability. And the American political system remains a relatively open meritocracy in which an entirely self-made man of African ancestory who grew up in Hawaii can - via Harvard Law School, the Illinois Senate and the US Congress - negotiate the rapids of the conventional political system to rise up to become President. But what is broken in America is our respect for politicians, political parties and political institutions. Each new poll on public trust in the Congress seems to reach a new nadir and America is caught in a vicious cycle of blaming incumbents for the economic and social consequences of the structural shift from an national-industrial to an global-information economy. And what is compounding this distrust of traditional representative democracy is the new orthodoxy of an angry libertarianism on both the left and right - from Sarah Palin to Glenn Beck to Lou Dobbs, Jon Stewart and (dare I say it) Arianna Huffington - which distrusts the very notion of legitimate political power. What is broken in America is a faith in the general goodness and credibility of elected officials. What is broken is a social contract predicated upon the rights and responsibilities of not only the rulers but also the ruled. This is where the Internet comes in. Rather than a solution to a broken political system, the Internet is part of the problem. The decentralized, flat architecture of the Internet - with its cult of questioning all forms of authority, its neo-anarchic orthodoxies of transparency and accountability, and its replacement of the responsibilities of citizenship with the rights of the consumer - is compounding the crisis of conventional political power. Sure, the Internet is a great medium for democratizing authoritarian regimes in Iran, China and Egypt. But in America, we already have a pretty decent democracy. Unfortunately, the unmediated Internet, with its tendency toward mob rule, is undermining the legitimacy of representative democracy and replacing it with the dangerous pipedream of a pure democracy. It’s the Anti Federalists 2.0. And in today’s vertiginous economic and cultural environment, I’m afraid, these new Anti-Feds might win. I dearly hope that politics won’t have to fix the Internet. But the online world is too precious to the 21st century to become purely a festering source of perpetual subversion for the discontented. If we can balance the demand for individual rights with the need for personal responsibility - in everything from intellectual property theft to the vitriol of anonymous online posting to an intuitive disrespect for other people’s opinions and beliefs - then the Internet can become a politically positive force in our nascent digital century. But this won’t happen if we turn the Internet into a religion and regard its technology as eschatology. Rather than being about peddling conspiracy theories or swapping stolen songs or posting videos of your skateboarding cat on YouTube, citizenship is about recognizing the moral consequences of one’s one actions. That’s how the Internet can fix politics. That’s how it can be a force for the public good.

Here is the original: 
Andrew Keen: Can the Internet fix politics

When Republican presidential nominee John McCain announced his vice presidential running mate in the summer of 2008, his choice was greeted with equal servings of curiosity and enthusiasm. Movement conservatives saw the selection as a game-changer: the little-known vice presidential nominee brought youth, charisma, and energy to the Republican ticket and would give McCain a much-needed boost in the presidential election. For its part, the Obama campaign scrambled to assess how the choice would affect its standing in the polls. But everyone–media outlets, politicians, Republicans and Democrats alike–all asked the same question: Who is Sarah Palin? The initial curiosity quickly turned into skepticism about Palin’s qualifications. Her thin political resume collapsed under the pressure of intense media scrutiny. And perhaps with good reason: she had served only as a city councilor, then mayor, of a small city in Alaska, and then as Governor of the state, for fewer than two years, by the time she had been nominated for the vice presidency. The consequences of a vote for McCain were not lost on voters. Had McCain won the presidential election and later suffered an illness that prevented him from fulfilling his duties as president, the former Governor from Alaska with no demonstrable proficiency in public policy and even less experience in foreign affairs would have become president. McCain’s choice of Palin points to one of the biggest problems in American presidential politics today: the vice presidential pick rests on the shoulders of one person and no one else. The vice president takes office–and accepts the vast power it confers upon its occupant–not at the invitation of the people but instead on the whim of a presidential candidate. There is nothing resembling any measure of popular input or consent in the vice presidential choice because it is the exclusive prerogative of each party’s presidential nominee. The regrettable result is to distort the incentives for picking vice presidents. Rather than selecting a vice presidential nominee who is prepared to assume the presidency, a presidential nominee is more likely to pick a running mate for politically expedient purposes of ticket balancing. This current practice threatens to leave the United States with a novice on deck, one who may be unqualified to competently discharge the increasingly important duties of the vice presidency. Worse still, the vice president may be ill-equipped to lead the nation in the event of presidential disability or vacancy. This has not always been a problem. For most of American history, vice presidents have been consigned to a largely ceremonial role devoid of any real involvement in the functioning of government and the elaboration of national policy. So, perhaps understandably, the vice presidency has long been an easy target for critics, with many questioning the relevance of the office and others viewing it with pity and derisory humor. For instance, John Adams, the nation’s first vice president, felt powerless and often ignored in his office. He referred to the vice presidency as “the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived.” One hundred and fifty years later, little seemed to have changed when Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s understudy, John Nance Garner, remarked that accepting the vice presidential nomination was “the worst damn fool mistake I ever made.” In the 1960s, President John F. Kennedy commented that his vice president, Lyndon B. Johnson, had “the worst job in Washington.” When Johnson later succeeded to the presidency, he could not help but follow Kennedy’s example of casting shame on the vice presidency. And as recently as the 2004 presidential election, Senator John McCain conveyed a similar lack of enthusiasm, likening the vice presidential nomination to being “fed scraps.” But not anymore. No longer is the vice president a mere minion wielding only negligible influence upon the organs of government. The vice presidency now holds prime ministerial dominion in America, commands transnational authority and has, in modern times, been an almost-certain springboard to the presidency. In light of the revolutionary transformation of the vice presidency, the office can no longer defensibly remain the choice of the presidential nominee alone. The United States must democratize the vice presidency with some form of popular consent. There are many ways to do this. One way is to conduct separate vice presidential primaries, either before, during, or after the presidential primaries. Another option is to allow the party membership to elect the vice presidential nominee at the presidential nominating convention. Still another alternative to bestow upon the vice president the personal mandate that is currently lacking would be to subject the nominee to congressional confirmation, much like Cabinet secretaries must now be confirmed by the Senate. One could also imagine a national vice presidential election conducted on the same day as the presidential election. These are only a few suggestions meant to begin a broader conversation about how to enhance the democratic bona fides of the vice presidency. For it is shocking that the voice of the American electorate is silent on who should manage the power of the vice presidency. And it is even more shocking that it is instead the victorious presidential nominee–and he alone–who decides who will be the nation’s second-in-command. In a liberal democracy, it is wrong that a choice of such colossal import turns on the caprice of one individual. The existing method of vice presidential selection is therefore perilous, to say the least. Not only does the vice presidential nominee lack the popular legitimacy that can come only from the freely given consent of voters, but nothing prevents a presidential nominee from choosing a running mate on the basis of politics and optics rather than competence and leadership. Surely the American people deserve better. The public trust commands no less. More on Barack Obama

Read the rest here:
Richard Albert: President Palin?

As hard as it might be to believe, we are already one-third of the way through 2010. On this first day of May, we look at a campaign cycle that grows ever more busy. As a result, it will not be long before the Wrap ramps it up to a five-day-a-week feature again. In this weekend edition, we get a GOP nominee in Minnesota, a GOP incumbent taking a walk in Florida (no…not this guy ), and a handful of polls, to boot. THE U.S. SENATE FL-Sen: Crist Leads Three-Way Tabulation, According To GOP Pollster The good news for Florida Governor and nouveau Independent Senate candidate Charlie Crist: a poll taken just before his announcement had Crist leading likely GOP nominee Marco Rubio in a three way Senate race (33-29), with Democrat Kendrick Meek well back at 15%. The bad news? The pollster thinks this is the high-water mark for Crist. Jim McLaughlin (who is one of the better-known numbers guys in the GOP) notes that Crist does surprisingly well in the poll with Democrats and African-Americans (getting 36% of the A-A vote). With an African-American Democratic candidate (Meek is the current frontrunner for the Dem nod, despite the presence of a well-heeled challenger in billionaire Jeff Greene), McLaughlin finds that it is pretty implausible that Crist’s numbers will hold. IN-Sen: Coats Leads Primary and General Elex, According to SUSA Toward the end of the week, SUSA polled the upcoming primary election in Indiana, and found that establishment frontrunner Dan Coats (the former U.S. Senator) has a double-digit lead over the insurgent candidate, former Congressman John Hostettler (36-24). State legislator Marlin Stutzman could get involved in this race for the win, as well, polling at 18%. In the general election, SUSA paints a pretty dire picture for the Dems, putting presumptive Democratic nominee Brad Ellsworth well behind Coats (47-31) and Hostettler (45-32). OH-Sen: Second Poll Confirms Fisher Move in Dem Primary Just days before the Ohio primaries, the Democratic Senate primary is threatening to become one-sided, according to a new poll from Suffolk University . Suffolk’s poll gives state Lt. Governor Lee Fisher a two-to-one edge over OH Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner (55-27). Interestingly, the Quinnipiac poll in the state last week had both Brunner and Fisher leading presumptive GOP nominee Rob Portman by similar margins of 3-4 points. THE U.S. HOUSE FL-05: Brown-Waite Steps Down On Filing Deadline Day After hinting at a retirement in February (even calling a press conference where everyone presumed a retirement announcement, only to announce she was remarrying), Republican Ginny Brown-Waite did it for real at the close of the week, retiring from the House. Brown-Waite, 66, immediately endorsed Hernando County Sheriff Richard Nugent. There might have been a little chicanery on the departing Congresswoman’s part–she delayed the announcement until just a handful of hours before the filing deadline expired on Friday. A little-known candidate (Jason Sager) was already in the field, but the late announcement might have frozen the field for Nugent with regard to the bigger fish in the Florida 5th. Democrat Jim Piccillo is the Democratic nominee-in-waiting, as he was the only Dem to file. In Florida filing news, there has to be some disappointment over the fact that Mario Diaz-Balart will switch from the 25th district to the 21st district with absolutely no problems: he was the only candidate to file in the 21st district. Democrats also failed to field candidates in the 1st, 4th, and 6th districts. Meanwhile, the Democrat that emerges from the crowded primary to replace Kendrick Meek in the 17th District will be practically assured of victory, as the GOP failed to file a candidate in this heavily-Dem district. IN-03: Could A Class of ‘94 Incumbent Be Ready to Bite The Dust? Well, it appears that yesterday’s insurgent is today’s establishment insider. According to a new poll by SUSA , eight-term incumbent Mark Souder leads self-funder Bob Thomas by just six points (35-29), with less than a week to go until their primary battle this Tuesday. Souder was one of the more conservative members of the Gingrich class of 1994, but his campaign skills are only so-so: despite a solidly GOP district, he has been held to 55% or less of the vote in the past two elections. NH-01/NH-02: New UNH Poll Numbers Yucky For Granite State Democrats If the polling center at the University of New Hampshire are correct, the GOP could nab two pickups in the Granite State alone. The new numbers (PDF) have Carol Shea-Porter trailing narrowly against three prospective GOP candidates (margins ranging from 3-4 points). Former GOP Congressman Charlie Bass does even better in the state’s 2nd district, with a huge lead over Katrina Swett (44-27). If there is a small bright spot for the Dems, it is that Democrat Ann McLane Kuster (a member of our Orange to Blue list) comes a great deal closer to Bass (42-30) despite still being a comparably lesser-known challenger. It’s early, but Kuster seems far, far more electable than Swett, despite her name recognition edge. THE GUBERNATORIAL RACES CO-Gov: Hickenlooper Has Monster Fundraising Quarter in Colorado A lot of observers thought that Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper would be a definite upgrade for the Democrats in the Colorado gubernatorial election. Despite never having run statewide, few doubted his ability to raise money for a statewide election. That ability has quite effectively been put on display. Hickenlooper raised over $1.1 million dollars in his first quarter in the race, well ahead of likely GOP opponent Scott McInnis, who hauled in a little over a half-million dollars. MN-Gov: Palin-Endorsee Emmer Scores Surprisingly Easy GOP Nod Perhaps a bit of an object lesson in how convention-selected nominees might prove less electable than ones selected in primaries: state legislator Tom Emmer, whose biggest claim to fame to date was snagging Sarah Palin’s endorsement, scored an easier than expected win at the Minnesota state GOP convention, emerging from it as the party nominee for Governor. Emmer defeated fellow state Rep. Marty Seifert, who might have been doomed with the role of the “establishment favorite” as the convention convened. Emmer’s Democratic rival is yet to be determined. Former state House speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher emerged from the Democratic convention, but still has two primary rivals (former U.S. Senator Mark Dayton and legislator Matt Etenza) who did not participate in the convention. THE RAS-A-PALOOZA Ras closes the week with data from a small handful of states, with no real surprises emanating from the House of Ras. The status quo essentially holds (at least, the status quo according to Ras) in Florida, Illinois, Nevada, and Delaware. One interesting stat from Team Rasmussen: their monthly analysis of political self-identification finds that folks identifying themselves as Republicans has hit a nearly two-year low. The gap for April 2010 was Democrats 36.0%, and Republicans at 31.6%. DE-Sen: Mike Castle (R) 55%, Chris Coons (D) 32% FL-Sen: Marco Rubio (R) 37%, Charlie Crist (I) 30%, Kendrick Meek (D) 22% IL-Gov: Bill Brady (R) 45%, Gov. Pat Quinn (D) 38% IL-Sen: Mark Kirk (R) 46%, Alexi Giannoulias (D) 38% NV-Gov: Brian Sandoval (R) 53%, Rory Reid (D) 35% NV-Gov: Mike Montandon (R) 45%, Rory Reid (D) 39% NV-Gov: Rory Reid (R) 47%, Gov. Jim Gibbons (D) 37% NV-Sen: Sue Lowden (R) 52%, Sen. Harry Reid (D) 39% NV-Sen: Danny Tarkanian (R) 51%, Sen. Harry Reid (D) 41% NV-Sen: Sharron Angle (R) 48%, Sen. Harry Reid (D) 40%

Read more: 
Polling and Political Wrap-Up, 5/1/10

The Unfolding Story Offshore oil drilling is dangerous work, as the tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico reminds us. Our hearts go out to the families of the victims who were lost in the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig. Unfortunately, this horror story grows more and more tragic every day. As more than 200,000 gallons of oil per day spew into the ocean, an environmental disaster is unfolding before our eyes. The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries estimates at least 400 species could be impacted by the oil spill, including a dozen, like the sperm whale, West Indian manatee, and Brown Pelican, that are listed under the Endangered Species Act. The oil spill is expected to make landfall by this weekend. Those who make their living from the Gulf’s living resources are waiting and worried. Louisiana’s fishing industry is the second largest in America, producing 20% to 25% of the total domestic seafood in the lower 48 states. About a third of the nation’s oysters come from Louisiana’s waters and the state is also a major producer of shrimp. Florida, whose coastline is also at risk from this spill, depends heavily on tourism and recreation. In 2008, visitors spent $65.2 billion in Florida and Florida collected $3.9 billion in tourism-related sales taxes. The state’s tourism industry depends in large measure on clean water, clean beaches and abundant fish and wildlife. These are threatened when an oil spill of this magnitude occurs. How This Tragedy Should Inform Policy This disaster will be all the more tragic if we fail to learn from it. Already, several lessons are evident: We cannot assume that technological advances have somehow removed the risk of off-shore oil drilling. This is evidenced not only by this most recent blowout in the Gulf of Mexico, but by a blowout off Australia’s coast last summer, also from an allegedly “state of the art” offshore oil facility, that spewed oil for 10 weeks, spreading an oil slick over 20,000 square miles. This makes clear that it is especially important to ensure fragile ecosystems are not put at risk from oil drilling. Evaluations of whether important ecosystems could be harmed cannot be based on the premise that oil spills are unlikely. Exploratory drilling poses risks. The rig that exploded off the coast of Louisiana was drilling an exploratory well, not one intended for continuing production. Exploratory drilling should not be subject to a lower level of scrutiny than other oil development activities. An oil spill is equally as damaging if it comes from an exploratory well. Clean-up technology poses its own risks and needs further development. The current state of clean-up technology hardly offers a reason to be less concerned about oil spills. Planned burns like the one government officials are now testing release particulates and other dangerous pollutants into the air. The efficacy and environmental impacts of another technique also being tried -chemical dispersants–are not well-understood, according to a 2005 National Research Council report. Last month, the Obama Administration announced its intent to open up new regions to offshore drilling, including federal waters along the east coast of the U.S. from Delaware to Florida, in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and in the Arctic Ocean off Alaska. During his speech, President Obama assured the nation that new offshore oil and gas development would be done “in ways that protect communities and coastlines.” It is now clear that we still do not know how to adequately protect communities and coastlines from the worst impacts of offshore drilling accidents. From faulty technology and basic human error, to insufficient and potentially harmful clean-up techniques, there is now proof positive that we need to pause and ask ourselves what it really takes to safely drill off of our coasts. Such a pause is standard operating procedure. After the terrible 1986 explosion of the Space Shuttle Challenger, NASA grounded its shuttle fleet for over 2 years, and established a special commission to investigate the accident and offer key recommendations to be implemented before shuttle flights resumed. We believe that, in light of this recent tragedy, there should be a time-out on any action to proceed with new offshore drilling until there has been a full and independent investigation of the causes of this blowout, an assessment of whether and how such accidents can be avoided in the future, and a full understanding of the environmental risks of drilling to sensitive and ecologically important areas in these regions as well as the economic impacts to ocean and coastal communities. The Administration and, for its part, Congress, must take into account the huge safety and environmental issues that has been exposed as a result of the massive oil spill in the Gulf. We call on the Administration to suspend plans to open up new areas to offshore drilling until we truly understand how to do environmentally and socially responsible offshore drilling. This nation also needs comprehensive climate and clean energy policy that invests in energy efficiency and renewable power, including clean renewable energy available off our coasts. Passing strong climate legislation that caps carbon pollution will also create a new opportunity to economically recover stranded oil in fields that have already been drilled through a technique called CO2-enhanced oil recovery. This technique avoids the risks that are inherent in offshore drilling activities. This post originally appeared on NRDC’s Switchboard blog . More on Energy

View post:
Sarah Chasis: NRDC Calls for a Time-Out on New Offshore Drilling Activities

“I’m a maverick.”    – John McCain to Larry King, CNN, October 30th, 2008 “I never considered myself a maverick.”    – John McCain to Newsweek, April 3rd, 2010 What I most savor about John McCain’s recent statement, ” I never considered myself a maverick ,” is that it one of those passing utterances that show a pure and unspoiled contempt for the listener. There are big lies in this world and small ones; there are half-truths, shades of gray, minor factual fender-benders and spectacular wrecks of truthiness, and then there are those statements that exist only to demonstrate the absolute mastery of the speaker over his own version of reality, one that you, as a listener, are most emphatically not privy to. There is no point to the statement, and no profound advantage in saying it or not saying it. It is not something to be fact checked or tittered at. It is merely there , a dangling, glistening drop of verbal drool from a smiling, unimpeachably honest mouth. It is a blown kiss directed at you, the listener, whether you want it or not. It is a tiny act of intellectual assault; a minor act of thuggery sandwiched between one magazine page and the next; a noble monument erected by the speaker to himself so that the rest of you pissant little tyrants, you dime-store dictators of the lower classes, can look upon his greatest works and know your own place. The most precise translation is something like screw you, listener . It is not a lie, of course, it is only a, shall we say… evolution of the truth. And that is the genius of the statement: it acknowledges fully that what is true and what is false, in politics — scratch that, in America — is completely irrelevant. We can take him at his word, of course. We can presume that the most narrow interpretation of those six words are indeed, true — that he never considered himself a maverick, but was perfectly willing to craft an entire campaign, an entire career around the stupid little word. That would mean that Senator John McCain has been a conniving liar all along, a manipulative son of a bitch, in fact, and that with this one statement he intends to come clean, if only for a moment — but that would be insultingly simplistic, and far too easy. We could presume he is simply a senile old fart — also a possibility, given recent performances, but equally insulting. T he more accurate answer, of course, is that whether something is “true” or “false” is a game among children, and John McCain, like every other politician able to momentarily capture a camera or a podium, knows full well that you can lie your ass off to all of America and there’s not two people in a hundred who will either notice or give a flying damn. It is not just a move for campaigning — you can govern by it, too. What the hell, you can form an entire movement around the premise that the “truth” is whatever the hell you say it is at one given moment, and that the “truth” may be something entirely opposite tomorrow. If it means denying past videotape — please. Only elitists, bastards and misanthropes know how to press rewind. If it means rewriting textbooks to bend history into a more pleasing pattern — not a problem. A hundred petty dictatorships in the world, past and present, have paved the way to that particular nirvana already: it hardly even requires effort at this point. If it means celebrating Confederate history without once mentioning that the intolerable oppression those Confederates were attempting to cast off under the mantle of “states’ rights” was the inalienable right to keep other human beings in slavery, to breed and sell them like cattle, and to maintain this state of slavery over lifetimes and generations entirely on basis of parentage and perceived race — pfft. Only the easily insulted could care. A collection of housing advocates for the poor might be just what they sound like — or a secret cabal capable of bending the nation to their will. Is it not arrogant to presume both are equally likely? After all, is not any organization dedicated primarily to the poor a suspect enterprise to begin with? You can deny anything from climate change to evolution to the existence of garlic bread by simply denying whichever physical laws of nature are most inconvenient or — better yet — simply get rid of the transitive properties of mathematics altogether. If A = B, and B = C, than can we truly say that A = C? Or is that, as some of our greatest political minds will assert, the path to communism? And what of death panels ? We can mutter all we like about the plain facts in front of us, that no such things ever were contemplated, that no “panels” anywhere in any legislation were holding the Sword of Damocles over your nana. We can trace the origins of the lie, we can identify the prime liars by name and rank and income bracket, we can even track the lie back to its own corporate sponsorship — a lie in service of a profit, just another new terrifying brand to be marketed to the masses. But to say any of that is to be a sick and ignorant little fuck, because REAL AMERICANS, in all their uppercased glory, know that true patriotism consists of believing whatever fever dream you are being told, by whoever said it the loudest, and being prepared to believe the exact opposite as well if and when the need arises. I n this context, then, it seems downright mean-spirited to single John McCain out. He is only doing what his constituency requires: reinventing reality into whatever new shape will gain a bare moment of applause. Today he is not a maverick, and never has been; by next week he might be one again. But in all of this it would seem he deserves not our scorn, but our sincere gratitude — because his, at least, is merely a political lie. A banal, straightforward, screw-you-all lie targeted at nothing more than gaining a few votes from that most fickle of American interest groups, the unadulterated moron. If you are too stupid to remember what happens from one year to the next, John McCain wants your vote. If you do not give a flying damn what comes out of a politician’s mouth, John McCain is your man. Give me your gullible, your indifferent, your huddled masses yearning to breathe any horse’s fart we can claim is the soft breeze of freedom, and John McCain, like a thousand other politicians and would-be politicians and outright hucksters of twenty other sorts can, for a small price, lead you to the promised land. A mere campaign pander, no matter how comical — now that is almost refreshing. John McCain’s simple self-denial endangered no lives, and sent no creatures nearer to extinction. It misled his audience not about science, or history, or taxes, or their grandmother’s health, or the dark designs of evil census workers. Hell no — he simply wants your vote, and is gladly willing to pants himself in front of the nation to get it. Compare that to any other lies uttered in the last weeks by the likes of Michele Bachmann, or Sarah Palin, or Newt Gingrich, or insert-your-favorite-political-circus-act here… Ah, now those are lies. And, as a slight aside, it is rapidly becoming true that if you want to know what is happening in politics, you will almost certainly get more accurate news from a comedy channel than a news one. The reason is simple: comedians still have the plain common sense to be offended when someone is bullshitting them, which is something not one damn host on any Sunday show has the self-respect to manage. The “news” is not the news, precisely speaking: it is merely the forum by which competing interests can cough up competing versions of reality. You will find no politician shunned on the networks or in the editorial pages because of their own rampant falsehoods. Perhaps it is foolish to expect it, but still… it feels like we should expect it. It still feels, somehow, that we should hold our national leaders to the same standards we demand of our kindergartners. In any event, we should celebrate our new decade, for it has solidified the progress of the last. We have now made abject lying into a national political movement. It is no longer merely a tool for the cynical, but a destination, a bona fide political theme park. You can take a bus to it. You can craft a network around it. Most of all, to tell an outright lie is now the American thing to do, proof positive that you are a patriot. There is no statement so false as to be irredeemable, no matter how ugly or how stupid, so long as you wrap a flag around it. Wrap a lie in the flag and it becomes a benediction. Wrap a lie in the flag and it becomes untouchable. J ohn McCain once campaigned on a bus dubbed the Straight Talk Express . I know this because ancient videotape tells us so, and because some of us, a very few, have retained something called “memory” of those days. We may learn later that it was actually the Grilled Cheese Express — there is no assurance that the plain facts of one set of months will transfer to another. Where that bus is now I am not sure anyone can tell, but I prefer to imagine that it has been repainted with even more stars and even brighter stripes, sold off and re-stenciled with a truly ripping lie, some grand and nearly epic falsehood in eighteen-inch-high letters. Maybe it tours the country telling people that their grandmothers are still in danger, or that whittling down to a mere several thousand nuclear weapons in the world would be national suicide, or that you have the God-given right to have companies dump toxins in your drinking water and anyone who says differently is a secret communist. Perhaps it hunts the American heartland looking for citizens who dare to consider homosexuals people. Maybe it travels north to argue that spotted owls cause cancer. Maybe it urgently insists, in large, bold letters, that the government keep its filthy hands off your Medicare. It hardly matters. There is literally no end to the possibilities — a movement that prides itself on creative falsehoods can accomplish anything, given a sufficiently gullible population. But but a popular movement that additionally prides itself on its own gullibility, on its own fevered dismissal of anything that smacks too strongly of science, or of logic, or or rationality? A movement that screams “read the bill!”, but has never read it, or a politician that screams “you lie!” only to have it demonstrated that they, in fact, are the liar? Now that has the makings of something truly great. As for Sen. McCain, we owe him our gratitude. “I never considered myself a maverick” may be a lie, may be the truth, may be both or neither, but at least it was merely the kind of nonsensical horseshit we have always expected of our leaders. It is practically nostalgic, in fact. I dare say it feels as warm as a grandma-knitted sweater.

Originally posted here:
Ceci n’est pas une Maverick

Another weekend edition scuttled by the annoyances of glitches and unforeseen circumstances. But, on the positive side, all that means is that there is just that much more to love in the Monday edition of the Wrap… THE U.S. SENATE CA-Sen: PPIC Poll Confirms Boxer In Fight of Her Career Third-term Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer is in the fight of her career politically, according to a poll released late last week by the Public Policy Institute of California. Former Congressman Tom Campbell actually holds a narrow lead over Boxer (44-43) in the poll, while Carly Fiorina trails Boxer by the same one-point margin (44-43). Boxer still holds a more sizeable lead over conservative insurgent candidate Chuck DeVore (46-40). Interestingly, Fiorina has moved back into the GOP primary lead in this poll, while DeVore still languishes far behind both Fiorina and Campbell. DeVore, as it turned out, had a pretty lousy day. It turns out that he had a tangential connection to the day’s favorite story (the $1900 strip club expense for the RNC). The campaign consultant who sought reimbursement from the RNC turned out to have some past business dealings with DeVore. DeVore’s campaign said they severed ties with the consultant’s firm before the controversy erupted and (no shit!) they will not resume a business relationship with the firm. FL-Sen: Republican Domination, and a Crist Comeback A poll out last week by Mason Dixon in the Sunshine State of Florida shows that Florida Governor Charlie Crist might be forging a comeback, contrary to all other polling in the state. The crew at M-D has Crist trailing Marco Rubio by just eleven points (48-37) in the GOP primary. Crist also was the more electable of the two Republicans against Kendrick Meek, doubling up the Democrat (50-26) while Marco Rubio led by roughly half of that margin (44-29). NY-Sen: GOP’s Only Hope Against Gillibrand An Undeclared Pataki The GOP, much like in Wisconsin, is hedging all of their hopes on an undeclared candidate in New York, according to a new Marist poll . Former Governor George Pataki is the only Republican even in the same area code as incumbent Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. Pataki and Gillibrand are locked in a toss-up (47-45 Pataki). Among the trio of Republicans who have actually committed to the race, Gillibrand wins in blowouts ranging from 27-29 points. Also, for what it’s worth (which is little), Zogby Interactive rears its ugly head , and gives Gillibrand a solid lead over Pataki. THE U.S. HOUSE GA-09: What’s The Deal With Special Election Change? The special election to replace outgoing (and newly scandalized–as you will read below) Republican Rep. Nathan Deal has been delayed for a couple of weeks, courtesy of a decision made late last week by Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue. The new date will be May 11th. The qualifying period for that race began today, and will run through Wednesday. Democrats can probably write this district off, as it is one of the most Republican districts in America (McCain won here 75-24). ID-01/IL-11/FL-22: Sarah Palin Anoints Trio Of House Candidates Three Republicans in competitive races have accepted the acclaim of one of the more polarizing figures in American politics. Sarah Palin endorsed a trio of veterans in their Congressional bids. They are: Vaughn Ward (ID-01), Adam Kinzinger (IL-11), and Allan West (FL-22). Cozying up to Palin might work in deep-red Idaho, but one has to wonder what the percentage is in cuddling up to Palin in districts where John McCain scored 48% or less of the vote (IL-11/FL-22). SC-05: Another Rumored Democratic Retirement Falls By Wayside Any Democrats nervous about longtime Democratic Rep. John Spratt abandoning a red-leaning Dem district can officially relax: Spratt filed for re-election today. Spratt, in his late sixties, had been one of the Democrats the GOP identified as a potential target for retirement. Spratt faces a serious challenger in 2010 in the person of state Senator Mick Mulvaney, but it is worth noting that Spratt easily rebuffed a serious challenger (Ralph Norman) in 2006, winning 57% of the vote. THE GUBERNATORIAL RACES CA-Gov: PPIC Finds Whitman’s Millions Paying Off In Gov Race The same PPIC poll referenced above looked at the gubernatorial race, and found that Meg Whitman’s obscene flinging of cash statewide has paid off, at least to some extent. The poll shows that Whitman has moved into a 44-41 lead over Democrat Jerry Brown. Brown still has a substantial lead over Republican Steve Poizner (46-31), which shows that the generic Democratic edge is still there, absent a candidate spending a half mil a day in order to flood the zone. One has to wonder, of course, about the theory of diminishing returns and how that will impact Whitman if she insists on the continuation of this strategy. FL-Gov: McCollum Out To A Big Lead, According to Mason-Dixon Is health care a liability for Democrats in Florida? That is a meme being pushed extremely hard by a poll released late last week by Mason Dixon , which has the reform getting crushed by the Sunshine State electorate. It also has presumed Republican nominee Bill McCollum crushing Democrat Alex Sink by a fifteen point margin (49-34). That is an even wider margin than Rasmussen (see the “Ras-a-palooza” below) recorded in their own poll last week. GA-Gov: Deal Gubernatorial Bid Jeopardized By Ethical Morass Adding some intrigue into what had been a fairly pedestrian Republican primary for Governor in the Peach State, Nathan Deal was dinged today by a report by the Office of Congressional Ethics. The O.C.E. released a report detailing ethical issues involving Deal’s apparent use of his position as a member of Congress to keep alive a no-bid state contract that he and his business partners profitted from. It also dinged him for exceeding Congressional limits on outside earned income. Deal is beyond the reach of the Ethics Committee at this point, of course, having resigned from Congress over a week ago in order to focus on his gubernatorial bid. NY-Gov: Same Ol’ Same Ol’…Cuomo Has Huge Lead over GOP Hopefuls Any Republican illusions that luring Steve Levy over to the GOP was going to be the silver bullet to reclaim the New York statehouse appears to be a tad optimistic . Marist polls the state again, and they find Cuomo over 60% against either nouveau Republican Steve Levy (65-26) or more conventional Republican Rick Lazio (61-30). The poll also shows that Levy, for all of the recruitment by certain corners of the NYGOP, gets splattered in a potential GOP primary, losing to Lazio by a 53-21 margin. THE RAS-A-PALOOZA Man, even when the crew over at the House of Ras put out a poll that is, all in all, favorable to the Democrats, it still seems a little…well… off . I don’t know that Dan Inouye would be up 40 points on Linda Lingle, and I certainly question whether little-known Doug Turner is the colossus of the New Mexico GOP gubernatorial field. That aside, the Ras is it’s usual prolific self, with oodles of data between last Wednesday and today. If the spirit of the Ras moves you, you can always check out their data at their website . FL-Gov : Bill McCollum (R) 47%, Alex Sink (D) 36% HI-Gov : Neal Abercrombie (D) 54%, Duke Aiona (R) 31% HI-Gov : Mufi Hannemann (D) 50%, Duke Aiona (R) 29% HI-Sen : Sen. Dan Inouye (D) 65%, Gov. Linda Lingle (R) 25% NM-Gov : Diane Denish (D) 43%, Doug Turner (R) 34% NM-Gov : Diane Denish (D) 45%, Allan Weh (R) 35% NM-Gov : Diane Denish (D) 52%, Peter Domenici Jr. (R) 35% NM-Gov : Diane Denish (D) 51%, Susana Martinez (R) 32% NM-Gov : Diane Denish (D) 52%, Janice Arnold-Jones (R) 30% ND-Sen : Gov. John Hoeven (R) 68%, Tracy Potter (D) 25% ND-AL : Rick Berg (R) 51%, Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D) 44% RI-Gov : Lincoln Chafee (I) 39%, Frank Caprio (D) 28%, John Robataille (R) 22% RI-Gov : Lincoln Chafee (I) 37%, John Robataille (R) 26%, Patrick Lynch (D) 22% SD-AL : Rep. Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin (D) 44%, Chris Nelson (R) 42% SD-AL : Rep. Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin (D) 46%, Kristi Noem (R) 35% SD-AL : Rep. Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin (D) 45%, Blake Curd (R) 33% TN-Gov : Bill Haslam (R) 46%, Kim McMillan (D) 26% TN-Gov : Bill Haslam (R) 45%, Mike McWherter (D) 27% TN-Gov : Ron Ramsey (R) 43%, Kim McMillan (D) 25% TN-Gov : Ron Ramsey (R) 43%, Mike McWherter (D) 29% TN-Gov : Zach Wamp (R) 42%, Kim McMillan (D) 29% TN-Gov : Zach Wamp (R) 41%, Mike McWherter (D) 31%

View original here:
Polling and Political Wrap-Up, 3/29/10

Oh no. Another celebrity is telling us what to do. This time it’s Lady GaGa. Somewhat unbelievably, the 23 year old pop sensation, famous for her pants-free onstage cavortings, has warned against the dangers of casual sex. Speaking at a function for AIDs charities in London yesterday she said that young women should be careful chossing partners to have sex with. ” If you can’t get to know them, you shouldn’t have sex with them, ” she said. She also urged girls to carry condoms and get regular AIDs checks. “You are not invincibe,” she added. Fair enough, you might say. It seems like decent advice. Well yes it does, but that is an accident. What Lady GaGa is really saying is: I am celibate so you must be too. . “I’m single because I don’t have the time,” she explained. “You know what? It’s OK. Even Lady GaGa can be celibate.” This is in fact simply meglomania disguised as social concern. If Lady GaGa decides to resume her bisexual habits would she recommend that too? I have interviewed many famous people and they were all different. But not one of them had a monopoly on how best to live your life. Quite the reverse - a great many of them were, no surprise here, very insecure people. It is a trait amongst the clueless, to immediately recommend for humanity the small life lesson that they have only just learned. At best it’s infuriating, at worst you end up with Sarah Palin. My rule of thumb: whatever celebrities tell you to do, do the opposite. Happy shagging. More on Sarah Palin

Read the rest here:
Andy Pemberton: Lady GaGa Has Told Her Female Fans To Be Celibate. Is It Any Of Her Business?

Dana Perino cashed in on her stint as White House press secretary in the Bush administration in the usual way, by signing on with a Washington PR firm (resulting in the occasional disclosure problem ). She also got a common perk for ex-employees of Republican administrations — she joined the Republican administration in exile at Fox News. If Perino ever felt constrained by the facts while speaking from the podium in the White House, she doesn’t seem to feel that way now. Her tenure as Fox News’ press secretary in exile has been marked by one false or misleading claim after another. This past week, Perino has engaged in a veritable parade of whoppers to attack the Obama administration’s handling of suspected terrorists in general and, in particular, alleged “underwear bomber” Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab — and to try to cover for her old boss. On Monday’s Fox & Friends, faced with the argument that the Bush administration did a fine job of handling shoe bomber Richard Reid in the criminal justice system instead of military detention, Perino claimed that the Reid case was different because “there wasn’t a system in place” for President Bush to order Reid to be held by the military. But the supposed lack of a working system didn’t prevent the Bush administration from holding others captured around the same time as Reid, or even before, in military detention. In that same Fox & Friends appearance, Perino asserted that Abdulmutallab bought a one-way ticket to Detroit. Wrong again — administration officials say he bought a round-trip ticket. Then, in another Fox & Friends appearance on Friday, Perino claimed that the Obama administration admitted that it “bungled” the interrogation and Mirandizing of Abdulmutallab following his arrest because “they had to do a review.” In fact , the “review” in question focused on intelligence and national security measure failures prior to the incident, not Abdulmutallab’s detention and interrogation. These are just the latest entries in Perino’s track record of misleading and botching facts on Fox. She claimed that the Obama White House’s criticism of a news outlet “feels un-American” — even though she attacked NBC from Bush’s White House. She pushed fuzzy math in attacking health care reform. And of course, there was her infamous claim that “[w]e did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush’s term,” which she had no choice but to walk back . (Somehow, that did not keep her from later insisting that Democrats are acting “as if 9-11 never happened.”) Fox News purports to have a zero-tolerance policy toward “on-screen errors,” though it seems to be directed only at technical glitches and not what anyone actually says on the air. One can presume that as long as Perino contributes to Fox News’ anti-Obama narratives, she won’t be seeing adverse write-ups in her Fox News personnel file anytime soon. Such attacks — even as false as they are — dovetail nicely with Fox News’ all-but-declared war against Obama counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, who committed the offense of pushing back against Republican attacks over the administration’s handling of terrorism. How aggressive is Fox’s anti-Brennan crusade? Gregg Jarrett — co-host of a designated “news” program that Fox wants you to think is objective — claimed that Brennan “keeps making false accusations, apparently,” and asked Republican Rep. Pete Hoekstra, “Shouldn’t this guy, who advises the president, resign?” That’s an attitude that comes straight from Fox News management. Washington managing editor Bill Sammon — in apparent violation of his own memo calling for Fox employees to at least pretend as though they’re real journalists — asserted on Fox News Sunday that the “mainstream media” hates Sarah Palin and the Tea Party movement because it’s “galvanizing Republicans.” Fox News has long promoted the Tea Party protests, and it hired Palin as a contributor, making her another member of the GOP administration in exile for which Perino is flacking. You do the math. Perino is still a press secretary. The only differences are that the “administration” she’s spinning for is housed at a TV channel, not in the White House, and that she’s on the payroll of Fox News, not the federal government. More on Fox News

Read more here:
Terry Krepel: Dana Perino, Fox News’ Press Secretary in Exile

Dana Perino cashed in on her stint as White House press secretary in the Bush administration in the usual way, by signing on with a Washington PR firm (resulting in the occasional disclosure problem ). She also got a common perk for ex-employees of Republican administrations — she joined the Republican administration in exile at Fox News. If Perino ever felt constrained by the facts while speaking from the podium in the White House, she doesn’t seem to feel that way now. Her tenure as Fox News’ press secretary in exile has been marked by one false or misleading claim after another. This past week, Perino has engaged in a veritable parade of whoppers to attack the Obama administration’s handling of suspected terrorists in general and, in particular, alleged “underwear bomber” Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab — and to try to cover for her old boss. On Monday’s Fox & Friends, faced with the argument that the Bush administration did a fine job of handling shoe bomber Richard Reid in the criminal justice system instead of military detention, Perino claimed that the Reid case was different because “there wasn’t a system in place” for President Bush to order Reid to be held by the military. But the supposed lack of a working system didn’t prevent the Bush administration from holding others captured around the same time as Reid, or even before, in military detention. In that same Fox & Friends appearance, Perino asserted that Abdulmutallab bought a one-way ticket to Detroit. Wrong again — administration officials say he bought a round-trip ticket. Then, in another Fox & Friends appearance on Friday, Perino claimed that the Obama administration admitted that it “bungled” the interrogation and Mirandizing of Abdulmutallab following his arrest because “they had to do a review.” In fact , the “review” in question focused on intelligence and national security measure failures prior to the incident, not Abdulmutallab’s detention and interrogation. These are just the latest entries in Perino’s track record of misleading and botching facts on Fox. She claimed that the Obama White House’s criticism of a news outlet “feels un-American” — even though she attacked NBC from Bush’s White House. She pushed fuzzy math in attacking health care reform. And of course, there was her infamous claim that “[w]e did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush’s term,” which she had no choice but to walk back . (Somehow, that did not keep her from later insisting that Democrats are acting “as if 9-11 never happened.”) Fox News purports to have a zero-tolerance policy toward “on-screen errors,” though it seems to be directed only at technical glitches and not what anyone actually says on the air. One can presume that as long as Perino contributes to Fox News’ anti-Obama narratives, she won’t be seeing adverse write-ups in her Fox News personnel file anytime soon. Such attacks — even as false as they are — dovetail nicely with Fox News’ all-but-declared war against Obama counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, who committed the offense of pushing back against Republican attacks over the administration’s handling of terrorism. How aggressive is Fox’s anti-Brennan crusade? Gregg Jarrett — co-host of a designated “news” program that Fox wants you to think is objective — claimed that Brennan “keeps making false accusations, apparently,” and asked Republican Rep. Pete Hoekstra, “Shouldn’t this guy, who advises the president, resign?” That’s an attitude that comes straight from Fox News management. Washington managing editor Bill Sammon — in apparent violation of his own memo calling for Fox employees to at least pretend as though they’re real journalists — asserted on Fox News Sunday that the “mainstream media” hates Sarah Palin and the Tea Party movement because it’s “galvanizing Republicans.” Fox News has long promoted the Tea Party protests, and it hired Palin as a contributor, making her another member of the GOP administration in exile for which Perino is flacking. You do the math. Perino is still a press secretary. The only differences are that the “administration” she’s spinning for is housed at a TV channel, not in the White House, and that she’s on the payroll of Fox News, not the federal government. More on Fox News

Read the original post:
Terry Krepel: Dana Perino, Fox News’ Press Secretary in Exile

Robert Gibbs pokes fun at Sarah Palin from his presidential podium. Giving a high profile dig to someone not in office, running for any office, or having any official role anywhere in the country. That’s a lot of attention for someone who supposedly doesn’t matter. The White House getting a little sloppy with their arrogance. It’s not like Sarah’s viability has spiked. A new ABC/Washington Post poll finds her unfavorable numbers at 55%, with her support among Republicans down. But then again, Gibb’s boss is tied with a generic Republican in the latest Gallup poll. Okay, so “generic” doesn’t mean a whole lot, but who would have bet that Obama would be that close to Republicans in a match up this time last year? While the DNC makes money off of Sarah’s wink . There is no one who fits the mood or the times or fills the current political vacuum better than Sarah Palin. There has also never been anyone as electric on the right since Ronald Reagan. That’s a lot of star power for someone whose adversaries are spending a whole lot of time talking about her irrelevance. David Broder even weighed in sending a rhetorical wink to the GOP establishment to let them know at least he’s taking her seriously. “She’s good,” the dean of Washington swooned. The Tea Party crowd thinks so, too. Oh, and by the way, in South Carolina, the GOP and the Tea Partiers have joined forces, just like Sarah said they should. While liberals continue to delight in using everything Sarah as a punching bag . Matt Lattimer reminds us of recent history: “No actor can be elected president.” “No First Lady can win a Senate seat in a state where she never lived.” “No one-term senator can defeat Hillary Clinton.” There are plenty more opportunities to prove those in the know wrong. Let’s just say Palin’s preparing her way and intends to be ready, because she has no intention of letting the Establishment ruin her party like what happened to Hillary, because Mrs. Clinton actually was the establishment candidate or so she thought . Marc Ambinder wrote a very interesting post earlier this week about the devilish prowess of Sarah Palin. Next week, Palin will be a VIP guest of honor at the Daytona International Speedway for the Daytona 500. She’ll walk among the campers and RVs set up infield. This summer, she’s agreed to speak at an international bowling expo. In April, in Las Vegas, Palin will keynote the Wine and Spirit Wholesalers Convention at Caesar’s Palace. She will make choices in Republican primaries — she campaigned Sunday with Rick Perry, bearing a “Hi mom!” on her palm — more on that in a bit — and an eloquent jab at the President: “‘We will proudly cling to our guns and our religion.” “If the primaries were this year, I suspect she’d be nominated,” a senior adviser to one of Sarah Palin’s potential rivals confides. It’s easy to see why: no one who’s thinking of running beats the enthusiasm she generates among Republican activists. But there is more to the case for Palin than just the confluence of her personality and a vacuum within the Republican Party: there is a method to her management of her public image. It strongly hints that she has pretty much decided to run for president in 2012, unless something knocks her out of the race; it is more organized and structured that it appears; and it is something that Republican insiders, in particular, will ignore at their peril. … - Marc Ambinder Mitt Romney’s lack of emotional connection with voters works against him, even as the economic climate plays into his strengths. But Palin’s evangelical roots have the potential to wipe him out in the primary. As for Mike Huckabee, Sarahcuda will annihilate him with negative ads on his pardons, so it remains to be seen if his current popularity can withstand her onslaught, which will be unflinchingly devastating. As Sarah Palin has no compunction about playing hard and dirty. Palin at least has her national security talking points down now, which one would assume will be the same for Romney and Huckabee (add more God) , which is why Gen. David Petraeus could pop up on any Republican’s short list for veep. They’re long overdue for an Eisenhower like push and the timing is perfect, because the right wants to beat Obama in 2012 as bad as the left wanted to beat Bush in 2004. As for the Republican Establishment, Sarah Palin has no intention of going the Hillary Clinton route. Palin knows they can’t stand her, fear her and will stop her if she gives them a chance or waits for their nod. Something Hillary never grasped of the Senate Democrats who worked behind her back to encourage Barack Obama to run. All’s fair in politics, but Hillary missed what was happening all around her. It’s not that Democrats hated Hillary like the GOP Establishment does Palin, but people from Harry Reid to Ted Kennedy to Nancy Pelosi were rooting for Obama, some long before Hillary even announced, with key players offering their support to Obama in private and long before it was made official. It’s too soon to tell about Sarah and 2012, but she’s not going to wait for anyone else to give her permission to run for president. She’s not going to be a good little Republican and wait her turn either. Her instincts tell her, and Scott Brown’s win showed her, that the mood is right for someone who can tap into that populist, old fashioned anger, topped with a lot of home spun, good old American patriotism, which she hopes will harken back to a time when America was on top in all columns, everyone was working, Detroit was selling cars, and American prestige financially was still intact. Making people feel good about her, bad about Obama, and thinking Palin populism can translate into a different type of change is job one right now. So, Sarah plans to ride the wave of gun toting, religion clinging, angry Americans , as they were known in 2008, as far as she can, dreaming of being the first female U.S. president. Nate Silver has already handicapped the possibilities. Besides, Hillary already prepared the way so that no woman on the national scene will ever have to go through the media gauntlet she did again. If Democrats were smart and had a strategy, which they aren’t and don’t, they would go at Sarah Palin straight on, challenging her on issues and talking points, instead of ridiculing her and setting her up. Their real problem is they can’t ignore her, but don’t know what to do about her, simply hoping her star will eventually burn out. There is nothing that gives the White House crew and their No One Can Beat Our Guy fans a better laugh than anyone thinking that Barack Obama would have to worry about the likes of Sarah Palin. In fact, the way the White House has been taking their sweet time on just about everything, you’d think they’d won an 8-year stint. That was assumed, right? Sarah, her fans, and the Tea Partiers are here to let Democrats know there’s a different type of change a foot and it doesn’t come cloaked in an Ivy League resume, GOP Establishment credentials or the centrisy-centrism, lefty moving right sort of gaming nonsense. She’s just Sarah, bringing common sense to America, something Washington sorely needs. Palin’s “pitch-perfect populism” to the rescue, as Mr. Broder called it in his column. The Republican Establishment has to prove they’ve got someone better. After all, as far as Sarah and her fans are concerned, the smart set has had their chance and they blew it. Taylor Marsh is a political analyst out of Washington, D.C. More on Sarah Palin

More:
Taylor Marsh: Underestimating Sarah

Reporters used to laugh when beauty contestants began saying they wanted to someday be television “anchorwomen.” They did not say “reporters.” They wanted the lights! They wanted the camera! They wanted the action and attention that comes with “anchoring.” No one is laughing now, except for those former beauty queens occupying those chairs. Most are smart enough to take the catapulting beauty queen experience off their resumes. Consider this: would you be willing to don a bikini, stiletto heels and tape your body into perkiness just to parade in front of lusty crowds fawning for attention? Giving away power and agreeing to be objectified from the “get go,” as Sarah Palin might say, is a form of ambition taller than the Transamerica building. The comparison is intentional, because it was here in San Francisco that George W. Bush was handed a wedge issue that helped him get re-elected. And, Palin is all about wedges… one in particular. She’s playing the “Sarah the Saint” card, ready and willing to tear an already torn apart county into shreds with an issue that should never be politicized to begin with. Before getting to that, let’s take a stroll down memory lane. It’s November, 2004 and George W. Bush wins Ohio, pushing the electoral college count in his favor. Here’s what the New York Times wrote: “Proposed state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage increased the turnout of socially conservative voters in many of the 11 states where the measures appeared on the ballot on Tuesday, political analysts say, providing crucial assistance to Republican candidates.” In Ohio, residents began coming to the polls just before they closed, spurred on by watching gay marriage ceremonies on the nightly news. Those images of men and women rushing to marry their same sex partners got Ohioans fired up and primed to punch any chad located next to Republican names. Fast forward to Friday as Sarah Palin delivers a mean-spirited address to the all-white, middle-aged Tea Party crowd. Following the manic hiccups and incomplete thoughts, she came right down to her own wedge issue — abortion. It’s an oldie. But, in terms of stoking passionate fires, it’s a goodie. In a new book — “Game Change” — Palin is re-named “Saracuda.” The book describes a woman fighting hard not to look like what she is — a woman way over her head and certainly not ready to be president. In the book, Palin is often quoted as saying, “I know, what I know, what I know.” By that she hopes to highlight what she considers her instincts for relating to the people. What Palin knows is that her anti-abortion comments got the most raucous ovations of the night. The beauty queen with the “special needs” child — Saint Sarah — who implies she would have continued with her pregnancy in spite of any dangers related to her advancing age, and no matter how “special” her child’s needs might be. The reasoning is Palinesque, taking huge leaps in logic to get to the coveted wedge. Why? Because no one ever knows for sure why such intensely personal decisions are made, but a beauty queen can spot a wedge and an advantage like a Neiman Marcus store. (Palin apparently had Neiman Marcus bags full of clothes all over her hotel room during the campaign.) Make no mistake; she’s willing to use whatever it takes. She’s already signed up with Fox News. So, she’s already got the conservative bully pulpit and the coveted anchor chair. Writer Len Colodny, who co-wrote The Forty Years War: The Rise and Fall of the Neocons, From Nixon to Obama said recently on C-SPAN, “Sarah Palin is George W. Bush in drag.” I took that to mean, ambitious without the brainpower, and therefore, easily used by the Dick Cheneys and Karl Roves of this world. The names will be different, but they’ll use her up as “Saint Sarah” and then likely throw her away. From the ridiculous to the sublime: Sarah — the renegade — is really just another rote.

More here: 
Leslie Griffith: Saint Sara at the Bully Pulpit — Never Underestimate a Beauty Queen

In a fiery speech before a small crowd of Tea Party convention-goers, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin branded President Obama and the Democratic Party as “out of touch, out of date” and “running out of time.” She mocked Obama’s supporters: “How’s that hopey-changey stuff workin’ out for you?” she asked. And she savaged the whole Democratic program: “The only place the left hasn’t placed the blame is on their agenda,” she said. “So, some advice for our friends on that side of the aisle: that’s where you gotta look because that’s what got you into this mess.” But the belle of the ball who commanded a $100,000 speaking fee at the pricey, for-profit Nashville affair, didn’t lay off Republicans either. At several points, Palin leveled clear warnings against the very same GOP old guard that plucked her from obscurity, pledging to back rebel candidates in Republican primaries. “Competition in these primaries is good. Competition makes us work hard and be more efficient… Contested primaries aren’t civil war. They are democracy at work and it is beautiful,” Palin declared before an audience estimated at under 1,000 people. “The Republican Party would be really smart to start trying and absorb as much of the Tea Party movement as possible,” she concluded, during an awkward, though evidently scripted, question and answer session. In a speech that was often pointed but rarely substantive, Palin touched on many of the socially and political divisive topics that have impassioned the Tea Party movement and turned it into a significant factor in the upcoming midterm elections. She took digs at Obama for using teleprompters and blaming George W. Bush for the problems he inherited. She lambasted the “lamestream media” for their biases against conservative candidates and lashed out even harder at those who want to paint the Tea Party crowd as “ideologically extreme” and consider “a candidate’s children fair game.” Addressing the White House’s handling of the Christmas Day underwear bomber, she cast Obama as an effete academic, ill-equipped to handle the hard-core dangers of modern day terrorism. “It scares me for my children, for your children, to treat this like a mere law enforcement matter,” she said. “It puts our country at great risk… To win that war we need a commander-in-chief not a professor of law standing at the lectern.” On the domestic front, Palin took whacks at everything from the bailout of the banks — a “slush fund for the Treasury Department’s favorite players” — to the stimulus package — the programs, she said, “don’t sound targeted and they don’t sound timely as we were promised. They just sound wasteful.” Palin insisted that, as governor of Alaska, she had turned away a portion of the stimulus — a line that elicited heavy applause from the adoring crowd. Left unsaid was the fact that she accepted the vast majority of the aid. Palin also supported the bank bailout while serving on McCain’s presidential campaign. But it was not a night for nuance. The former vice presidential candidate and potential 2012 Republican nominee stuck instead to red-meat talking points. In one sweeping segment that encompassed dizzying range of conservative platitudes, she declared that principled Republicans believe that “only limited government can expand prosperity and opportunity for all. And that freedom is a God-given right and it is worth fighting for… and that Americas’ finest are men and women in uniform are a force for good throughout the world and that is nothing to apologize for.” The crowd ate it all up — and so did the cable news channels, all three of which covered it live. For all the attention, Palin and her followers stressed repeatedly that they themselves were the outsiders. Palin ridiculed the elitists in Washington, including those who had “fat elite resume in their back pocket.” When she spoke positively about Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) — the man who had elevated her onto the national scene — there was hardly any applause. But the mention of Sen. John Thune — the under-the-radar conservative Republican from South Dakota — spurred loud clapping. Finally, when asked about the $100,000 speaking fee had secured for her speech, Palin cast herself as a simple conservative servant, not interested in hauling in cash but willing, in fact, to lay down her life for the cause. “This isn’t about money. It is not about a title. It is not about a leader position in this movement,” she said. “It is about the people. I will live, I will die for the people of America whatever I can do to help. And this party, this party that we call the Tea Party, this movement is the future of politics in America and I am proud to be here today.” WATCH : Sarah Palin’s Q&A At The ‘Tea Party Convention’ More on Video

Original post:
Palin Says Democrats Are ‘Running Out Of Time’ — But Also Warns Of Primary Challenges For Republicans (VIDEO)

She can tap dance and sing. She can play the flute and the piano. Okay, she’s better at the flute, which has been her instrument of choice since fourth grade. Did I mention that she’s more than passable at Pilates? If none of this wows you, she’s literally ready to bend over backward while cooing like a dove, making a bubble-popping sound and doing her signature diva impression. All she needs is a stage - any stage. Sarah Bradley , whose birth certificate named her Sarah Ricker , is an aspiring actress who’s waiting in the wings for her big moment. She has great faith that this will happen, but right now she’s working in front of the stage, not on it. Photo by Nancy A. Ruhling Sarah is waiting for the big break that will make her a star. For the last two years, ever since she left Marymount Manhattan College, where she was working on a bachelor’s degree in theatre arts, Sarah has been working for Max Merchandising, a Manhattan company that designs, manufacturers and sells Broadway-show programs, T-shirts, CDs and other memorabilia in theaters. Sarah works 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. in the office then sells the souvenirs on Friday and Saturday nights at showtime. “I get to see a lot of free theatre,” she says, “and I get to meet a lot of theatre people at the opening- and closing-night parties. But it doesn’t give me much time to do what I really need to do - audition.” The three auditions she has been able to make didn’t click. She attended the cattle call for Spring Awakening but got typed out. “I didn’t have the look they were looking for,” she says and sighs. “They wanted someone 18 or under or someone who looks that age. At 23, I’m too old!” When she tried to try out for Shakespeare in the Park’s Hamlet , she was turned away because she doesn’t have an Equity Card. “I really wanted to play Ophelia, because Shakespeare really didn’t flesh her out,” she says. “Many actresses who play her see her only as a one-dimensional damsel in distress. She’s deeper than that.” The same thing happened during the casting call for a regional production of Anything Goes - the show was carding. The experiences haven’t discouraged her. In fact, they have encouraged her not to reach for the stars but to be a star. “I can’t see myself doing anything else in my life,” she says. “So I keep a positive attitude.” Sarah became stage-struck in her first year of high school. “I remember exactly when I knew I wanted to be an actress,” she says. “I was in ninth grade, and I had joined the drama club. I got a part in the chorus of Footloose , and performing before an audience was the biggest adrenaline rush of my life.” She cinched roles in several high school productions, most of them classical musicals, and even started a community theater, Admit One Players, but her hometown of New Windsor, N.Y. is a far cry from the Great White Way. “I love the film and the stage,” she says, her blue eyes turning olive green with enthusiasm. “I’d like to do any kind of acting that also gets me paid. The work doesn’t have to be in Manhattan; I’d love to tour and see other parts of the country. My dream role would be Christine Daae in Phantom . Today’s Broadway is all about the belters, the Sutton Fosters, not the Julie Andrewses of the world. I’m a soprano, and it’s one of the few shows that calls for a soprano.” Acting, at least for Sarah, allows her to let down her long, honey-hued hair. “I love becoming other characters,” she says. “You get a chance to explore parts of yourself and get to show dark parts of your personality that you wouldn’t dare do in ordinary circumstances.” Never mind that nobody has asked Sarah to perform any of the special skills listed on her resume. (”I’d love to show them off,” she confides. “It’s a hoot!”) She’s convinced that the right role will come when the time is right. In the meantime, she’s boning up on acting classes and voice lessons and hoping to be promoted to manager at Max Merchandising so she can work at night and audition during the day. “There are people in New York City who make it,” she says with determination, adding that she’s ready to send out her new headshots. “And I’m going to be one of them.” As proof, she smiles and does her dove coo. Nancy A. Ruhling may be reached at Nruhling@gmail.com. Copyright 2009 by Nancy A. Ruhling

See original here:
Nancy Ruhling: Astoria Characters: The Stage-Seeking Actress

As someone who used to host a television program on the media and popular culture, I have a problem. I know too much. I know things I should not know. I know things that shouldn’t even be things. I know that Angelina Jolie once had Billy Bob Thornton’s name tattooed on her arm. I know that Lindsay Lohan once drank and drove and was captured by the paparazzi with an inebriate’s grin on her face. I know that Paris Hilton once had a TV show called The Simple Life. I am, as well, plagued by my knowledge of the present. I know there is a famous person named Lady GaGa. I know there are a husband and wife named Salahi who want attention so badly they crashed a party at the White House. I know that the father of Sarah Palin’s grandchild posed provocatively for Playgirl magazine. I am familiar with excerpts from e-mails that Tiger Woods wrote to various mistresses, suggesting acts that are probably still illegal in certain Midwestern states and former Eastern block countries. It is no wonder, then, that I have chosen to take refuge by writing history, immersing myself in centuries past, coming no closer to the present in my recent work than the life and times of Theodore Roosevelt and his relationship to his youngest son. And yet . . . I have brain cells somewhere storing the information that Adam Lambert, a human being who did not exist in the solar system of sensible mortals as recently as a few weeks ago, is one of Barbara Walters’s Most Fascinating People of 2009. I have brain cells elsewhere devoted to the prospect of Kate Gosselin’s getting a reality show of her own. Yet more brain cells report to me on Jenny McCarthy’s breast implants, as do others on Glenn Beck’s book sales and Lou Dobb’s comically intense fulminations on immigrants and Nancy Grace’s future in syndication and Jay Leno’s move to ten p.m. and Jessica Simpson’s absence from this year’s Dallas Cowboys’ games and on and on it goes. I do not want to know this stuff. I do not want to know any of this stuff. This is brain cell kidnapping! But how is one to escape? Preoccupation with the past, as I have discovered, does not work. The trivia of the present is not just on the page and on the air anymore—it is in the air. One learns it by breathing, simple respiration, in the same manner that one inhales the fumes of a truck one is stuck behind in heavy traffic. As a result, I have set a goal for myself. Ignorance. Having just begun the quest, I cannot say how it will turn out. I am not optimistic, but if you don’t strive, you’re not alive. I will take up my lance and ride toward the windmills, determined to become less informed. Someday I want someone to ask me what I think of a Lady GaGa and want to honestly be able to say, “Who?” Someday I want someone to ask me what I think of a Salahi’s vanity and want to honestly be able to say, “What?” Someday I want someone to ask me what I think of a Tiger Woods’s affairs and want to honestly be able to say, “Huh?” Ignorance, according to reputation, is bliss. In this case, however, it is more than that—it is a survival mechanism that must be employed by our nation’s ever-shrinking minority of reasonable men and women for their own mental health, and, even more, for the efficient and productive functioning of society. I realize, of course, that many of you may choose to be ignorant of me. So far, you’ve failed. You’ve read this essay and, if I am fortunate, you will spend a few more minutes keeping me in mind by considering the points I have made. Then, if you’re so inclined, forget you ever heard of me. Do so with my blessings. But devote the brain cells I would otherwise have occupied for purposes that are fruitful, enriching and meaningful. As for me, the moment I finish writing this piece, I will resume reading Terry Teachout’s wonderful new biography of Louis Armstrong, Pops. My plan is to shake loose my knowledge of Jenny McCarthy’s breast implants, among other things, to clear out the space for this story of a man who mattered. Eric Burns is the former host of Fox News Watch, and the author of several books, including Infamous Scribblers: The Founding Fathers and the Rowdy Beginnings of American Journalism.

See the original post:
Eric Burns: In Praise of Ignorance

From time to time, I’ll get into a debate with a right-winger about whether Sarah Palin is actually stupid or if liberals are just hopelessly biased against her. They claim this bias comes from the fact that liberals are scared of her electability, her charm, her looks, her femininity, her Christianity, her ability connect to the common man and her overall wonderfulness. So, the theory is that we have all collectively decided that she is the best Republican candidate in some secret liberal meeting and are conspiring against her because we are afraid of how brilliant and electable she really is. Now, there are a couple of problems with this theory. There are no opinion leaders on the left with Rush Limbaugh-like authority who can command all other progressives to think the same thing and use the same arguments against one person. In other words, we all think she is stupid because she is in fact stupid, not because some liberal cabal told us to think that. How come we don’t call Newt Gingrich stupid? Or Dick Cheney or Kay Bailey Hutchinson or Elizabeth Dole or Dennis Hastert? And the list goes on and on of heinous and deplorable right-wingers who are not stupid. We don’t make those charges against those people, because as much as we might not agree with them or like them, we know that they are not dullards. They’re all clever in their own way. Mitt Romney is greasy, Michael Steele is a clown and Tom DeLay is dirty, but we don’t go after their mental acuity like we do with Sarah Palin because they’re not as dumb as her (not even Steele). So, finally we get to the evidence. I thought I’d just do it here and be done with it. Then I can just point people to this post from now on and end this senseless argument. Now, there are a million examples of this, but I thought I’d go with three knockout punches here. In the first video, we have the classic Bush Doctrine answer , where she does not know the basic foreign policy of the Republican president at the time. How could she possibly be running for vice president and not know this? The only thing more unconscionable is the sad excuses her supporters make for this terribly botched answer. In the second video, we have a largely overlooked example of her pathetic lack of foreign policy knowledge. She has no idea what Hamas is or what they have to do with the Gaza Strip. If you’re next door neighbor or plumber doesn’t know this, that’s fine, but they weren’t running for Vice President of the United States. This should be game set and match for anyone, especially self-respecting conservatives, thinking of supporting her. This is when you have to walk away embarrassed. But remarkably, they didn’t slink away embarrassed after this answer, so we have the latest example of her buffoonery. In this interview with Bill O’Reilly, he asks her if she is smart enough to be president. Her answer has to be seen to be believed. Don’t get me wrong, just because you see it won’t mean you’ll understand it. So, I put a transcript of her answer below so that you can try to decipher it in your spare time. Bill O’Reilly: Let me be very bold and fresh again, do you believe that you are smart enough, incisive enough, intellectual enough to handle the most powerful job in the world? Sarah Palin: I believe that I am because I have common sense and I have I believe the values that I think are reflective of so many other American values, and I believe that what Americans are seeking is not the elitism, the uhm, the ah, a kind of spineless, spinelessness that perhaps is made up for that with some kind of elite, Ivy league education and, and a fat resume that is based on anything but hard work and private sector, free enterprise principles. Americans are could be seeking something like that in positive change in their leadership, I’m not saying that that has to be me. Can anyone really be biased enough to think that was a smart answer? The great irony is that he asked her if she’s smart enough to be president and she gave what might be her dumbest answer yet. That answer was so bad it almost made George W. Bush look smart. Can anyone in good conscience defend that answer and say with a straight face that she should be this country’s leader? If you say yes, then there is no sense in talking to one another anymore because we are not operating in the same reality, or planet. We’ll never be able to agree on anything if we can’t agree that was just about as incomprehensible and stupid an answer as you can possibly come up with. And that settles the debate, because you either live in the reality based world and realize she is obviously not qualified, or in the immortal words of Stephen Colbert you believe that “reality has a well-known liberal bias” and she would make a great president. Watch TYT on You Tube Here More on Katie Couric

See more here:
Cenk Uygur: The Irrefutable Stupidity of Sarah Palin

I read (and comment) on Gawker on an crackishly regular basis. I’m also inexplicably drawn to the word “awesome” when it appears in a headline as well as backhanded compliments. So there was no way I wasn’t reading “Google Rejects Awesome People So It Doesn’t Hog All of Them.” Apparently, Google VP Bradley Horowitz doesn’t want his company to hire some really talented unemployed people because they “are actually important to have outside of Google…[It's] important that we not hire these guys. It’s better for the ecosystem to have an honest industry, as opposed to aggregating all this talent at Google.” Ryan Tate writes on Gawker that Google is “turning down job prospects for being too awesome.” Well, that explains everything . Clearly the reason I can’t find a better paying job in my chosen field is because if given the opportunity, money, and happiness, the amount of awesome that would be unleashed would be too much awesome to handle. It’s not my scattershot, “Jack of All Trades, Master of Nothing” resume - it’s the boiling cauldron of awesome. It threatens people. It scares people. Better I’m not hired so all that awesome can remain all pent up and sequestered on Long Island, where any amount of awesome is sucked right into the dirt and consumed by the ultragravity that will keep me here until I die. This greedyass island needs all the awesome it can hold onto because it is so lacking and awesomeless. That’s the real reason I haven’t left yet. Long Island needs my awesome. It’s also why I have so much trouble dating. Yup - way too awesome for that too. Why am I really still single? Because I just can’t find anyone who 1. can compete with so much awesome and 2. can meet the same degree of awesome that I have to offer. I could ugly up, dumb down, surrender all the creativity and talent I’ve cultivated over the years. But seriously, it’s really hard to stifle all this awesome. So I remain single. Awesomely single. But all of my own amazing awesomeness aside, this explains so much about what’s happening in pop culture and politics. This is why they’re making a second Chipmunks movie and not something awesome. Because Hollywood doesn’t want to get too awesome, or else people will start having expectations that it will never be able to live up to. Look at what happens to some Oscar winners - they reach their awesome peak then wittle it all away. Or do they? Maybe they just know they won’t ever be that awesome again. Why did Sarah Palin really quit as governor? Because if she’d finished out her term, she would have been an awesome candidate for president in 2012. Guys - Sarah Palin spared us her awesome. We should really thank her. But ending war, curing cancer and AIDS, stopping corruption and crime - it would make for an awesome world. Too awesome. And in such a world, awesome bitches like me would have nothing left to be sarcastic about. More on Sarah Palin

Read the original post: 
Jamie Frevele: Too Awesome for Everything

Back to our last post, the writer’s strike was settled and our TV show was going back in production. Well, off to work; maybe the restaurant was only a fever dream of two guys fed up with their existence after 20 years on the set. Anyway, escrow was dead and the show was alive and that was that. Film production is a funny business. I’m not talking about lunch at the Ivy or first class flights to London to urge a writer to hurry up with the third act. The film production I’m referring to is the actual making of the product itself, a process that should probably join sausage and democracy on that short list of things better left unwatched. Unpacking a truck in Malibu at 5 A.M. trying not to spill a paper cup of coffee or roasting in the sun at Vasquez Rocks waiting for the guest star to get out of the make up chair. Is it everybody’s idea of a good time? Decidedly not, but it is not without its charms. There are always a few interesting, witty souls on any set. There is an easy banter and if it’s a good crew, a considerable amount of levity. The paychecks are good too, especially now and there’s that awesome health insurance. What there is not is free time. Sixty-five hour work weeks are the rule and combined with an unpaid hour at lunch and the commute, it makes for precious little “me-time”. From 5 A.M. Monday morning to 3 A.M. Friday night the production company owns you. No seeing the kids, no mid-week meals with the significant other, nada. We were working on the Sarah Connor Chronicles , a Fox show based on the Terminator movies. Sadly it is no longer on the air, a victim, I’m afraid of [network] misperception and unfulfilled expectations. It had a smoking hot robot (played by the fabulous Summer Glau) who, if asked, could rip the beating heart out of your chest and show it to you without a pang of remorse. What more does the American viewing public want? Eight days back into production and Charlie sidled up to me and whispered “I can’t take this anymore, I’m going back with another offer on the Echo Park property.” He was right of course. That feeling of never having left even after a five month hiatus was eerie. Hooray, we were back in the restaurant business and I could strut around my jealous co-workers describing long mornings at the golf course and afternoons with a massage therapist. The only people who didn’t fall for the utopian vision of my future were the two guys on the crew who had already owned restaurants. Hmmmm? Jealousy I presumed. A few words about cocktails, breathlessly digressing from our thrilling narrative. One of the real joys about running the Allston Yacht Club is that it comes equipped with a full liquor license. Charlie and I have always been men who enjoyed a convivial cocktail and now we are able to foist our enthusiasm on an unsuspecting world. Lena Headey, who played Sarah Connor (these were her Chronicles after all) seemed genuinely excited for the new enterprise. Maybe she wanted me off the set, I’ll never know because I heard she had been deported. Anyway, she was once describing her dream cocktail, one that some London Barman had attempted to make her. “It would have Pear and Cucumber and lot’s of vodka of course. And something else …” Her charming English accent drifted off into contemplative silence. I, of course, was up for the challenge and tonight you can walk into the Allston Yacht Club (1320 Echo Park Ave LA 90026 213.481.0454) and get yourself a “Lena’s Holiday”. It is our best selling drink. LENA’S HoLIDAY Makes 1 Peel, seed and chop 1 hothouse cucumber. Put in a blender with a knob of peeled Ginger and 2 cans of Pear Nectar (like Kerns). Blend and strain. Makes enough for about a dozen drinks. 2 oz Vodka 1 oz St Germain (Elderfolower Liquer) 2 oz Pear/Cuke blend Shake with Ice and strain into a martini glass. Garnish with a cucumber slice. In all honesty, creating that cocktail was as satisfying as any day on any film set ever. Pandora’s box had opened and soon we were regaling each other with ginger infused gins and Thai sugar cane liquors shaped into strange and groundbreaking and occasionally even delicious cocktails. I assiduously stayed away from reading cocktail books preferring to use a “blank slate” approach. (Charlie, on the other hand, takes a different approach and thinks about the satisfactions of wine extended into the realm of spirits.) This has probably led to some of my concoctions being undrinkable and others long established favorite (’Eureka! Gin and dry Vermouth … and an Olive). But it’s a satisfying process and you can always find somebody willing to sample even the most unlikely combinations. Look for more drink failures by Bill and Charlie soon!

View post: 
Bill DiDonna and Charles Kelly: But I Digress….

Sarah Palin knows the power of a best-seller as a timely vehicle to get the press and public talking, and now former eBay CEO Meg Whitman has quietly laid plans to add “author” to her resume, with her book “The Power of Many” set for release in January — just as the 2010 California governor’s race heats up. More on Sarah Palin

Read the original post:
Meg Whitman, Former eBay Pres And GOP Gov Candidate Plans Book For January

I’m not sure what I have more contempt for. Sarah Palin’s pathological lying or the people who can say with a straight face that Sarah Palin is qualified for anything other than a reality show contestant or the the Edie McClurg role in a remake of Planes, Trains & Automobiles . What’s even more alarming is the constant reporting from the cable news people this week: Sarah Palin is famous! Wow! But no one is digging into exactly why she’s famous. And that’s the heart of the matter here. She’s nothing more than an overrated celebudoof. She’s the equivalent of an ex-reality show star that’s somehow tricked enough people into believing that a convention speech and a series of embarrassing winks qualifies her to be a national political leader — even president — when, in fact, she’s only really qualified to be famous . She’s famous for being famous. At no point have I heard any pitch from her supporters that somehow elevates her in any substantive way to a level beyond that of any other Republican in the current field of potential candidates. She’s famous. And. Hmm. She’s famous. That’s about it. Oh, and she can repeat hard-right ideology without swallowing her own tongue in the process. It’s very possible that Bill Kristol and whoever Palin’s ghost-handlers happen to be are cynical enough to believe that Sarah Palin could ride a celebreality rocket ship into the White House. They’ve taken a hard look at the present climate of celebrity gossip and reality television ratings and they’ve identified an opening in America’s obvious infatuation with chewing-gum superficiality — and they’re ready to exploit it for political power. In their view, where Ronald Reagan was a celebrity in the old-Hollywood framework, Palin is a celebrity in the talentless, Balloon Boy, reality show, Prejean, new-Hollywood framework. Suffice to say, this strategy further devalues what it means to be considered “presidential.” It chips away at all of the basic but necessary prerequisites for the gig, replacing them with nothing but the base notion of fame. Not even popularity as it applies to fame, but merely the quality of being known , and presented with a dramatic narrative. Consequently, this can only contribute to a future when we choose a president based solely upon his or her ability to achieve the most real life drama, irrespective of any sort of inherent talent for leadership, natural intelligence or any notable skills whatsoever. A reality show president. So it’s not difficult to imagine a blurring of the line between the quality of being famous and the quality of being presidential — an eventual time when these traits become totally interchangeable. It’s already happened in Hollywood with the rise of unscripted reality and game show personalities slowly replacing actors and filmmakers, and the calculation coming from the Palin camp seems to be that this programming formula can be applied to presidential politics. Here’s how it works: Take a not unattractive rube with a screwy family and mix in some drama. Add cameras and POOF! We have a candidate/show. Is there any other formula to explain the obsession with, say, Jon & Kate? Or the Balloon Boy family? The Sarah Palin Show is nothing more than a confessional interview with poorly articulated politics tossed into the mix. Even in the context of that confessional interview setting she hasn’t proved herself to be especially articulate, bright or well-informed. Even after a year on the air. Which is alarming chiefly because being on television is supposed to be her strong suit. See, Palin’s most glaring inadequacy isn’t necessarily her lack of work experience. There’s just nothing else concrete enough to compensate for her weak resume. It’s not like her supporters can say, “Yeah, well, she’s only been a small town mayor, and she resigned before her first term as governor was over. But damn! She’s crazy smart when it comes to economy and foreign relations — you know, because of her education and travels abroad.” There’s not even that. She comes up empty on everything. And what makes this utter lack of substance far worse is that she can’t even articulate her very simplistic thoughts without using staccato sentence fragments strung together as if she’s reciting abbreviated notes illegibly scrawled on the backs of barroom napkins, and selected on the fly using a dart board. Even on the question about the role of the vice president last year, she failed to properly articulate an answer, and, instead babbled incoherently about something to do with “position flexible.” Fact: When a job applicant at any level is given repeated chances to explain the job for which he or she is applying, and, even after several tries, still can’t nail the answer, that person is unqualified for that job. But her inability to explain the vice presidency (even after several tries) underscored that it’s not just about her lack of experience or leadership or general knowledge, it’s that she was (and remains) simply incapable of grasping the basics. In this case: grade school level civics, and a description of the job for which she was nominated. Again, what does that leave us with? A reality show novelty. A tabloid hero. Not a world leader. Somewhere along the line, her advisers recognized her ineptitude and turned the “going rogue” description into a way to explain it all. Rewinding again to the vice presidential debate last year, she made it very clear that she didn’t intend to directly answer the questions. She just plowed forward and answered the questions that she prepared for, even if they were totally unrelated to the topic. Why? She explained that she was, in essence, going rogue. Early in the debate she said , “And I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I’m going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also.” But it was clearly just an excuse for the fact that she’s a policy nincompoop and could only recite from the script she memorized. This rogue mantra lives on with the theme of her book, along with her ongoing refusal to confront the growing syllabus of unexplained inconsistencies on even the most basic of details — like whether or not she held a family vote before she accepted Senator McCain’s kneejerk offer. Even on this very simple question, she refuses to correct the record. In Sarah Palin’s defense, there’s no doubt that she’s relatable to a certain demographic of Americans who are unconcerned with advanced education and the subtleties of policy. But if you dig down into the reasons why Palin people like her, it’s obvious that they’re simply “fans” who can, perhaps, relate to Palin’s ordinary background and easy-to-repeat ideology. Ultimately, there’s a certain element of the Republican Party that’s excited to have yet another stab at the Bush 43 idea, and, to that end, they’ve certainly found their empty vessel. But this time, they’ve tapped into an American obsession that goes beyond cowboy swagger and plainspoken southern twangery. They’ve identified and are cultivating one of our most addictive opiates: a genuine made-for-TV spectacle. And it’s dangerous for America. Idiocracy dangerous. Bob Cesca’s Awesome Blog! Go! PS. On the healthcare front, check out these nightmarish videos from real people who have been devoured by the status quo. More on Bestsellers

More: 
Bob Cesca: Famous for Being Famous: The Sarah Palin Show is On the Air

Enough already on Palin and her new book! The national media is creating a best seller for the former GOP vice-presidential candidate by its harsh criticisms of her. It is almost as if talking heads on tv cannot get enough of the former Alaska governor. Every time they speak badly about Palin cash registers ring up a new sale for her book. She is certainly laughing all the way to the bank. It is indeed ironic that the woman who so often criticized the media for the way they treated her as she tried to explain herself in interviews with Katie Couric , Charlie Gibson and many others is now getting her revenge by seeing her book become a huge bestseller. The more she is criticized by the national media the more people seem to stand in line to meet her and buy her book. Sarah Palin has moved beyond being a politician to being the celebrity of the moment. This constant talk of her beginning her presidential bid for 2012 is nonsense. She is a celebrity. She is her own reality show. She is a terrific self-promoter. She is a household name across the country. But one thing she is not and will not be is the president of the United States. No one in their right mind will vote for a person for the highest political job in the nation when that person left her last job before her term as governor expired so she could go out and make millions of dollars on her book and related speeches. More power to her for making money but it certainly is not the right resume for someone who wants to be president not to mention the fact that she is not qualified for the job. So why all the hoopla at the moment over her from Oprah to Barbara to Hannity. It is really too much. And, moreover, it is hard to understand the attraction. I am from the Midwest and I am not a liberal east coast person who sees her as some type of oddity. She seems like a concerned mother, devoted wife, hard working and interesting person. But so are many other people across the country. She is not a public figure. Her accomplishments are few. She was briefly on the national scene for several months in a losing bid with Senator McCain for the White House. What is it about her that many people in the media feel they can trash her and be disrespectful and get away with it. Why does Newsweek magazine say “She’s bad news for the GOP and for everybody else too” Why is she making half the country so angry while the other half wait in line to buy her book? It makes very little sense. Why do people care? She is not making policy. It is not like she is writing a book about finding a cure for cancer or writing the great American novel. If former Vice-President Dick Cheney wrote a book about his eight years in office half the country would probably want to burn his book and the other half wouldn’t read it. It is a strange phenomenon like the new movie Twilight about a teen-age vampire love story. That also makes little sense but it is entertaining. So, maybe America is being entertained by Palin and commentators are keeping the story going because she is an easy target to get ratings for their shows. The members of the media who are constantly trashing Palin should stop and show her the same respect they would show other people in public life. People who see her as some type of spokesperson for their values and their way of life also seem way off base as she is not someone who is in this for the long haul. She quit her job as governor for no apparent reason that I can understand. I don’t really see her having extreme views one way or the other when she talks. She basically seems like someone who got a brief taste of the national limelight and likes it and wants it to continue. There is little substance in any of this. The media is out of line for being rude to her. And she is settling scores with people she is angry with from her brief foray as a VP candidate. McCain was throwing a Hail Mary pass by choosing the little known governor of Alaska as his running mate last year. Why there seems to be this fascination with her is really beyond me. As I said she has passed beyond politics into being known for being known. She is a celebrity in the ultimate reality show. She will not be the president of the United States and eventually she will not be a force in the Republican party. She will be remembered as someone who attracted our attention and then faded away and we will say in a few years “Whatever happened to McCain’s running mate?” The former mayor of Wasilla seems like a decent person who is set to make millions of dollars on her book and speeches. Only in America could a person get rich largely because people who don’t like her–in the media–criticize her and help her bank account grow larger. Enough already with Sarah Palin! Everybody, let’s move on…. More on Sarah Palin

More: 
Robert Guttman: Media Madness: Going Rogue Over Sarah Palin

A surprising amount of new polling data as we kick off the new week. Contrary to the past two weeks, some of it is actually good news for Democrats, although there are a couple of brutal polls in there as well for the Blue team. DE-Sen: First Poll of Cycle Gives Biden Lead over Castle The pending “Clash of the Titans” in Delaware between longtime Republican Congressman Mike Castle and state Attorney General Beau Biden has taken an interesting turn , according to a new poll from GOP pollsters Susquehanna Research. They now have Biden staked to a five-point lead over Castle (45-40), his first lead of the campaign. A smattering of polls last month showed anywhere between a toss-up and a small lead for Castle. Since then, of course, Castle has shown his commitment to the “party of no” by voting against health care reform. While there are other variables present (Biden did just return from a tour of duty in the Middle East, for example), it is awfully tempting to conclude that Castle’s loyalty to the GOP might be costing him politically in a state where John McCain logged less than 40% of the vote. NY-Gov/NY-Sen: Democrats Improve Slightly In Latest Polling There is also reasonably good news for the Democrats in new numbers out of New York state, assuming the Democrat in question, of course, is not Governor David Paterson. In a new poll conducted by Siena College (PDF file) , it is clear that Paterson’s early jump on the campaign (he is already running ads) is not enhancing his electability as of yet. He still trails Republican Rudy Giuliani by twenty three points (56-33), and he now trails former Congressman Rick Lazio, as well (42-39). The good news for the Democrats is that state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is in a much stronger position this month when paired against Rudy Giuliani. After only leading Giuliani by seven points last month, Cuomo now holds a twelve point edge over Giuliani (53-41). He also easily defeats Lazio (67-22). Cuomo also has his largest lead to date in a prospective primary with Paterson, holding an almost unbelievable 75-16 lead over the incumbent Governor, a lead that the Albany Times-Union would like to remind readers is, indeed, statistically significant . While Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is still vulnerable, her polling numbers have improved substantially in the past month. She has cut her deficit in a battle with Rudy Giuliani by more than half. Last month, Giuliani enjoyed a 17-point lead over the incumbent (53-36). This month, it is down to six points (49-43). Furthermore, after trailing former Governor George Pataki for months, Gillibrand has actually opened up a statistically insignificant lead (45-44) over him, as well. IA-Gov/IA-Sen: New DMR Poll Shows Tough Numbers for Dems Not all of the polling news over the weekend was amenable to Democrats. Perhaps the ugliest data set comes from the state of Iowa, where Barack Obama launched his road to the White House, and where he scored an easy victory over John McCain last November. A new poll on the Iowa Governor’s race shows incumbent Democrat Chet Culver in an extremely precarious position for re-election. Not only does Culver trail former GOP Governor Terry Branstad by a substantial margin (57-33), but he also trails lesser-known conservative GOP candidate Bob Vander Platts (45-37). Culver’s job approval rating is a brutal 40/49 spread, which just proves again that the current climate is simply brutal for state executives. Meanwhile, on the Senate side of the political equation, Chuck Grassley’s approval rating has taken a hit this year (down to 57%), but he still maintains a solid lead in his 2010 re-election bid. Grassley holds a 57-30 lead in the Senate survey over Democrat Roxanne Conlin. However, it is worth noting that even this would be his closest electoral contest in decades. AR-02: Longtime Dem Incumbent Vulnerable, According to PPP If there is a legitimate narrative developing for the 2010 electoral cycle, backed by polling evidence, it is that the South is shaping up to be pretty hostile electoral territory for Democrats next year. The latest piece of evidence to support that comes from central Arkansas , where longtime Democratic incumbent Vic Snyder holds only infinitesimal leads over three leading GOP challengers. His closest contest is with former GOP U.S. Attorney Tim Griffin, a contest which Snyder leads 44-43. The other two races are 2-3 point affairs, which is particularly jarring, because the other two GOP candidates in the field are virtual unknowns. MO-Sen: New PPP Poll Not Out Yet, But Hints Dropping Right and Left It started with a NRSC press release sent out Monday morning that dropped the potential bombshell that virtual unknown Chuck Purgason was polling in double-digits against establishment candidate Roy Blunt, the Congressman who has spent most of his recent years in the GOP leadership. The memo also suggested that Blunt was “struggling” to crack 50%. David Goldstein of the Kansas City Star did some follow-up, and found both statements to be true, albeit with Blunt still staked to a sizeable edge. The actual poll is not released yet, but after talking with Tom Jensen at PPP, the Star revealed the results to be 50-15 Blunt, a solid lead, but underwhelming for someone who was supposed to have an essentially clear field. The poll also apparently will reveal a continued dead heat in the general election between Blunt and presumed Democratic nominee Robin Carnahan. IN POLITICAL NEWS…. TX-Gov: The speculation is that her gubernatorial campaign might be circling the drain, but Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison is getting a lot of love from familiar faces: not a single member of Texas’ congressional delegation has endorsed incumbent Governor Rick Perry. Furthermore, such is Hutchison’s credibility with her DC colleagues that it now appears unlikely that any of them will back Perry, preferring to either endorse KBH or remain neutral. Race for the House: In some fairly interesting analysis and commentary, Tom Jensen over at PPP raises a point of real concern for Democrats: the sizeable proportion of voters who don’t like either political party seem more predisposed to vote Republican (at least, for now). IL-Sen: Once considered a candidate for the Senate, Chicago Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky is now endorsing one of those candidates: she has thrown her support to Democratic state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias. OR-04: The now-famous tale of GOP candidate Sid Leiken and his mother the purported pollster has now come to its fitting conclusion, with Leiken getting hit with a $2250 fine for running afoul of a law designed to prevent candidates from converting campaign funds into monies for personal use. CO-Gov: After getting rolled out of the race last week, apparently Josh Penry wants everyone to know that he has been playing peacemaker , trying to build a bridge between his supporters and Scott McInnis’ people. Heh…now that Tom Tancredo is looking at the race? Good luck with that diplomacy thing, Mr. Penry. PA-15: Nice to see the DNC trying to play a little offense in this election cycle. It looks like they are going to run a radio campaign against potentially vulnerable GOP Rep. Charlie Dent on the issue of his vote against health care reform. The Democrats already have a first-tier challenger in the race in the form of Bethlehem Mayor John Callahan. They are also running an ad against Jim Gerlach, who represents PA-06 but is presently in the midst of a gubernatorial campaign. It is part of a national ad buy getting after more than two dozen potentially vulnerable GOP incumbents. A similar campaign in Florida is going after longtime GOP Reps. Bill Young and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. IL-Sen: If you have wondered why Mark Kirk has been behaving so strangely (including his recent embrace of Sarah Palin, which is now being properly mocked by the DSCC ), this might explain it. His right-wing opponent, Patrick Hughes, appears to be quite serious about taking down the Congressman. In fact, Hughes heads off to the nation’s capital this week, meeting with a variety of right-wing groups and entities trying to drum up support for his insurgent candidacy.

View original here:
Polling and Political Wrap-Up, 11/16/09

By Stephen Viscusi I am a headhunter … and the author of the global HarperCollins bestseller “Bulletproof Your Job” … some people call me the “medium” headhunter …and others the headhunter comedian. I host the upcoming series the “headhunter from hell”. A Suzie Orman knock-off show–but relevant…how to stay sane while unemployed! (www.bulletproofyourresume.com). I am writing a fiction essay here, on my choice to replace Diane Sawyer. In an earlier column, I gave my TOP TEN, choices. Gayle King — wasn’t on my first list. It always happens that way. (http://www.oprah.com/oradiohost/gking) Gayle is a radio show host—and a terrific charismatic TV personality. Better yet, she draws an audience, and gets “news” after all these morning news shows; she would be great with Cuomo. First let me say… I love Robin Roberts. Robin is the soul of the ABC’s GMA to me, but ABC …it’ s a Mommy audience…not a “tommy” (tomboy) audience.. According to former NBC-PR Hack–and now “Good Morning America “workplace contributor) -yes from PR at NBC–to Workplacer at ABC…lol…. Tory Johnson who is a “workplace expert” Tory gossiped on her blog (www.womonaforhire.com) and website–that Suze Orman was in the lead to replace Diane Sawyer (was Tory trying to pick her own new boss or her revenge on her former employer NBC, where she was a PR hack?) Johnson was all juiced up that she is now BFF’s (yes like your 12 year old daughter she wrote BFF)–with Orman, and Orman gal pal lover–and Orman works for ABC competitor—-MSNBC no less. Was Johnson trying to get back at her former employee MCNBC–or kiss up…no pun intended to potential new boss–Suze Orman? As far as Robin Roberts–ABC Disney has a habit of retiring their best talent that faces a challenge to people like Sawyer to retiring them to a show called “20/20″ (like in 20 / 20 hindsight!). Think: “Elizabeth Vargas” …even “Barbara Walters” was relegated to 20/20 after Harry Reasoner tortured her. 20/20 is like Disney/ABC purgatory. 20 / 20–is like putting you r dog or cat to sleep at ABC—and well Robin–that ’s where they will send you or Cuomo. Rumor has it; Sawyer is the one who suggested Robin Roberts partner with Vargas at 20/20. (I guess there is no glass ceiling at ABC news!) Going to “20/20- at ABC–is like putting your dog or cat “down”–or “to sleep” as we tell our kid’s, and Sawyer has put a lot of people “down” at ABC. I almost think that is why they keep the show alive. Don’t sue us; we will put you on 20/20. I guarantee you…if Robin Roberts is not sent to 20/20 purgatory then Cuomo will be–and let’s face it–that’s where they keep NBC’s AL Roker’s second wife, Deborah Roberts! OK–so why radio show host, and frequent OPRAH contributor Gayle — Here is the thing; I love “Mad Men”…so does Gayle. Gayle is a TV talent on her own. She is”real people. “I believe she is Oprah’s MUSE– and Gayle if you are not Oprah’s–you for sure are mine, Gayle knows” pop-culture.” Gayle is PERFECT. I get the impression she has no need to get up at 3 in the morning to put on makeup and read her notes, this woman is a TV pro, and she would explode ABC’s ratings. ABC’s GMA -is a perfect vehicle for her, better than a talk show, because Gayle gets to weigh in on the NEWS of the day, not just the sensation stories the talk shows cover. Gayle, move to New York City. I will help you find an apartment. You will love the Hamptons in the summer. Contribute on my new talk show “Headhunter From Hell, and the my talk show “We have All Been Fired Once, Don’t Get Mad, Get Even with Stephen Viscusi” So–tell me what you think? I bet Gail get an interview with rouge Sarah Palin even before Oprah. (Wouldn’t you love to hear them fighting over who gets to interview first–I say “odds or evens!” Copyright 2009 Stephen Viscusi May be reproduced without permission of author, as long as author gets credit. For more information contact 212-979-2422 Stephen Viscusi is the author of Bulletproof Your Job (HarperCollins). He can be reached at HYPERLINK mailto:stephen@viscusi.com. Please visit his website at HYPERLINK “http://www.bulletproofyourjob.com “www.bulletproofyourjob.com” More on The Recession

See more here:
Stephen Viscusi: Headhunter, Stephen Viscusi say’s "And … the Winner is Gayle King," to replace Diane Sawyer. Robin Roberts moves to"ABC’s "20/20", while Cuomo, who is not a homo … takes the male helm!

And the ironies just won’t stop. This week we find ourselves listening to Sarah Palin complaining that her almost son-in-law Levi Johnston a) is desperate for attention, b) Is capitalizing from showing off his body and c) is a big fat liar. So says the spotlight-craving, truth-challenged former beauty pageant contestant. We also learned this week that 55% of Americans find Palin to be ” honest and trustworthy .” Apparently 55% of Americans haven’t been watching Palin’s shennanigans back in her home state. From long before Troopergate to the present day, Palin has found herself treading an ethical line, and often stepping right across it without a second thought. On October 26, the ex-governor submitted her final set of financial disclosure documents to the Alaska Public Offices Commission. And if nobody had been looking, that unremarkable partly-hand written submission would doubtless have passed into history and gone to that great big pile of government documents in the sky. But one thing that Palin has done for the state of Alaska, is awaken a sleeping giant - the citizen watchdog. Thanks to her questionable ethics, there is now an entire pack of them who pay close attention to the things that might otherwise pass under the radar. Remember those pesky bloggers and ethics complainers and ankle-biters that Palin claimed had driven her out of office? Them. Blue Oasis blogger Linda Kellen Biegel has been keeping an eagle eye on Palin’s financial disclosures, and has come up with an excellent analysis of the current situation. She lays out some pretty compelling evidence (below) that “honest and trustworthy” may not in fact be the most accurate description of the ex-governor or the ex-First Dude. Sarah Palin filed her final POFD (Public Officer Financial Disclosure) on time according to APOC (Alaska Public Offices Commission) rules. However, the document was less than thorough. In Part One , we talked about how Palin failed to disclose a trust worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. In Part Two, we’ll look at the evidence that proves Sarah Palin is being less-than-truthful about Arctic Cat and Todd’s other Iron Dog sponsors. The whole “Arctic Cat” issue began with: — the ethics complaint I filed against Sarah Palin with the Personnel Board, — its subsequent dismissal and –my attempt at an appeal . This all led to a simple question asked by Andree McLeod during public testimony at an APOC meeting: You (Sarah Palin) have reported a “discount on snow machines” by Arctic Cat for Todd Palin. Was this discount exercised during calendar year 2008 and what was the amount of it? Ms. McLeod was referring to Palin’s Financial Disclosure for calendar year 2008 . The only thing disclosed as coming from the Arctic Cat sponsorship was a “50% discount” on a snowmachine and no actual monetary figure was included. This violates APOC’s requirement that anything over $1,000.00 needs to include the value if it was higher than $1,000.00. As a result, APOC sent that question in the form of a “letter of inquiry” to Sarah Palin and received a response back claiming the amount of the snowmachine discount was “50% of the factory cost” and was therefore a “trade secret.” APOC rejected that claim and gave Palin a deadline to report the information. Palin/Van Flein responded , now claiming ignorance as to the details of the contract, even though some of the details were revealed in the previous letter and even more of the contract details were shared in this one. For example: -The racers receive their Arctic wear for free while for others (through them) it was 50% discount and, -Todd Palin receives a “sponsorship fee.” The APOC Staff made a recommendation , somehow coming to the conclusion that Palin had “revealed enough.” The Commission rather soundly rejected the staff recommendation during their September meeting and instead tasked them with finding out even more information from the Palins, including the amount of the “sponsorship fee” described in the last letter from Van Flein/Palin to the APOC. This is where the investigation of last year’s Financial Disclosure form stands at this moment. This brings us back to Monday’s “Final” Financial Disclosure. Regarding the Iron Dog and sponsorship benefits for the Palins–according to the paperwork, the only mention of ANYTHING Iron Dog (other than listing Todd’s “winnings” as $3,500.00) is identifying Arctic Cat as a sponsor. The only monetary value: “Arctic Cat discount on snowmachines is $3,252.00″. So, the Palin’s are claiming that the extent of Arctic Cat sponsorship value to Todd Palin is $3,252. That’s an interesting figure for a few reasons: 1) On Palin’s Financial Disclosure for calendar year 2007 , she lists the total value of the Arctic Cat sponsorship as $7,500.00 . That was the year that Davis/Palin won the Iron Dog and the rewards for that win should have been reaped during the 2008 race…the year that Palin failed to attach ANY monetary value to the Arctic Cat sponsorship. 2008 was also the year that Sarah was the Republican VP candidate. The Palins are asking us to believe that the value of the Arctic Cat sponsorship has GONE DOWN by over $4,000.00 AFTER their latest win and the former-Gov’s new national stature? 2) They have still dodged listing that pesky “sponsorship fee” that already has them under investigation for last year’s POFD. During the September APOC meeting, the other Commissioners were enlightened by Commissioner Frederick, a lawyer from Wasilla who also happens to be “musher savvy” about sponsorships: When discussion ensued, Commissioner Frederick asked a list of salient questions based on the the most recent letter:–The second paragraph states that: “In addition, the company pays a sponsorship fee and gives Team Arctic Wear to the Racing Team.” Frederick explained that she had not really noticed that line before and in the discussion, proceeded to explain that sponsorship fees as high as $40,000 and $50,000 are not unheard of, especially considering the winning record and the high-profile of the Davis/Palin team. When asked if Palin/Van Flein had ever revealed that amount, Jerry Anderson admitted they had not. I believe that this non-disclosure may turn out to be by far the most significant. 3) As low-ball as the disclosed Arctic Cat figure may be, it is still higher than the $1,000. requirement for APOC disclosure. Remember, Palin did not disclose a monetary figure for Arctic Cat for Calendar Year 2008, giving the impression that their monetary value was under $1,000.00. In other words, we would have to believe that the snowmachine Todd Palin used last year in 2008, the year after his Iron Dog win would have been much lower quality than the one they used in 2009. 4) The Palin’s are attempting to pass off their sponsorship discounts as the actual “value” of the item. This is not correct. In the instructions on filling out the POFD form, Section #6 is for listing “other income” and Section #7 is for “gifts.” The instructions for “other income” state: “Report the source and amount of any other income over $1,000 not reported elsewhere.” However, the section on “gifts” states: “Type, source & value of gifts worth over $250. Include multiple gifts from one source if they exceed $250.” Sponsorship actually combines the two. A sponsorship deal includes a substantially discounted price for merchandise in exchange for the high-profile advertising of the successful race team. The actual retail value of the mechandise is the income being exchanged . In other words, they should be listing the “value” of the snowmachine as income, not the 50% they didn’t have to pay after the price was already lowered to the factory cost per the contract (that Palin claims she has never seen)! The extremely low monetary value listed for the Arctic Cat sponsorship AND the absence of any other sponsorship names defies logic in comparison to the past two POFD’s and for the other reasons listed above. It also flies in the face of all evidence pointing to Davis/Palin having recently hit sponsorship gold…or maybe platinum according to the sponsorship levels on their website . Per Sports Illustrated : Some Iron Doggers have spent upwards of $30,000 to finance a once-in-a-lifetime run into the wild heart of Alaska. Tapping their credit cards, they’ve shelled out $10,000 each for a 2009 snow machine, $10,000 more for an identical training sled , $2,500 for the race entry fee and a few thousand more for trailing airplane support. Palin and Davis, in contrast, have spent almost nothing. They are prodigiously sponsored, with their names monogrammed in script on their matching Arctic Cat jackets. (Palin even has the names of his five kids and his wife, SARAH, THE GOV, appliquéd on his snow machine hood.) They give inspirational speeches at trade shows. They are both adored and reviled. They are the New York Yankees of snow machining. That one paragraph says so much, but I’d like to call your attention to the comment about the training sled. Again, per Sports Illustrated: Behold Todd Palin’s snow machine, dangling from a truck’s winch in the icy gray murk of an Alaskan winter morning. The machine is gleaming, new, scarcely ridden. “Scarcely ridden”…which would indicate he either a) doesn’t train much or b) he has another machine to train on. We know the former isn’t true, per People : During each of the past 14 years, Todd has spent nearly two months training up to five hours a day for the 2,000-mile Iron Dog marathon. “He wouldn’t do it if the family wasn’t behind him,” says Davis. …and… “Todd has been training a couple of hundred miles a day to get ready,” Todd’s racing partner, Scott Davis, a seven-time winner of the Iron Dog told PEOPLE. “We’re ready.” Additionally, we have a picture from the Davis-Palin website . In a photo gallery titled “2009″ I found a picture of these three identical Arctic Cat snowmachines (the ones they used during the Iron Dog 2009) at Scott Davis’s place in Soldotna. That’s two for the race and one…errrr…extra? I suspect there are four but the fourth one is not in the picture. Luckily, Men’s Journal can explain it to us: Davis owns a major construction company with lucrative state contracts, and this building - a kind of gearhead paradise, Alaska Rich Guy Version - is the reward, with a 40-foot mobile home parked along one wall, a shiny four-wheel ATV, and room for Davis’s dozen snowmobiles, or, as the locals call them, “snowmachines.” Four new ones - identical Arctic Cat F6s - take up the main work area, two for Davis, a seven-time Iron Dog winner himself, and two for Palin. Did anyone see a “training sled” listed on the POFD? Other benefits caught by the media are a winch, a really nice trailer, and an Arctic Cat mechanic, per Sports Illustrated: And then, a few hours later, Alaska’s First Couple flies home to Wasilla, to resume normal life. Todd goes to his daughter Willow’s basketball game. He tinkers with the boiler down in the basement, changes a water filter, and then gets together with Calvin Nolan, the Arctic Cat mechanic, to nail down what, exactly, went wrong. There is also nothing mentioned on the POFD about transportation to speaking engagements or even the air and ground support costs on the Iron Dog Trail…hmmmm… Remember… ” Palin and Davis, in contrast, have spent almost nothing. They are prodigiously sponsored…” And while we’ve been rightly questioning the true extent of the Arctic Cat sponsorship, let’s not neglect to mention that Davis/Palin has MANY sponsors who reach the Silver, Gold or Platinum levels on their website . Of course, all financial information is devoid from the site however, you can tell who is at least at the “Silver” level by whose logo is actually at the top of the page. Esquire Magazine , however, may have provided us with another sponsorship clue during their description of Davis/Palin getting the sleds ready for the 2009 race: They’ve fitted them with additional gas tanks, sawed off pounds of extraneous metal and plastic, swapped in new Öhlins shocks, and made hundreds of other tiny tweaks and adjustments. The Öhlins cost about $2,500 a set, but they’re worth it. You do this long enough and you learn where to scrimp and where to splurge. I doubt there was any serious “splurging” going on since, if you check their website, Ohlins is at least a Silver sponsor of the team. More interestingly, even if their sponsorship agreement is the same as Arctic Cat, 50% off, that still puts those shocks over the $1000 disclosure amount ! Where are they on the POFD form? How many of the rest of those Silver, Gold and Platinum sponsors should be listed in the disclosure? I think this post, and my previous one talking about the trust worth hundreds of thousands of dollars that got left off the form, have made it extremely clear that what Sarah Palin tries to pass off as “disclosure” is simply a slap in the face to Alaskans. She may have attempted to follow the laws before her VP Candidacy but shows no sign of it anymore. She could potentially believe that no one can/will hold her accountable or maybe she just doesn’t care, as she has no intention of paying any fines even if they were to be levied against her. I guess we’ll have to wait and see. The media she accused of “makin’ stuff up” seems to have uncovered a bunch of “stuff” that she was leaving out. Photos can be viewed at Blue Oasis That’s some pretty fancy equipment. More on Sarah Palin

Read more from the original source:
Jeanne Devon ("AKMuckraker"): Palin’s Non-Disclosure - Quit Leavin’ Stuff Out!

In the House, courtesy of the Office of the Majority Leader: FLOOR SCHEDULE FOR TUESDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2009 House Meets At… 10:30 a.m.: Morning Hour 12:00 p.m.: Legislative Business First Vote Predicted… 12:00 – 1:00 p.m. Last Vote Predicted… 2:00 – 3:00 p.m. “One Minutes” (Unlimited) Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 2996 - Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 (Rep. Dicks – Appropriations) Suspensions (4 Bills) H.Res. 838 - Welcoming to the United States and to Washington, DC, His All Holiness Bartholomew, Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, Ecumenical Patriarch on his upcoming trip on October 20, 2009, through November 6, 2009 (Rep. Bilirakis - Foreign Affairs) H.Res. 784 - Honoring the 2560th anniversary of the birth of Confucius and recognizing his invaluable contributions to philosophy and social and political thought (Rep. Al Green - Foreign Affairs) S.Con.Res. 45 - A concurrent resolution encouraging the Government of Iran to allow Joshua Fattal, Shane Bauer, and Sarah Shourd to reunite with their families in the United States as soon as possible (Sen. Specter - Foreign Affairs) H.Res. 831 - Supporting the goals and ideals of National Adoption Day and National Adoption Month by promoting national awareness of adoption and the children in foster care awaiting families, celebrating children and families involved in adoption, recognizing current programs and efforts designed to promote adoption, and encouraging people in the United States to seek improved safety, permanency, and well-being for all children (Rep. Brown-Waite - Ways and Means)                                                                                 Conference Reports may be brought up at any time. Motions to go to Conference should they become available. Possible Motions to Instruct Conferees. In the Senate, courtesy of the Office of the Majority Leader: Convenes: 10:00am Morning business for 60 minutes. The Republicans will control the first 30 minutes and the Majority will control final 30 minutes. Following morning business, debate the nomination of Irene Cornelia Berger, of West Virginia, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of West Virginia. Recess from 12:30 until 2:15pm for caucus luncheons. 2:20pm vote on confermation of nomination. Upon disposition of nomination, resume morning business. 5:30pm resume motion to proceed to H.R.3548 . 6:30pm cloture vote on the motion to proceed to H.R.3548 , the Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2009. Short floor schedule for the House today, with just four suspensions and a motion to instruct conferees on the Interior appropriations bill. The instructions, remember, are technically non-binding. Keep that in mind as we approach dealing with the health insurance reform bills. All eyes will be on the conference process, and there will no doubt be attempts to instruct the conferees. You may well see a Republican motion with either a poison pill or something inspired by their general wingnut-ism come to a vote and actually pass. Why? Because such motions are an opportunity to force an annoying or embarrassing vote, but are also non-binding. So very often, rather than cast the principled vote and let that be used in attack ads, Dems will vote with Republicans to make the issue go away, knowing that the instructions are non-binding and will be ignored. Not my favorite move, but there it is. In the Senate, a judicial nomination (a process that to no one’s surprise, Republicans are slowing down again ) and a cloture vote on the motion to proceed on the unemployment extension bill. That finally puts Republicans on the spot and forces them to either own up to being insensitive jerks, or admit that they’ve just been screwing around for political reasons when they blocked the bill from coming to the floor before (three times, thank you very much). The latest block, by the way, came yesterday, as Harry Reid tried one more time to get unanimous consent to bring the bill up clean, with no amendments. Republicans refused. Why? Because they insist on bringing yet another ACORN defunding amendment. I think we’ve defunded ACORN about four dozen times now, but like putting on a diaper and visiting a prostitute, this apparently never gets old for David Vitter. Full committee schedule appears below. Be sure to check out the House Financial Services Committee today as they mark up yet more financial regulatory reform legislation, and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee as they consider their climate change and green jobs bill.

Excerpt from:
Today in Congress

Republicans, to be sure, seem to have an endless reservoir of outrage these days. Among the latest smallish things to get the right wing’s underpants into a collective twist was a poll released several days ago by ABC and the Washington Post . There was much within the poll for the GOP to be concerned about. It had the “generic ballot test” for next year’s midterm election at a twelve-point Democratic edge (generally speaking, an even wider edge than was found in October surveys back in 2008). It showed a striking level of support for the Public Option. On top of it all, it gave the president a 57% job approval rating. Yet these were all ancillary complaints for the conservative fringe. Their largest concern: the poll showed that just 20% of those surveyed self-identified as Republicans. Democrats made up 33% of the sample, while Independents made up the largest group in the sample at 42%. This led Newt Gingrich, joined by a chorus of voices in the right-wing blogosphere, to get positively indignant : Well, it tells me first of all that the poll’s almost certainly wrong. It’s fundamentally different from Rasmussen. It’s fundamentally different from Zogby. It’s fundamentally different from Gallup. It’s a typical Washington Post effort to slant the world in favor of liberal Democrats. It is perhaps not surprising that a right-wing ideologue like Gingrich would push GOP-friendly Rasmussen as some kind of an exemplar. And, as Pollster’s Mark Blumenthal pointed out in his own fine article on this kerfluffle, Zogby does not disclose its party ID breakdown publicly. But Gallup did, and as ABC News’ polling unit director Gary Langer pointed out in his excellent takedown of Gingrich, it isn’t all that different than what ABC News showed. Nor did a large number of other pollsters: Partisan Breakdown, Political Public Opinion Polls, R/D/I ABC/WaPo (10/18)– 20 /33/42 CBS News (10/8)– 22 /33/45 AP/GfK (10/5)– 21 /33/26 Ipsos/McClatchy (10/5)– 19 /33/48 Gallup (10/4)– 27 /33/38 Pew (10/4)– 23 /34/37 NBC/WSJ (9/20)– 18 /31/43 Unless Gingrich is prepared to indict pretty much every pollster in America save for Rasmussen and Fox News, it would appear that he is seriously out of line alleging that Langer and his crew cooked the books. Especially when other theories are infinitely more plausible. After all, what we are talking about is political self-identification . In other words, the pollster asks the respondent to identify their own affiliation. There are no shortage of polls that tell us that voters are not particularly thrilled with either political party (our most recent tracking poll here at DK proves that conclusively). It is also not hard to find data that the GOP brand name is damaged considerably worse than the Democratic party brand: consider this week’s CNN Poll (PDF) , where approval of the Republican Party was at 36%, the lowest level for the GOP in a CNN-sponsored poll since the impeachment saga of late 1998. Given this fact, it is not terribly surprising to learn that voters might not want to identify themselves as Republican to a pollster. Indeed, someone with conservative leanings might be as apt to identify themselves as an Independent as a Republican, given the current base disenchantment with the party. After all, does the name Doug Hoffman ring a bell? Base dissatisfaction is certainly going to lead to an exodus of some kind. We have even seen that phenomenon among Democrats this year, although not as acutely. Last year’s polls showed Democratic indentification routinely in the high 30s and low 40s. That table cited by Langer had tremendous consistency, with Democrats in the 31-34% range. One must also consider the possibility that the relative paucity of people self-identifying as Republicans could be traced to their relegation to the minority party over the last four years. There’s a reason why it is not hard to find people sporting Lakers and Celtics gear but not too many folks rocking the Memphis Grizzlies attire. People usually do not fall all over themselves to identify with a loser, and the GOP has been on a pretty brutal losing streak as of late. So, in the final analysis, it appears that Gingrich and the rest of the right-wing scolds have, to some extent, a raging case of misplaced anger. Their anger at ABC’s polling unit is a deflection of the real problem: genuine anger many Republicans are directing at their own party–an extension of the GOP civil war which is apparent to anybody closely following American politics but curiously underreported by the traditional media, ever eager to instead breathlessly report on the Obama polling collapse that has been more of a retraction of a bounce than a genuine collapse . Quibbles about Republicans in the sample are rather besides the point, anyway. As long as the newly minted Independents vote Republican in the 2010 midterms, then how they choose to identify themselves to a pollster is largely irrelevant. One thing that has been a pretty consistent characteristic of polls in the Obama presidency is that Independents are not behaving the same as they did in 2006 or 2008. In those two election cycles, Independents almost behaved as soft Democrats, leaning much closer to the Democrats on issue and electoral polling than they did the GOP. In 2009, that has not been the case. In the best case scenario, they’ve broken even. In some cases, they leaned just slightly to the right-of-center. This almost certainly means that the drop in Republican identification is not so much an ideological shift as it is a shift in nomenclature. In other words, as the number of people self-identifying as Republican has dropped, the number of right-leaning Independents has increased (and presumably, close to proportionally). Therefore, one can presume that unless there is a real spike in third-party candidacies (call it the Daggett effect, or perhaps the Hoffman effect), those Independents will either stay home (which could have a real and deleterious effect for Republicans) or they will revert to form. The team over at Public Policy Polling looked at the potential for third-party candidates in 2010, and gauged their potential support. In a shrewd decision, they polled a standard Dem vs. GOP generic ballot for 2010, and then they also included a generic ballot with a third option. In the standard two-way calculation, the Democratic Party led by eight points (48-40). With the third option included, 22% of voters selected that third-option, with the Democratic lead stretching out to double digits (40-29-22). In a sign that the new surge in Independents may well be right of center–consider this demographic breakdown: 29% of conservative voters would opt for that third-party option in 2010 if it were available, versus just 9% of liberals. The bottom line is that the sampling data for the ABC poll last week is important, but far from the reason that Gingrich and the right-wing chorus alleges. This is not an object lesson in a liberal media trying to bring down the GOP. It is, however, further evidence that the Republican brand name is badly wounded, and that there is a real and deep schism in the modern-day GOP.

See the original post: 
Where Did All The Republicans Go?

Boom goes the dynamite …. Former Alaska GOP Gov. Sarah Palin on Thursday endorsed Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman over Dede Scozzafava, the Republican Party’s choice, in the special election for New York’s 23rd congressional district. “The people of the 23rd Congressional District of New York are ready to shake things up, and Doug Hoffman is coming on strong as Election Day approaches! He needs our help now,” Palin wrote in a statement that will be posted on her Facebook page late Thursday. Palin is not only vocally throwing her weight behind the right-wing Hoffman, she is talking with her bankbook. She is planning to have her political action committee, SarahPAC, max out to Hoffman’s campaign (which has now raised over $300K in his bid for Congress, and appears to be outraising Scozzafava, according to recent FEC 48-hour reports). In her endorsement, Palin minces few words in ripping into the Republican Party, yet another sign that the party is on the verge of a fratricidal bloodletting: “Political parties must stand for something. When Republicans were in the wilderness in the late 1970s, Ronald Reagan knew that the doctrine of ‘blurring the lines’ between parties was not an appropriate way to win elections,” she added, launching into an attack of the Republican Party. “Unfortunately, the Republican Party today has decided to choose a candidate that more than blurs the lines, and there is no real difference between the Democrat and the Republican in this race. This is why Doug Hoffman is running on the Conservative Party’s ticket,” she wrote. “Republicans and conservatives around the country are sending an important message to the Republican establishment in their outstanding grassroots support for Doug Hoffman: no more politics as usual.” Palin’s decision to throw her lot in with the third-party insurgent candidate is the second notable Republican defection in as many days for Scozzafava, who has struggled almost since the moment that district Republicans decided to award their party nomination to her. On Wednesday, it was one of the other luminaries in the GOP’s female Axis of Wingnuttery–the one and only Michele Bachmann , who decided to turn her back on the Republican Party: Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) appeared yesterday on Laura Ingraham’s radio show — and called upon listeners to support Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate in the NY-23 special election, instead of the moderate Republican nominee Dede Scozzafava. Bachmann quite correctly said the race is a “mess,” and said that she’s read that the Republican candidate is now in third place, with the Democrat in first place and Hoffman as the real chance to keep the seat in the GOP column. In her rationale for supporting Hoffman, Bachmann appears to be talking out of school a bit. There are absolutely no public polls that have Hoffman leading Scozzafava. The assumption, therefore, is that Bachmann is privy to some private polling that has Hoffman ahead of Scozzafava. Daily Kos will be releasing our numbers from the New York 23rd district in the morning. Without divulging too much information, it is fair to presume that Scozzafava’s streak of bad news days is unlikely to be stopped on Friday.

Read more from the original source: 
NY-23: Palin and Bachmann Agree…Down With the GOP

Sarah Palin has joined LinkedIn . And guess what? She’s interested in “job inquiries.” The former Alaska governor has posted her resume on the professional social-networking web site LinkedIn. The service boasts over 45 million users who connect and refer colleagues. Instead of using the Facebook term “friends,” LinkedIn users have “connections.” Palin had over 500 connections as of Saturday evening. The URL for Palin’s LinkedIn profile uses “/governorpalin” despite the fact that Palin resigned from her job as Alaska’s governor in July 2009. The University of Idaho is the sole education entry on Palin’s LinkedIn profile. She does not list the four other institutions she attended before earning her degree. The former governor is no stranger to social networking. Before and after resigning, Palin posted lengthy messages on her Facebook page. Palin posted a message slamming President Barack Obama over the Afghan War just a couple weeks ago. She has over 929,000 Facebook supporters . Politico has hypothesized that Palin’s use of Facebook might have something to do with her resources: To some degree, Palin’s strategy may be driven by necessity. The former governor has operated with a skeleton crew since leaving the governor’s office, with a team consisting of only a handful of staffers employed by her political action committee located in Virginia. Sarah Palin’s popularity took a dive recently. Her memoir, “Going Rogue: An American Life” will be released November 17. More on Social Networking

Continued here:
Sarah Palin LinkedIn: Palin Posts Resume On Social-Networking Site LinkedIn

Fear of being fired or laid off in this harsh economy is creating a workplace that has all the trappings of what I would call, in the words of the late Hunter S. Thompson, fear and loathing in the American workplace. I just gave up my livelihood rather than work in a climate of fear and degradation. I feel for my co-workers who don’t have the financial means to do the same. I wonder, what’s the first thing that comes to mind when you think about the rising unemployment rate in the United States? Most likely, it’s the sad plight of workers who’ve lost their incomes, health insurance, retirement accounts and, most likely, a big chunk of self-esteem. And, there is no question about the fact that the unemployed grapple with these losses on a daily basis. Many rise early to jump on job boards, write cover letters, and perfect their resumes, only to be met with rejection. Many of them are anxious, depressed and suffering increasingly from related physical illness. But what about the ranks of the still-employed who live in fear of being tapped for the next layoff or becoming the target of managers who can fire them — in most cases — at will? A study at the University of Michigan shows that people who constantly worry about losing their jobs report poorer physical health and more symptoms of depression than those who have actually been laid off. Researchers analyzed nationally representative samples of surveys from more than 1,700 adults over age 25 who were asked about their physical and mental health, as well as their feelings about the security of their job. “The negative effect of being persistently insecure was more significant than the unemployment itself,” said study author Sarah Burgard, a research assistant professor at the school’s Institute for Social Research. People are working overtime without being paid for the extra work. They’re putting up with lower or no increases in compensation as a reward for excellence. They’re scared to speak up against management. They’re undercutting one another in the belief that it’s better to see a former workmate fired than to be fired oneself. “By no means am I trying to belittle the stress of job loss,” Burgard said. “But the negative anticipation of an event can be more stressful than the event itself. People feel they have the sword of Damocles hanging over their head, but they can’t exert any control over the situation.” And it’s not just the slackers who are worried. It’s been my observation that the most productive employees, those who show the most talent, are often targeted by managers whose own insecurity drives them to harass or oust top performers, people who could challenge them for positions in management — possibly for lower salaries, saving the company money. It’s not just a battle between employees and their superiors. This rampant fear creates hostility between equals at all levels: manager on manager, worker on worker. Perhaps the saddest thing about this climate of fear and hostility is that this is just the time when people at all levels in the workplace could be finding solace in a mutual dedication to survival of the best. They could be banding together to ensure that the hard working among them would weather the economic storm. Instead, it’s every man for himself.

Go here to read the rest: 
Susan Older: "Fear and Loathing" in the American Workplace

Last time, we were not only lied into war, but those who did the cheerleading and lying neither volunteered themselves nor did any of their children. So, this time, before Michelle Malkin, or Eric Cantor, or Liz Cheney, or Rich Lowry, get a nanosecond on any other network but Fox to plump for escalating the Afghan War, let them demonstrate their belief in its importance, and rightness, by first volunteering to fight it. And, if (and let’s be honest, there is no chance they would risk their own lives, so it is really “when”) they have not demonstrated their own commitment, shut them out, they have no credibility even to give ‘balance’ to opposing views. (Liz and Rich are just over 40, but I am sure the Commander-in-Chief could get the military to make exceptions for them; and Michelle and Eric are just the right age to volunteer). Are you listening Meet the Press, This Week, Face the Nation, the networks news hours, 60 minutes, CNN and the MSNBC cable shows? Do not let these people have the microphone until they demonstrate their commitment to their cause by their actions. John McCain and Sarah Palin, whose sons have volunteered, have earned the right to be heard on this matter. But not Bill Kristol if his sons have not volunteered, just as Bill sat out the Vietnam war vigorously promoting it in his late teens and early twenties; and nor Mitt Romney if some of his 5 sons have not enlisted–during the Vietnam War, Mitt himself avoided service by going on a mission for the Mormon Church in the dangerous jungles of Paris, and returned to the US, according to his own account, ‘waiting to be called and disappointed he was not’, somehow never realizing for 6 years that he could, like Lyndon Johnson’s sons-in-law, volunteer. Dagnabbit–he had to spend his time hunting varmints. And, do not forget his comment in the ‘07 primaries that his sons were being more patriotic by driving around Iowa in a Winnebago to help not make Mitt President than they would have been by volunteering. Similarly, for Bill O’Reilly, and Dick Armey, and Jeb Bush, and Dick Cheney himself. Because it is just too easy to sound macho while other people and other peoples’ children die and are maimed for your vanity. During the disastrous Bush-Cheney Administration, not a single member of either the Bush or Cheney families–who were all of military age–volunteered. If they had had to, would Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Feith-Pearle-Wolfowitz have lied us into war, and then not provided the troops with body armor? If the media (or the Democrats!) had called them on it, how much support for that war would have melted as they stumbled through disingenuous ‘explanations”/ While we are at it, it seems as if there are many patriots showing up at rallies these days, including those of the President, with guns. Most of them, one would presume from their comments on other policy matters, would consider the President a traitor if he does not send all the troops McChrystal wants. Perhaps at subsequent events, the Army and Marines can send some recruiters and give these people a chance to use those guns where they could really help? [Bill Maher--why not add that to the 'New Rule" suggestion?]. Let me say that I would like to hear the arguments directly, both for and against, the McChrystal position presented soberly, and with the alternatives completely analyzed and discussed. But, we should all be damned if we allow a group of cowards to cheerlead other peoples’ children to their deaths or permanent injuries again without first putting themselves, or their close families, in the thick of battle themselves. Once was too much. More on Afghanistan

Originally posted here:
Paul Abrams: New Rule Suggestion for Bill Maher: Before a Politician or Pundit Gets Heard On Winning the Afghan War with More Troops, That Person or a Family Member Must Volunteer for It.

I was recently reading on my friend Tory Johnson’s blog (www.womanforhire.com). Tory’s blog mentioned how she had met Suzie Orman and her “life partner,” Kathy Travis (”KT”), at a speaking engagement called the Pennsylvania Governor’s Conference for Women. Orman is a lesbian TV personality who talks and writes about money related issues. She is a class act to whom I look up to. According to the “Woman for Hire” blog, Suze and KT were both excited about Suzie’s high ranks in the TVNewser poll, which, to that date placed Orman as the highest contender to replace Diane Sawyer in January on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” Here is a little back-story about Tory Johnson. Tory founded a woman’s job fair company called, “Woman for Hire,” after losing her job at NBC, where she had previously worked as a publicist. Tory is also a paid workplace expert on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” and the author of the new book “Fired to Hired,” which I highly recommend. If Tory can go from a public relations person at NBC, lose that job and somehow convince a producer from Good Morning America to hire her as “on-air” talent–not to report on “public relations” but to give career advice, without her even needing to go back to school, you want to know her secret. I say, good for Tory. It’s sweet revenge for her with NBC. After all, these are the same producers that hired all these childless “on-air” talents to lure parents to the show. Welcome to the world of television! Or, as I call GMA, “smoke-and-mirrors in Jimmy Chu shoes!” However, I had to chuckle at the Suze Orman story Tory wrote. There is the sense of clear irony in what Tory wrote about regarding “Good Morning America” and the woman Tory said is now feels like her “BFF”-Suze Orman. It was my impression that Disney/ABC had decided to focus on attracting moms (women), to score the all-time highest ratings war for television’s morning shows. “Moms” are apparently the strongest demographic for morning television. However, here is the thing. Disney/ABC’s “Good Morning America” is the only morning show on network broadcast that does not have a parent at the helm. Diane Sawyer is not a mom. Robin Roberts is a single woman in her mid-to-late forties who never married, and never talks about having a boyfriend or even dating men, like Hode Kobe does on NBC’s “Today Show.” I was on a Ferry from the Fire Island Pines, a predominately lesbian and gay community near Long Island NY, about two years ago. Robin Roberts had spent the weekend there and was on her way back with her doggy. She may have been visiting Sam Champion, who has also been out there. All of the morning show’s programming strategy seemed to be to attract women, mostly moms who would be home in the morning or at least part of it, before getting the kids off to school and then heading off to work…and well, I found the whole story amusing. Tory would be an ideal host. As a working mom, she even looks like a Sawyer, that is, if Sawyer had had children. I love to put on my headhunter hat with these TV “on -air” scenarios and add my two cents, even when not asked. I have no gripe with the lesbians, even single straight women, and non-moms ruling the morning talk-show world. After all, Oprah and Tyra are not married, and are not mothers either- -at least that we have heard of. First, picture this in your head. “Good Morning America” with your hosts, Robyn Roberts and Suze Orman, Sam Champion with the weather and our news reader Chris Cuomo (who has kids). If ABC does not give the job to Cuomo, (and if not, I would walk if I were Chris Cuomo), then give his job to Anderson Cooper! Better yet, here is an idea: ABC can hire MSNBC’s, talk show host, Rachel Maddow. Then, ABC may be able to cross-sell their morning franchise to Viacom’s LOGO network. (Just tongue-and-cheek here, before you wrote, and no pun intended!) My last advice to ABC is that Barbara Walters should bring in Sarah Palin as a replacement for Elizabeth Hasselbeck! Boy did I hear from thousands of my readers about that. Wow! Therefore, I hope you will let me know what you think of this list of TOP TEN. OK-here are my top ten more realistic picks (men and woman) to replace Diane Sawyer on “Good Morning America. I write them as a recruiter, author of the HarperCollins book “Bulletproof Your Job,” and as a TV-journalist and writer myself: 1. Ann Curry (ABC should be trying to steal her away). 2. Kathy Lee Gifford (Meredith Viera and her are roughly the same age), she is a mom and cannot stop talking about her kids. 3. Rosie O’Donnell (at least she has kids) 4. Campbell Brown (Former NBC Weekend anchor of the “TODAY” show, and now has her own gig on CNN. Moreover, she cannot seem not stop having kids) 5. Dr. Phil -Come on, you know he would be great to wake up too. 6. Heidi Klum-Perfect complement to Robin and another one who can’t stop having children! 7. MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” contributor Willie Geist 8. ABC/Disney can go out on a limb and consider “How You Do-In’” gal, and my friend, Wendy Williams. 9. CBS Weekend Morning Show Host Chris Wragge - A HUNK that everyone seems to love. 10. And —for my Number TEN choice—well of course… Paula Abdu l…who I hear… is still looking for work! Tell me what you think! ——————————————————————— You’re always welcome to write me with your career dilemmas, and I’ll answer you on this column. Follow me on Twitter (@WorkplaceGuru) and add me on Facebook or email me at: stephen@viscusi.com. Disclaimer: The scenarios and events portrayed in this article are products of the author’s imagination. (c) Stephen Viscusi. All rights reserved. Article can be duplicated in part of full without author’s permission. Stephen Viscusi is the author of two books about jobs and the workplace. Charles Gibson from ABC’s World News calls Viscusi, “America’s Workplace Guru”. Viscusi is a TV broadcast journalist on jobs, a headhunter and resume spin doctor. His latest book, Bulletproof Your Job: 4 Simple Strategies to Ride Out the Rough Times and Come Out On Top at Work (HarperCollins) has been published around the globe in at least 9 languages including Chinese, Korean, Spanish and Portuguese. Viscusi is also the founder of www.BulletproofYourResume.com. Viscusi’s headhunting and workplace advice is usually considered counter-intuitive to the conventional wisdom. Viscusi is not a career or life coach. To the contrary, his current book, Bulletproof Your Job has been described as the New Millennium’s The Art of War, by Sun Tzu, and that’s how Viscusi sees the workplace. He’s your workplace General. Each week, Stephen Viscusi volunteers his headhunting career advice to the world. His disciples can be celebrities, politico, world leaders, heads of industry, and some are just ordinary people who write him for advice. It’s like Tony Robbins advising Al Gore or Deepak Chopra advising Michael Jackson (wait, scratch that one). Even you can get your own advice by writing to Stephen at stephen@viscusi.com, Facebook him or Twitter him at WorkplaceGuru. More on Morning Joe

Originally posted here:
Stephen Viscusi: Should Disney/ABC Change the Name of "Good Morning America" to ABC’s "Good Morning Gay America"? Viscusi’s TOP TEN Picks to Replace Diane Sawyer

{ Originally posted at my blog Senate Guru . } Nearly a month-and-a-half ago, 70-year-old Republican Rep. Mike Castle said the following : “I have a responsibility, primarily to the Republican Party of Delaware, to make it relatively soon. And relatively means in the next month or so.” So what is holding up Castle’s decision? Most likely, he is waiting to see what Delaware’s Democratic Attorney General, Beau Biden (son of Vice President Joe Biden), will do. Keep in mind : A return to civilian life is three weeks away for some soldiers in the Delaware Army National Guard after almost a year in Iraq. In the case of JAG Capt. Beau Biden, the homecoming also will catapult him back into an intensifying political life. … The return is scheduled for Wednesday, Sept. 30, at 1 p.m., in Dover on Legislative Mall in front of the John Haslet Armory. … It leaves the Senate seat beckoning for Beau Biden. Once Attorney General Biden resumes his official elective duties in less than a month, will he take steps toward a 2010 Senate bid? Keep in mind that two polls from this past Spring showed Castle leading Biden by varying amounts: Public Policy Polling put the race at 44-36, while Susquehanna Polling and Research put the race at 55-34. So, Castle has the nominal baseline edge, and would be more likely to go for the Senate seat if it was an easy race, but might prefer retirement to a tough slog against Biden. Meanwhile, Biden is widely expected to run and would enjoy a Party registration advantage in deep blue Delaware (along with a fairly popular last name in a state that went for Obama-Biden over McCain-Palin last year by a 62-37 margin), but might be daunted by these early poll numbers, and would rather pass on 2010 (and an uphill battle against Castle) and wait for 2014, when a then-75-year-old Castle would likely retire (assuming he’s already on the brink of retirement as is). We could potentially have a situation where both Biden and Castle would want to run for Senate, but Castle wouldn’t want to tangle with Biden and Biden wouldn’t want to wrangle with Castle. In short, we may soon see a game of political chicken, where the first poker player to bet big would force the other to fold his hand, but neither wants to push their chips in first. Stay tuned. More on Joe Biden

Read the original post:
Senate Guru: Will Mike Castle and Beau Biden Play Chicken?

David Brooks is very slick. His lies and deceptions are embedded into parenthetical asides or subordinate clauses, and frequently couched in the jargon of the social sciences. His affect on television is neither doctrinaire nor mean-spirited, like that of his former colleagues, Bill Kristol and Fred Barnes.  Brooks’ dishonesty is more subtle and insidious. A lot of people buy in to Brooks’ pseudo-intellectual shtick for making grand pronouncements that presume to define reality. In the ultimate tribute to Washington’s groupthink, George Stephanopoulos invited Brooks on to his show to present a video clip of Katie Couric asking Barack Obama to respond to a Brooks column that could have been dictated by Roger Ailes: “The [Democratic] party is led by insular liberals from big cities and the coasts, who neither understand nor sympathize with moderates. They have their own cherry-picking pollsters, their own media and activist cocoon, their own plans to lavishly spend borrowed money to buy votes.” Before he attacked Obama as a liberal elitist, Brooks touted Sarah Palin as the embodiment of reform. Brooks designated the Alaska governor as, “the rarest of creatures, an American politician who sees the world as [John McCain] does. Like McCain, Palin does not seem to have an explicit governing philosophy. Her background is socially conservative, but she has not pushed that as governor of Alaska. She seems to find it easier to work with liberal Democrats than the mandarins in her own party. Instead, she seems to get up in the morning to root out corruption.” Only a fool would believe that Brooks had scrutinized Palin’s record; he was simply parroting the same crap as Bill Kristol. For a couple of months now, Brooks has been pushing two fraudulent claims lifted out straight out of the Republican playbook: Obama’s proposals on healthcare reform do nothing to cut costs; and He wants to impose punitive taxation on the middle class.   His latest New York Times column encapsulates his disinformation campaign. True to form, Brooks, opened on a positive note. “On Wednesday night, Barack Obama delivered the finest speech of his presidency,” he wrote, and began his deceptions a few paragraphs later: First, Obama rested the credibility of his presidency on what you might call the Dime Standard. He was flexible about many things, but not this: “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future. Period.” This sound bite kills the House health care bill. That bill would add $220 billion (that’s 2.2 trillion dimes) to the deficit over the first 10 years and another $1 trillion (10 trillion dimes) to the deficit over the next 10 years. Brooks turned the President’s rhetorical device into a bogus financial analysis. No one can measure the financial impact of new federal legislation within one dime, or within $1 billion, over the span of one year, much less one decade. Of the $39 trillion spent by the federal government over the next decade, per C.B.O. estimates, the purported $220 billion cost equals less than half of one percent of that amount, a rounding error. Brooks keeps insinuating that the 10-year forecast can be tallied with the precision of a balanced checkbook. [For some context, consider what the Bush White House budgeted for the cost of keeping troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in years 2010 and later. The C.B.O . revealed the exact dollar amount to be zero. Of course, didn’t stop Brooks’ guy, presidential candidate John McCain, from proposing that we double down on the Bush tax cuts.]  There are a number of ways to tweak the House bill to reduce the $220 billion cost, but Brooks, like most Republican shills, seeks to preempt an honest give-and-take discussion. He writes: There is no way to get from the House bill to deficit neutrality. The president’s speech guarantees that the more moderate Senate Finance Committee bill will be the basis for the negotiations to come. No, Brooks is pulling out the stops to preclude a reasoned consideration of the public option. To back up his points, Brooks makes a pretty audacious lie – in the subordinate clause - about C.B.O. estimates.  He writes: Since the Congressional Budget Office is the universally accepted arbiter in such matters, the Democrats have to produce a bill that the C.B.O. says is deficit-neutral, now and forever. Brooks knows that the opposite is true. The C.B.O. is not the universally accepted arbiter, because its forecasting methodology on cost savings benefits has been shown to be highly arbitrary. The C.B.O. contends that cost savings from Obama’s proposals, which are hard to estimate, must be assumed to equal zero. Paul Krugman explained this point directly to Brooks as they sat across the table with Stephanopolous. If you assume that the actual costs savings in the first year are slightly less than $20 billion - below the cost of two months of  the Iraq/Afghanistan occupations - then the current House bill is deficit-neutral. (The 10 years add to up $220 billion because of inflation.) You can argue whether the potential cost savings of Obama’s proposals total $220 billion over the next decade.  But no one can honestly assert, like Brooks does, that the C.B.O. approach is the only legitimate method for estimating the net impact on the budget, and no one can honestly say that the C.B.O. methodology is manifestly more precise. Krugman’s explanation did not stop Brooks from doubling down on his lies or on smearing Obama’s veracity. Here’s his little riff on The NewsHour : The other thing is, [Obama] just tells a lot of whoppers now. Now, believe me, Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin are saying some things that are extremely off the charts untrue about the plan, but I just wrote down some of the things Obama said today which are whoppers. He said everyone can keep their health care plan. Well, the CBO doesn’t say that. Six million people are going to lose their plan. Preventive care saves money. That’s not true. It’s going to cost $90 billion a year. That’s not true. It’s probably going to cost twice as much when it’s fully implemented. Government will be out of health care decisions. He tells one thing after another, making it seem so easy. Well, believe me: This is not easy. It’s going to take some sacrifices and some really painful cuts for people to get this system under control. In other words, Brooks is a lot like the congressman who, when he yells out, “You lie!” is actually lying. Let’s go through Brooks’ lies about what the C.B.O. actually said. First: “He said everyone can keep their health care plan. Well, the CBO doesn’t say that. Six million people are going to lose their plan.” Obama said that the proposal would not compel no one - no individual, no employer, no employee - to change his insurance overage arrangements. The C.B.O. never suggested otherwise. Instead, it estimated there would be a rational response to a “significant feature of the insurance exchanges [which] is that they would include a public plan that largely pays Medicare-based rates for medical goods and services. CBO estimates that the premiums for that plan would generally be lower than the premiums of the private plans against which it would be competing.” As a result, the C.B.O. estimates that about three million people, including large numbers of part-time workers who would be eligible for subsidies in the exchanges, would choose to leave the plan offered by employers. In addition, the C.B.O. estimates that employers who currently offer coverage to about three million employees may elect to stop offering coverage. “Firms that would choose not to offer coverage as a result of the proposal would tend to be smaller employers and those that predominantly employ lower-wage workers.” In other words, those who can least afford to pay for private insurance will very likely have a better alternative. Second: “Preventive care saves money. That’s not true.” The C.B.O. said something else entirely. It said that the scorekeeping rules prohibit it from measuring cost savings in Medicaid and Medicare until Congress passes specific legislation with designating specific appropriations for such cost saving measures.  The C.B.O. also expressed skepticism about the cost benefits of preventative medical care, but it relied heavily on a study that has been slammed for its flawed sampling and methodology. The study’s authors claimed that, “opportunities for efficient investment in health care programs are roughly equal for prevention and treatment.” But, as other experts have noted, “The flaw in this argument is that what the authors classified as preventive services included not only recommended practices but also interventions that no major guideline recommends.” Whereas a broad array of economic studies, “consistently report that evidence-based clinical preventive services offer high economic value.” Third: “It’s going to cost $90 billion a year. That’s not true. It’s probably going to cost twice as much when it’s fully implemented. Government will be out of health care decisions. He tells one thing after another, making it seem so easy.” I have no idea what Brooks is referring to here, though I know the effect he was going for. He wants viewers to come away with a general impression, that Obama and proponents of health care reform are less than honest, and not much better than the Republicans who lie about death panels. It’s a favorite stunt of Brooks, setting up a specious equivalency to absolve Republicans of blame. He opened his column on Obama’s liberal elitism with a comparison to the Republicans’ right-wing insularity. Here he is on a different NewsHour , making the same bogus claims that Obama’s plan does nothing about costs, and also claiming that the pull-the-plug-on-granny stuff is no less mendacious than the criticism of the neocons who scammed us into the Iraq war. BROOKS: There’s a lot of misinformation out there…that they’re going to cut off Granny and all that stuff, which is mystifying to me. I mean, there’s a real — I mean, my concern is, which is backed up by the CBO and everything else, that we need health care reform. This does nothing to reduce costs. That is not the argument they’re making, maybe because it’s not an emotional hot-button argument, “They’re going to kill your granny.” So there’s a ton of misinformation going out there…Let’s not pretend this just started. I mean, every time we have a major issue, this happens. I mean, just go back to the Iraq war. There were people claiming there was the Project for the New American Century and Richard Perle was part of a big neocon conspiracy. There’s ugliness that goes on. There’s ugliness that went on in those rallies. And… JUDY WOODRUFF: You’re saying it’s the same kind of thing? BROOKS: I’m saying — I think every time, if you look through American history, every time there’s a major issue — and this a major issue — you get people who are totally over the line and spreading misinformation. And that doesn’t justify it — believe me — but we shouldn’t pretend it just started from one group. Brooks never stops lying about the origins of the Iraq war. Frequently, as he did above, he injects these falsehoods as a digression from the topic at hand. Here are few other examples, from an earlier NewsHour : “Larry Wilkerson himself said that everything that was in Colin Powell’s speech, he believed, the French believed, the Germans believed, the British believed. These were things that were believed.”  In fact, the French and the Germans rejected everything in Colin Powell’s speech, and three weeks afterward wrote that “no evidence [not inconculsive evidence or fragmentary evidence, but no evidence] has been given that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction or capabilities in this field.” “Are they guilty of manipulating intelligence on WMD? That, I think, is the thing they are least guilty of. .. the Robb report, which showed there was no political pressure; there was a Senate intelligence report; there was a Butler report. There were all of these reports. None of them found manipulation of intelligence.”  Actually, all of those investigations were circumscribed to avoid looking at the political pressure brought to bear.  The bottom line is that after the inspectors revealed there was no evidence of WMD, the flawed U.S. intelligence no longer remained as a valid excuse. Yet Bush ignored the evidence and invaded anyway. But getting back to Brooks’ latest Times column, where he continues to imputes the Republican agenda onto Congress and the President: Fourth, the president introduced the public option to its own exclusive Death Panel. As Max Baucus has said, the public option cannot pass the Senate. On Wednesday, the president praised it, then effectively buried it. White House officials no longer mask their exasperation with the liberal obsession on this issue. Fifth, the president also buried the soak-the-rich approach. The House Ways and Means Committee came up with a plan to raise taxes on the rich to pay for health reform. That’s dead, too. Health reform will be paid for by changes within the health care system. The president underlined his resolve to cut $500 billion from Medicare and Medicaid. This is a courageous move that moderates appreciate. Brooks’ “soak the rich” scam is a polite version of the teabagging nonsense. A 5.4% surcharge on someone’s second million in annual income hardly brings tax burden of the rich back to the socialist days of the Clinton adminsnitration.  He’s already misrepresented the tax proposals on yet another Sunday morning talk show . On The NewsHour he said that healthcare reform would trigger tax increases, “And not only on the top 2 percent, further down.” More on Barack Obama

Read more: 
David Fiderer: David Brooks’ Lies on Healthcare Reform: An Incomplete List

“I don’t want our schools turned over to some socialist movement.” It is now official; those looking for the latest GOP conspiracy theory, the latest mighty mental meltdown of the base, eagerly barked out by even the supposed leaders and purported respectable figures of the party, stroked and teased by conservative wings of the press that seem to have no pressing substance to deal with, anymore, compared to these small trinkets of insanity — those looking for that latest race-tinged, conspiracy-riddled drama need look no farther. We have it. Obama is going to give a webcast speech directed at American schoolchildren about the importance of education. As Jim Greer, Chairman of the Florida Republican Party put it: “As the father of four children, I am absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama’s socialist ideology. The idea that school children across our nation will be forced to watch the President justify his plans for government-run health care, banks, and automobile companies, increasing taxes on those who create jobs, and racking up more debt than any other President, is not only infuriating, but goes against beliefs of the majority of Americans, while bypassing American parents through an invasive abuse of power.” He is not alone; it is the topic of nationwide, frantic email campaigns between stupid people, between exceptionally dumb bloggers and their compatriots, and (of course) on Fox News. T his, then, is the latest apocalypse. We will all take a break from shouting down terminally ill people at town halls, and from wondering whether our president has a circumcised penis, and whether that would imply deficient citizenship on his part, if the answer was the wrong one. We will pause, momentarily, in our efforts to declare that preventing sick people from going bankrupt and sending themselves and their families into lifelong poverty is, in fact, a slippery slope to communism, and from writing signs warning against the dangers of Facism and Markism , whatever those are. No, this is the latest battleground, because America, its discourse and its governance has, to put it as tersely as possible, become all but enslaved to the stupidest, most uneducated, trashiest, most fanatic, most incompetent, most mentally unbalanced, most flat out fucking dumb set of people to ever manage to walk upright. After a millennium of being led around by great leaders and not so great leaders, of great debates and petty ones, of steady marches towards freer and richer and more enlightened societies, we have apparently decided to chuck it all, because any pulsing mound of meat with the ability to work a magic marker will now be as a god to us. Do American presidents sometimes give speeches to schoolchildren? Yes. Yes, they do. Sometimes they show up in the classroom to read books. Sometimes they give extended presentations: None of this is usually controversial, or at least, is seldom the stuff of frantic conspiracy fodder, calls of indoctrination , or part of an ongoing march to fascist-slash-communist brainwashing of little Billy and Tina Whitebread. It is rare, indeed, to have parents outraged–   outraged I tell you!–that the President of the United States of America is going to give a speech to their children about staying in school. We have had presidential fitness programs, and presidential drug programs. Talking to schoolchildren has been, over the course of our esteemed republic, one of the very least controversial things a president can possibly do. It is less controversial than kissing a baby, which could get you branded a pedophile. It is infinitely less controversial than inviting someone over for a beer, in which case the leader of the free world runs the risk of choosing the wrong beer, thus proving himself to hate America, or a given state in America, or to be on the wrong side of the decades-long battle between less filling and tastes great . That said, America has a robust and colorful history of parents pulling their children out of school to prevent them from being exposed to a black person — far more history of that than of being outraged– outraged I tell you!– at exposing children to their President. It is unclear what, exactly, terrifies them so much. From the level of drama, one can only presume that Obama will be reading passages from the fabled Negronomicon . I n order to guess at the next Republican white noise that will issue forth from their lips, a pattern is developing. Take one part stuffy, lying Pravda , combine it with three parts of implausible satire from The Onion , a dash of fake and astroturfed populism, and mix it all together with a big heaping helping of good old fashioned, dumb-as-a-post American gullibility, the kind only the biggest and gruffest and loudest morons among us could possibly provide. Never before has an American movement so giddily celebrated their own ignorance, or so proudly crafted their own alternate realities and then stuck to them despite any and all evidence to the contrary. And yes, I am counting the Know Nothings, who knew more. Via Dave Weigel, here is GOP stalwart Joe Scarborough, tweeting about the Stay-In-School Conspiracy and the intellectual decapitation of his own party : Dear GOP, argue the issues and avoid the insults…or just shut up. Enough with the conspiracy theories. Shouldn’t our beliefs be enough? GOP leaders in my home state are accusing the POTUS of trying to “indoctrinate America’s children to his socialist agenda.” Seriously? WHERE ARE THE NATIONAL GOP LEADERS SPEAKING OUT AGAINST THIS KIND OF HYSTERIA? Indoctrination of socialism? The president as a racist? Death panels? Seriously? That’s all you’ve got? If so, it’s time for you to go home I’m just naive enough to believe that a party that shows restraint at home, restraint abroad and respect for the Constitution wins elections Perhaps that party just doesn’t exist. Scarborough is as conservative as they come — or at least he was, a scant few years ago, when “conservative” was something defined by something other than race-baiting and red-baiting paranoias and simple phoning-it-in lying as a staple of every speech. What is notable about his short bursts is that they are, well, notable: within the broader Republican Party, these thoughts do not exist. There is no pushback, from the party leaders; the party leaders are the conspiracy mongers, as often as not. In such an environment, where the more outrageous the claim, the more celebrated it becomes, the gullible will believe anything they are told: this has long been understood by vicious regimes and biting social critics, and at any point where it becomes political policy, politics itself collapses into valuelessness, into phantasmal nothingness. Compare Scarborough’s momentary pique to Glenn Beck recently describing at length and in mid-panic why the imagery of various New York landmarks is, in fact, the stuff of communist indoctrination. Then weep. I t is possible that if I were a truly gifted satirist — a Twain, Mencken or the like — I could find a more imaginative way of describing all of this. If I were a Swift or a Hunter S. Thompson, I imagine I could pull it off. Perhaps. On the other hand, maybe none of those people lived in times quite like this. Sure, they lived in ridiculous times, and among ridiculous people, and saw truly asinine things. But this ridiculous, populated by people this stubbornly gullible, and this celebrated by their own leaders? I’m no longer sure that it’s a given. Perhaps we have managed to shoot the moon, to wrap around again to the point where uninformed, dribbling paranoia is now finally and permanently more respectable than actual governance. Sarah Palin is, for a large part of the Republican Party, the closest thing to an intellectual voice that their version of know-nothing populism will allow, and that is very nearly the scariest thought to set itself down in the political landscape for a great many years. Republican leaders have taken intelligence to the guillotine, and lopped its head clean off: from now on “the opposition is plotting to kill your grandmother” will have far more sway, in politics, than any actual realities of a healthcare system clearly and blatantly gone wrong. We boo those with medical conditions. We deny outright that the first non-white President of the United States is even a citizen of his own country, much less leader of it. We still insist that an administration breaking the law is less divisive and controversial than daring to investigate it. We put brick-stupid or malevolently selfish people on television, and feign outrage at anyone who points out their stupidity or selfishness. And the President speaking to your children is the onset of communism, although perhaps barely a tenth of the population that utter it have any actual notion of what “communism” might actually be. Honestly, at this point I wonder if we do not deserve every bit of what we get. We worked very hard to erode the public-mindedness of our government, press and citizenry enough to get to this point. Perhaps we should count ourselves lucky if future American generations can write their own names.

Go here to read the rest: 
The Stay-In-School Conspiracy Theory

If Charlie Crist was hoping to fill a Senate vacancy and make his 2010 plans a little easier, his plans just went a little awry : “I have informed Governor Charlie Crist this evening that I will not be submitting the Questionnaire for appointment to the Senate he kindly asked me to consider submitting. It was a great honor to be considered by Governor Crist for appointment to the United States Senate. I thank him for his kind gesture of confidence. After giving the Governor’s request serious consideration and deliberation, I have decided to remain in the U.S. House of Representatives fighting for the causes which I deeply believe in.”‬‪ Pity poor Charlie Crist. It all seemed to be falling into place for the Florida Governor (and Senate aspirant) last week. With Mel Martinez pulling a Sarah Palin and leaving office early, much speculation fell on Crist, and his appointment powers to fill this vacancy. He couldn’t pick himself–that would look awful. The frontrunner appeared to be former GOP Governor Bob Martinez , but there are some problems there, too. Could a Republican Governor already routinely derided as a RINO really name a GOP Senate replacement who had donated to several Democrats ? Then, over the weekend, a new name emerged: longtime South Florida Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart. As James L. at Swing State speculated yesterday, this might lead to an ingenious game of Republican musical chairs, whereupon Lincoln Diaz-Balart would go to the Senate, his brother Mario (in a less amenable district) would head to Lincoln’s FL-21, which would open up FL-25 for none other than Marco Rubio. Which would eliminate Crist’s primary opponent for the 2010 Senate seat (this, of course, presumed that LDB would not run for the seat again in his own right). Now, with those plans torn asunder, it’s back to the drawing board for Governor Crist. Bob Martinez continues to be the presumptive frontrunner, but a new name emerged earlier today: longtime Congressman Bill Young . Young, nearing 79 years of age, would perfectly fit the caretaker role. But he would also put FL-10, the most vulnerable GOP seat in the state, up for grabs, with Democrats already having an established candidate in Charlie Justice. The only thing that is clear at this point is that Crist has a pretty sizeable mess on his hands, where he could take some fire no matter who he appoints.

Read the original:
FL-Sen: Diaz-Balart refuses Senate appointment

I was going to ask, “How stupid do you have to be to believe that the government is creating a health reform bill that will include killing our senior citizens?” But I realized that’s the wrong question. The proper question is - How angry at losing political power or how frightened about liberals or how scared at any change or how terrified at having a black president or how stupid do you have to be to truly believe the United States is creating a public health bill to kill senior citizens? Mind you, I’m not talking about people against healthcare reform. That’s another matter entirely. The topic at hand here is one thing only - believing that the U.S. government wants to kill its senior citizens and weakest members. That’s the issue. And that’s what is incomprehensibly insane. And if right now you are reading this and sputtering, “No, it’s not insane because…” then you are among those who, while likely a level-headed and good-hearted person at most times, are being too stupid or angry or frightened or entrenched or racist. Pick one. (Just to be clear, you don’t have to be all the above. Any one will do. But of course, feel free not to limit yourself to just one, if you are so inclined. That’s totally your choice.) The only thing not your choice is thinking that the U.S. government wants to kill its weakest citizens. Try to justify that, and you lose all sanity defenses. “Yes, but…” doesn’t cut it. Crying socialist, communist, fascist, racist, Hitler, Stalin doesn’t cut it. (Geez, folks, where were you the last eight years? We could have used you. Yet as draconian as the Bush Administration was, even with George Bush scorning the Constitution as “just a goddammed piece of paper,” I still know they weren’t trying to kill your puppy.) Actually reading the portion of the bill might be asking too much, but the issue is really quite simple. Most doctors right now meet with their sickest patients to discuss the future openly. Not to make recommendations, just to explain honestly what a patient is facing. (Such options, by the way, include, “You can be kept alive on every pill and medical device known to man as long as humanly possible.”) It’s the patient’s choice. It’s the patient’s choice if they even want to meet with the doctor! All this bill does - All This Bill Does - is reimburse you for the doctors’ bill. For what they’re already doing. Reimburse you for what doctors have been doing since the beginning of medicine. Often for free. That’s it. It’s about payment reimbursement. Check it out here. HR 3200, Section 1223 . Read it first. Okay, honestly, I really do get it that there are people who think the government wants to kill old people. What I don’t understand is how deeply, gut-wrenching, twisted-up inside do they have to be to believe it? How white-ash bleak must one’s fury be at having political power for eight years and then losing all of it to ignore reality and believe the government wants to kill old people? How stomach-churning horrified must one be towards liberalism to believe that liberals, who brought about Social Security, Medicare and civil rights, want to now kill the elderly and needy? How frozen with angst must a person’s life be to believe change means the government wants to kill them? How terrified in one’s soul must someone be towards black people to believe that a black president would want to kill the weakest people in America? And how willing must a person be to completely stop thinking for themselves to believe without questioning that the United States wants to will senior citizens? It must be hell inside to be that torn up with vitriolic hatred, hysterical panic, and emptiness to prefer to believe the insane rather than simple reality. The government is not trying to kill senior citizens. Here, let me give you a hug. It’s all okay. Now, in fairness, some GOP spokesmen who are creating this fear-mongering fall into the above-mentioned categories themselves. But in equal fairness, most know better and are just demagogues trying to relentlessly lie and terrify people for political gain. Like when resigned-governor Sarah Palin wrote last week how “my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel.’” Or like when Newt Gingrich said on Sunday that in this government “there are clearly people in America who believe in establishing euthanasia.” And even Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who said on Wednesday, “[Y]ou have every right to fear…We should not have a government program that pulls the plug on grandma.” You want to discuss “downright evil,” as Ms. Palin called it? Start with these statements. Toss in others from Republican spokesmen just like them. They know better. (And I’m bending over backwards to presume that Sarah Palin does know better.) But what they are doing is just trying to terrify susceptible people into believing insane things, just to advance a conservative agenda. (How susceptible? An audience that rants against government-run health care while supporting Medicare makes the demagogue’s job oh-so much easier. It’s like playing with human silly putty.) A demagogue who relentlessly repeats an insane lie, that’s one thing. But how angst-ridden does a person have to be to truly believe that the U.S. is creating a health bill that will kill our senior citizens? Even the barnyard animals knew that Chicken Little was nuts, no matter how many times he yelled that the sky was falling. The government is not creating a bill to kill senior citizens. You know better.

Here is the original: 
Robert J. Elisberg: If Only Healthcare Reform Covered Full Insanity

Small Choices Add Up What will Sarah Palin do now that she’s a private citizen? One thing’s for sure: she’ll be out and about. And expect dozens, if not hundreds, of reporters to trail her every move. Like bees to honey, the press pool swarms. Perhaps Palin will embark on a speaking tour. Let’s imagine. First stop, Thursday, October 29th, is downtown Chicago for CATO Foundation’s Institute Policy Perspectives 2009. That evening across town at the Hilton, she speaks at the Heartland Institute’s 25th Anniversary Benefit. Then she’s back to Wasilla for Halloween Saturday. Last stop, Monday, November 2nd, is the Alaska Miners Association Convention and Tradeshow in Anchorage. Let’s track Palin’s green ethos on this tour and tally up choices and their environmental effects. Most people want to be greener but may not know how their personal choices add up. Americans ranked lowest in National Geographic ’s recent survey on consumer progress toward environmentally sustainable consumption and citizen behavior. Over 17,000 consumers in 17 countries were asked about their energy use, transportation choices, food sources, attitudes towards sustainability, and knowledge of environmental issues. Consumers in wealthy countries had both a proportionately greater environmental impact and an ability and responsibility to make more sustainable choices. Palin’s personal choices - and that of her fellow citizens, the press pool - during her hypothetical week-long tour create a carbon footprint the size of a small country. Emissions estimates are calculated from authoritative data such as the EPA, EIA, and Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey. October 28th - 30th: Travel to and from Chicago Palin packs three suitcases and books a direct evening flight in economy class for herself, her bodyguard, and two aides from Anchorage to Chicago O’Hare Airport. A car service takes them to the Drake Hotel, her first speech venue. Less travel, fewer emissions. Two speeches are the same day in hotels two miles apart. Palin opts against a charter jet. Flying economy on this route produces 10x less C02 per passenger than the Westwind II jet, her VP campaign plane of choice. Direct flights take off once and cruise, burning 10% less fuel than flights with an extra leg. Smaller seat and legroom in economy, smaller share of the plane’s emissions. More weight, more jet fuel. Each 50 pound suitcase adds 108 lbs of CO2 emissions. Night flights’ jet contrails trap heat in the atmosphere, doubling daytime flights’ greenhouse gas effect. Cabs or car service emit 20% more CO2 per passenger than trains do. Many travelers take citizen responsibility for emissions created by unavoidable travel by buying high-quality carbon offsets. Palin doesn’t. October 29th: Show Time Palin’s “Individual Liberties and the American People” presentation at the CATO Institute draws 400 attendees and 25 press. Even larger crowds gather at the Heartland Institute’s big bash that evening to hear her expound on reinvigorating American morality. The Drake Hotel and Chicago Hilton are both green seal certified , with energy efficient equipment, low flow shower heads, and waste reduction programs. Programs printed on recycled paper generate 33% fewer emissions than virgin paper. Event organizers neutralize part of their environmental footprint with offsets that fund clean energy projects. Green venues still use energy, to the tune of 1300 lbs CO2 for hosting these two events. Large crowds traveling to the two events emit a whopping 415 tons CO2. Palin’s a hunter, so meat’s on the menu. Carnivorous habits generate 21% more emissions than vegetarian diets. October 29th: Side Trip Last year Palin spent $150,000 of RNC money on new clothes at Neiman Marcus and Saks Fifth Avenue. This year she stops off at Clothes Optional and Disgraceland thrift shops and ships four gently used but new-to-her outfits back to Wasilla. Manufacture and distribution of all the stuff that Americans buy add more to their footprint than transportation and home energy use combined. Buying recycled cuts down on demand for new materials and new emissions. Shipping via next-day-air may be more convenient, but shipping via ground costs less - in both dollars and carbon. October 31st: Back Home Palin makes Halloween costumes for Willow and Trig. Hemp is so difficult to work with, but walking door to door trick-or-treating creates no CO2 emissions. November 2nd: Anchorage The National Mining Association’s Convention & Trade Show is the hottest ticket of the season. Just down the road from Wasilla, Palin drives there and back in her Volkswagen Jetta TDI . When Palin left the Governor’s role, she also left the Chevy Suburban that came with it. Back behind the wheel of her fuel-efficient diesel Jetta, the round trip to Anchorage generates 0.02 tons of CO2. Now if she would just use biodiesel. Knowing her neighbors share her minerals passion, she offers to carpool to her keynote address. Palin’s commute is efficient, but attendee and staff travel and hotel stay, plus building energy use, totals a staggering sum of 380 tons CO2. October 28th - November 2nd: Press Pool Entourage A cadre of media elites often travels thousands of miles to cover Palin. Fewer reporters tagging along would save fairly substantial CO2 emissions. Fewer reporters, given the dozens that would remain, would not materially impact Palin-time in American homes. Two dozen press who travel to Chicago and Anchorage this week generate a carbon footprint of 82 tons. Add it up: three speaking events in two cities, hundreds of people turning out to hear Palin speak, dozens of press corps in tow. The environmental damage? More than 885 tons of CO2 emissions. That’s like driving from New York to Los Angeles 660 times. Or taking 79 American families off the road for a year. Palin and her political contemporaries emphasize the role that individuals, not governments, can play in determining the direction of a society. That collective impact also comes into play in the environment. While one’s individual actions - such as bringing one less bag next time they have to fly - might seem incidental for any given person, the collective force of a country of people all making small choices can be astonishing. Patti Prairie added Treehugger to her distinguished 30-year career spanning resume when she became Chief Executive Officer of Brighter Planet . This innovative company has a socially responsible mission: to help people manage their environmental footprint. With its practical, carbon emission reducing solutions, Brighter Planet is committed to making it easier for anyone to get involved in the fight against climate change. More on Sarah Palin

Here is the original: 
Patti Prairie: Sarah Palin’s Fall Speaking Tour

First, where we’ve been, and what a week it was. On Monday, President Obama continued his offensive, extending it to a conference call with bloggers which included WH wonks David Axelrod and Nancy Anne DeParle. A key snippet from that conversation to take forward this week–his reaction to my questions on co-ops. I asked if a co-op  plan could be a substitute for a robust public option, and while he didn’t rule it out, he said that WH researchers had yet to find a model that could provide the necessary clout to compete with private insurers. Obama’s willingness to consider co-ops is going to be a major test–it’s a pretty good bet that that’s what the Senate Finance Committee is going to come out with, possibly before August recess if Kent Conrad’s big, fat ego doesn’t get in the way. Also on Monday, AHIP entered the public discourse with a series of “feel-good” ads, stressing their desire for bipartisan reform. Which of course we all know means “kill this bill,” because that’s all we got coming from the Republicans. Seriously, all. Even Howard Fineman recognizes that obstruction is all they got . As if to prove that point, on Tuesday, the RNC launched their reform initiative , a scary Web site detailing all the reasons that we really shouldn’t be doing this, but without any ideas on what exactly it is we should be doing instead. Various Republicans continued on with various outrageous statements. Inhofe echoed the Bill Kristol “kill this bill” line, admitting that no vote by August would mean it was dead, so that was his endgame. At the same time, Grassley was making positive noises about getting the bill done, but then followed up on Friday with a series of tweets detailing just how opposed he really is to Obama’s plan. And Baucus continued to dawdle , apparently oblivious to his negotiating partner Grassley’s real attitude toward reform, and despite the fact that a variety of news reports show that he’s become bad Dem  number one when it comes to taking money from the industries he’s supposedly trying to rein in with this reform. Baucus really doesn’t seem to get that being the Dem that takes the most money from the health care industry while dragging his feet on getting this reform done, presents any kind of problem for him or his reputation. I’m really hoping that the folks back home in Montana can disabuse him of that notion while he’s back home for recess. Meanwhile, the Blue Dogs got far too much attention this week, beginning with a White House meeting on Tuesday . They continued their holding-their-breath while their faces turned blue routine in Energy and Commerce, finally forcing Waxman to call their bluff , announcing that he’d be more than willing to bypass E&C’s role in shaping this legislation, and telling them so. They had a tantrum, stormed out, but then quietly came back to the table, and mark-up resumes today, with the bill potentially being reported out today or tomorrow. Oh, and yeah, we found out that the Blue Dogs were also raking in the industry dough while playing their obstructionist games. Do any of them really think we don’t see the connection? The week also, of course, featured Obama’s Wednesday, prime-time news conference , which threatened to derail his week in health care when he gave a very sensible answer to a very sensitive question. Distracted by the bright shiny object of the African American president intelligently addressing the issue of race, the traditional media collectively forgot that there’s also a groundbreaking piece of major policy to discuss. But then the shiny object of Gates was replaced by the even shinier object of Sarah Palin. There’s a surprise. Meanwhile, Obama kept pushing, with a townhall meeting in Ohio , and his weekly radio/web address . Ok, so now we’re all caught up. Where do we go this week? Gawd only knows. Supposedly real movement from Senate Finance, but that seems unlikely. Reid has said no vote before August recess, but if Finance really did complete its work, who knows? In the House, E&C will probably finally pass the bill out. Should the Blue Dogs continue to obstruct, I would fully expect Waxman to make good on his word to allow the committee to be bypassed. Obama will keep pushing from the bully pulpit, because it is the single most important thing he can do. The single most important thing you can do? Call or e-mail your senators and representative. Tell them not to leave for August recess until this is done in each of their chambers. While you’re at it, here’s something else to ask your senators: what fund-raising events they have scheduled that include hosts or target audiences made up of people from the health care industry between now and October. Because the money is going to start drying up from the industry as soon as this is done. Could it be that the delays in the Senate have anything to do with Senate Dems wanting to continue to milk that cash cow as long as possible?

Read the original post:
Where We Stand Now in Healthcare Reform

Have you been working extra hard during these rough times to show your boss you care? Making up the workload gap left by your former colleagues who’ve gotten the axe? You end up neglecting your friends and family to keep your job only to be told by a red-faced boss — whom you may have even considered a friend — ” I hate to do this, but I have to let you go .” Your jaw drops. You think…What? Is this a joke? Me? I’m the only one who’s even working around here — then, flashing through your head come thoughts of your spouse, partner, or family members’ reactions. The embarrassment, the shame. Then you think, “Well, it’s happening to everyone.” “Down-sized,” “right-sized,” whatever. Yet, unless your company is going out of business, it isn’t happening to everyone. Look around as you clear out your desk. People are still working, right? Then you think back to all the years that you gave to that company. All of your loyalty and devotion. At holiday parties, you thought you were doing everything right. It seems worse still if you liked your boss. However, let’s face it, by this time, during a recession, a boss is usually just a necessary evil. The boss takes the brunt of the blame of the people already fired, and we already resent them from the extra work we have to do. So, we usually hate them by now anyway… I don’t know about you, but I think it is human nature just to get mad. Nowadays, people tell me they want revenge . I’m Stephen Viscusi, the author of Bulletproof Your Job , and the founder of www.BulletproofYourResume.com . In this new mother of all “recessions,” I am here to tell you that I’m reconsidering the cliche of “not burning your bridges.” I’m beginning to think that old adage went out the window along with Ruth Madoff’s Gucci bags. Burn, baby, burn. When we are hit, we are going to hit back. This recession, and this money poured into car companies and finance companies, has unleashed a dog- eat-dog, or maybe even a dog-eat-master mantra. As the job recession continues and unemployment rises, people are telling me that they want to get revenge for getting fired. Very few of us, during this terrible recession, have the luxury of “pullin’a Palin.” That is, quitting a job before getting a new one. The internet and human resources “hotlines” have made getting revenge easy today. Lately, it seems that bridges are built to be burned. Lose your job, start a blog. Hate your boss, shout it out on Facebook, MySpace or Twitter. Fired for the wrong reason, let the world know you’ve been wronged. There was a time when it was a no-brainer not to burn bridges. Now, I’m not so sure. Times have changed. Is there is no karma in the workplace anymore? Is it really like Freud told us, that there are “no coincidences in life?” If you wait for the boss to hang him or herself, you’ll end up waiting the rest of your life. Star Jones was one of the first people to employ the “go-public-to-get-back-at-the-former boss” technique. Coincidentally, Star Jones’ replacement on the The View , Rosie O’Donnell, was the second person. Star Jones went to Larry King and then the internet to complain about her former employer. Rosie O’Donnell went everywhere, including the internet. It seems that when you are let go by Barbara Walters and her production company that produces The View , one wants revenge. I’m not so sure that I would have the stomach to think that I’d want to get revenge on Barbara Walters. A contrasting example is Oprah — one of the other more visible of women in media. I never hear of her former employers having anything bad to say. Do you think Oprah just has a better “non-disclosure agreement” or do you think she’s a better boss? Why don’t you email me and let me know what you think? Lately, I have gotten e-mails from current Harpo employees in Chicago-land who have been asking me for advice on possible relocation to Los Angeles, if they want to stay with Harpo Productions. (Yes, complete strangers do write me for advice from every occupation and every industry). Apparently, in the next 24 months, Harpo is moving many of its employees to Los Angeles. I tell them, if you want to stay with Oprah, do much like what the “Beverly Hillbillies” did; Move west to them there Hills, Beverly Hills, that is! Why are employers seeking revenge for getting fired right now? The business climate in this recession has gotten out of hand. I’m sick of it. Everyone is taking advantage of it, all the way up the ladder. No raises, or taking less money, or charging less. So, if you think your boss or company deliberately strung you along to keep you working hard and long, only to fire you, people say “what do you think about firing the boss back?” How are they getting revenge for getting fired right now? Some people start BLOGS about their former companies, or write on others’ blogs about their experience. They get the word out about who the creep is, or the wrongdoings of those companies. Others Tweet about it or make a video, and send it to the local TV station. They reason: they aren’t going to find a job so fast today anyway, so why not spend some time getting even? As a regular columnist, author and frequent TV contributor, on the subject of work, I am gratified that I hear from thousands of people around the world, every week, who write me to say that, yes, even with everyone else around them being fired, those who employ the techniques from my book mostly — and I repeat, mostly — keep their jobs. Revenge on the boss is analogous to being ditched by your boyfriend or girlfriend. You put out; you’re a great partner, then one day then say those famous words, “I am just not that into you anymore.” Some jilted lovers respond by telling the world that their former love has herpes. These days, for many spurned workers, the same goes for your former employer. Readers, tell me how you feel. The revenge approach is not for everyone. While baby boomers hold on to the “burning bridge” theory, younger people are reconsidering it. If you are a six-figure earner, or former six-figure earner and are good at what you do, look good, and are now more affordable, you will always land a new job. So if you feel the need to get some revenge, don’t be afraid to tell your story, just tell it truthfully. Don’t harass, and don’t defame or threaten. When thinking about bridges, remember, with new technology and engineering there may to be new ways to cross over any passage (think Star Trek ) in the future. Who knows… that metaphor may soon disappear like your job did! Stephen Viscusi is the author of Bulletproof Your Job and is the founder and CEO of BulleproofYourResume.com, a custom resume-writing service. He can be reached at Stephen@viscusi.com. Visit www.bulletproofyourresume.com and www.bulletproofyourjob.com. Follow him on Twitter (@workplaceguru) and friend him on Facebook! More on Michael Jackson

Read more here:
Stephen Viscusi: Just Fired or Downsized? Feel Like Getting Revenge on the Boss? It Seems You’re Not Alone

If it’s around 7:45 PM on a Friday night, then that means that Mark Kirk is definitely IN the U.S. Senate race in Illinois. Oh, wait…did I say 7:45 PM ? Oh. In that case, he is definitely OUT of the Senate race in Illinois. Wait fifteen minutes, though. By the time you are done reading the wrap-up, we may have new developments. MN-Pres: Pawlenty Not Getting Home State Love, Says PPP Tim Pawlenty might have demurred from a bid for another term as Minnesota’s governor in order to test the 2012 waters, but according to PPP , those waters are frigid, even in his home state. If the election were held today, Pawlenty would trail President Obama by eleven points (51-40). Pawlenty might be earning some home-field advantage, though, as Obama destroys another presumptive GOP hopeful, Sarah Palin, by twenty-one points (56-35). Pawlenty’s job approval is woeful, as he has slid to a 44/48 spread on that question, down from a 46/40 spread earlier this year. TX-Pres: Obama Leading Mitt Romney. In Texas. No, Really. A big tip of the hat to Kossack Setrak , who caught an amazing University of Texas poll out of the Lone Star State. Pitted against GOP co-frontrunner Mitt Romney, Barack Obama actually enjoys a two-point advantage over the Republican (36-34). In a sign that Texans may not be in LOVE with their president, however, a third of the field was undecided. Obama’s approval in the state is also middling at best–43% approval with 46% disapproval. Rick Perry’s approval, by the by, is not much better: 42/32. FL-Gov: Sink Outraised McCollum in Gubernatorial Money Showdown While Republican frontrunner and state Attorney General Bill McCollum has enjoyed slight leads in most recent polling, he lost to presumptive Democratic nominee Alex Sink , the state CFO, in the 2nd quarter fundraising derby. Sink raised $1.28 million, which easily exceeded McCollum, who trailed with $1.03 million. CO-Gov: Penry To Announce Plans Tomorrow; McInnis Needs Geography Lesson GOP “rising star” state Senator Josh Penry will apparently announce his 2010 plans tomorrow at the Mesa County Courthouse. Local columnist Jim Spehar thinks that Penry will refuse a bid for Governor, despite the conventional wisdom saying that he is going to make the race. Speaking of Republicans running for the Governorship, former Congressman Scott McInnis made a pretty embarrassing gaffe recently: he adorned his website with a beautiful mountain scene. Living in Colorado, this makes sense. Except that the photo was not actually OF the mountains of Colorado. The shot was of a mountain range in Canada. In a state like Colorado, this is likely to be an impeachable offense. IL-Sen: Burris Makes It Official, Declines Re-Election This doesn’t qualify for the “BREAKING!!” prefix that we often see in the diaries, but we thought you’d like to know that Illinois Senator Roland Burris made it official today that he will not seek re-election. We also thought you’d like to know the reason: “Political races have become far too expensive in this country. And in making this decision, I was called to choose between spending my time raising funds or spending my time raising issues for my state.” Of course, reports are that Burris raised about $20,000 in his re-election bid. And it JUST occurred to him that this was going to be inadequate amount? Heck, I don’t think that you could win with $20,000 in the days of Alben Barkley, for crying out loud. NJ-Gov: Corzine’s Internal Polling Also Claims Tightening Race According to PolitickerNJ , the Corzine campaign released some internal polling numbers (all standard caveats apply, of course) that had GOP nominee Chris Christie’s lead down to just four points (42-38, with 4% for an Independent candidate) in this year’s governor’s race. Normally, it is pretty easy to dismiss internal polls, for obvious reasons. But it must be said that this tracks with the tightening in Rasmussen’s data, which we discussed in the wrap last night . Department of Corrections: But Really…Can You Blame Me? In yesterday’s segment of the wrap-up , I wrote that Malcolm Smith was being reinstated as majority leader of the New York state Senate. As it turns out, that was only early speculation on the “deal” returning Pedro Espada to the fold. I should have known better–the way the Democrats were able to get Espada back into the fold? Making Espada the Majority Leader : As they resumed the majority, the Democrats announced a new leadership arrangement under which Pedro Espada Jr., the Bronx Democrat who had joined with the Republicans last month, will be given the title of majority leader. Mr. Sampson will serve as leader of the Democratic caucus, and Malcolm A. Smith of Queens will be the Senate’s president for what several senators described as a transition period of an undetermined length. The duties of the three leaders were still unclear Thursday evening. So…well…that clears THAT up…

Go here to see the original: 
Polling and Political Wrap-Up, 7/10/09

Last August, Senator John McCain plucked political novice Sarah Palin, the upstart Governor of Alaska, from relative obscurity to constitute an unlikely Republican presidential ticket. Her rise was meteoric and instantly embraced by a party base that was never enamored with its less-than-conservative standard-bearer. The pick of Palin brought tremendous energy to an otherwise lackluster convention, and her vice presidential acceptance speech elevated the self-described “pitbull in lipstick” to iconic status. However, controversy surfaced even before the convention began. Her teenage daughter Bristol was pregnant, much to the chagrin on the socially conservative wing of the party that Palin represents, but rather than flee, the base rallied around the hockey mom from the “coolest” state. An ethics probe examined Palin’s firing of an Alaska state trooper, who was also her former brother-in-law, where her husband, Todd, intervened at several junctures. Even Palin’s wardrobe drew disdain when it became apparent that the Republican National Committee spent hundreds of thousands of dollars outfitting its emergent “queen.” By all counts McCain and Palin had a successful convention, and they enjoyed a bounce in the polls that yielded a fleeting lead of nearly 10 points over Obama-Biden in early September. Soon, Lehman Brothers and the financial sector would collapse, and with it McCain-Palin’s hopes of an upset bid. McCain was unfairly portrayed as a stooge of the unpopular incumbent, clueless on the economy and a captive of the neoconservatives who led us into two Middle Eastern wars. Palin didn’t help matters with disastrous performances in the national media, specifically in one-on-one interviews with ABC’s Charlie Gibson and CBS’ Katie Couric. Palin became the object of slapstick when Saurday Night Live’s Tina Fey parodied her on a weekly basis. She would later embrace this humor at her expense, as would thousands of women who wore up-do’s, wire-rim glasses, and red business suits for Halloween. Palin continued to draw massive crowds and proved an impressive orator, in some cases eclipsing her running mate, but when the dust settled, the two parted ways in a devastating defeat. Monday morning quarterbacks suggested that McCain may have prevailed if he made a parallel pick to Obama’s Joe Biden. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and current Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty would’ve sufficed. By my count, they may have tightened the contest, but the stars were truly aligned for Obama. 2008 was a Democratic year, and when he dispatched Hillary Clinton, the race was his to lose, and of course, he ran a remarkable campaign just in case. Palin returned home and resumed her duties as Governor. The ethics probes and Freedom of Information requests continued, as did her run-ins with the national media. Her pre-Thanksgiving pardon of a turkey turned embarrassing with the sound of slaughter in the background, and her public spat with David Letterman forced an apology from the funnyman but did little to restore her family’s dignity. Then came her surprising announcement on Friday: she would resign her position before the end of the month. The implications of her decision are far from clear the following week. If she truly has national political aspirations, why leave behind her best shot at bolstering her resume? True, running for re-election next year was probably off the table, given the challenges of traveling the lower 48 while burdened by gubernatorial duties. Firming up her national resume is next to impossible since Alaska has only a single House seat, occupied by a 19-term congressman, Don Young, who is also a Republican. Palin is also blocked in the Senate, where Republican Lisa Murkowski will likely seek her second full term next fall. This means Palin must assume the pitfalls of “movement” candidacies, running for the nation’s highest office on the basis of lofty ideals and downplaying the importance of tried-and-true experience. She certainly has her loyal fans interspersed throughout the party base, but Republicans are known to work off of a pecking order. First-time candidates rarely gain the nomination. Since Richard Nixon’s victory in 1968, only Gerald Ford in 1976 and George W. Bush in 2000 served as the party standard bearer in their first run for the White House. Ford was an unelected incumbent president and Bush the son of a former president. At the same time, the Republican Party is in a state of disarray. Two of its presidential hopefuls, Nevada Senator John Ensign and South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, were cast aside with awkward news of extramarital affairs. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal delivered a not-yet-ready-for-primetime response to the president’s address to Congress last February. Utah Governor Jon Huntsman was sent overseas by the Democratic president on a diplomatic mission. This leaves retreads Romney and Mike Huckabee, and perhaps radioactive former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, as Palin’s potential opponents. Intriguing possibilities include the aforementioned outgoing Governor Pawlenty and Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, but neither are household names. Bottom line: It’s too early to write Palin off, especially with the Republican Party clearly sentenced to the backwoods for at least the foreseeable future. Her rise and fall taught us to expect the unexpected. So pull up a chair and watch as the hockey mom brings her act to the continental U.S. More on Sarah Palin

Go here to read the rest: 
Shawn Healy: Planet Palin

I never thought I’d miss Bill Kristol, and his successor, Ross Douthat, isn’t giving me the chance. When Palin’s cheerleader-in-chief left the op-ed pages of The New York Times , I hoped that the new conservative columnist might make my Monday mornings a little less full of indignation, but now I’m starting to wonder. In Monday’s column , Ross Douthat looks at Palin’s high unfavorable ratings (44 percent in a recent Pew poll) and manages to tease out a silver lining: among Americans without a college education, her approval ratings peak at 48 percent. Douthat doesn’t linger on the fact that, even among this subpopulation, Palin’s approval is shy of a majority, let alone a mandate. Instead he prefers to focus on the ‘crucial’ significance of Palin’s popularity among citizens without a college education. According to Douthat: That last statistic is a crucial one. Palin’s popularity has as much to do with class as it does with ideology. In this sense, she really is the perfect foil for Barack Obama. Our president represents the meritocratic ideal — that anyone, from any background, can grow up to attend Columbia and Harvard Law School and become a great American success story. But Sarah Palin represents the democratic ideal — that anyone can grow up to be a great success story without graduating from Columbia and Harvard… Sarah Palin is beloved by millions because her rise suggested, however temporarily, that the old American aphorism about how anyone can grow up to be president might actually be true. But her unhappy sojourn on the national stage has had a different moral: Don’t even think about it. It’s understandable that in the aftermath of the Bush presidency, Douthat got a little confused about how the old “anyone can grow up to be president” line works. Douthat has added a fairly inconsequential clause “without graduating from Columbia and Harvard,” while dropping an important one. Perhaps he forgot, but when our parents and teachers and anyone else who wanted to inspire us told us that we, too, could be president, they included the phrase that Douthat neglected ” if you work hard enough , you can grow up to be president.” It’s an idea that no one seems to have passed on to Palin, who touts her inexperience as a qualification and never refrains from attacking academics for presuming that their studies are relevant to policy. She comes off not just anti-intellectual but anti-knowledge as well. These attitudes are not actually a prerequisite for populist appeal. During the 2008 Republican primary, Huckabee, who also tried to frame himself as a Republican populist made gaffe after gaffe on foreign policy after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Eventually, an aide admitted that the governor had been unprepared to discuss the issue and that he would refrain from further comment until he was “briefed and up to speed.” While Huckabee owned up to being underprepared, Palin appears to feel no corresponding sense of shame. After her disastrous performance with Katie Couric, there was never a sense that the Palin camp recognized the interview as a failure. The oft-cited talking point accusing the media of ‘playing gotcha’ is meant to obscure Palin’s stumbles, but, in actuality, it brings a worrying point of view to light. By dismissing the media’s assessment of her, Palin dismisses their entire metric for evaluation, without providing an alternative framework for determining merit, or, if we are presume to judge her, the criteria is once again decisiveness, rather than the rightness of her decisions. After her nomination, Palin supporter Nicholas Guariglia, an editor for Family Security Matters wrote : We should ask ourselves what it was, exactly, that thwarted the intelligent kid in class from being in with the “in crowd.” What was it that the cool kids knew that the nerdy kids didn’t? …In short, why is it that we differentiate between “doers” and “thinkers” and are inclined to have greater confidence in someone who doesn’t over-analyze and over-think about a problem for long? The answer is moxy [sic]. Guts. Backbone. The kind of quiet self-confidence and swagger that comes with a record of accomplishment and assuredness in one’s own instinct. An appeal to the prejudices of high schoolers? I won’t even try to understand the element of self-loathing as Douthat (Harvard) and Kristol (also Harvard) stumble over each other to denounce their alma mater and its mission, but I would have thought that after eight years of Bush’s ‘gut instinct,’ these two conservatives might have realized the danger in dismissing the value of thinkers. Instead, both Douthat and Kristol still seem to be living in a reality of their own making, just like Bush and Palin. On Fox News Sunday , when Kristol was asked for his assessment of Palin’s future, he said simply, “She’s really just getting out there and it’s going to depend on her talents and abilities.” Kristol’s right; in a functioning democracy, Palin ought to be judged on her merits. But he is trying to rewrite history, forgetting that Palin’s resignation does not wipe the slate clean. The American people have seen plenty of evidence regarding Palin’s ‘talents and abilities’ and this bizarre resignation is just one more corroborating observation. Palin’s ‘don’t blink, don’t think’ philosophy won’t fly in the wake of the Bush’s disastrous ‘gut checks.’ So, while Palin takes off to spend more time with her family, here’s hoping Kristol and Douthat will find the time to see a gastroenterologist, so they can sort out their own problems with their guts. More on Sarah Palin

Originally posted here: 
Leah Anthony Libresco: Sarah Palin’s Gut is Making Me Sick

The ascent of Sarah Palin to the national political stage has yielded no shortage of material for legitimate criticism — even legitimate derision. There’s her famous lack of intellectual curiosity, her tortured syntax, and her alliance with a group of Alaskan secessionists , to name just a few. But whenever Sarah Palin makes news, as she did big-time with her decision last weekend to resign her office as governor of Alaska, more than legitimate criticism hits the airwaves and the Web. Seeping through the Web’s meshes and wafting through the airwaves is the acrid stench of sexism. I’m hardly the first to notice this trend. At Jezebel, Megan Carpentier has been on the case since the presidential campaign, when Palin burst on the scene as John McCain’s wild-card pick for his vice-presidential running-mate. So, too, has Melissa McEwan at Shakesville . But this latest burst of fresh hell leads me to take another approach: I’m asking readers to Tweet any sexist coverage they see on Palin with the hashtag: #palinsexism . Why? As blogger Echidne of the Snakes observes, the takedown of Palin following her resignation of her office “may be mostly justified, but it allows the misogynists to join in, and they are not just attacking Palin, my friends: They are attacking women in general.” Just look what happened on CNN just moments after Palin’s resignation broke into the airwaves: anchor Rick Sanchez speculated that Palin might be pregnant again. As if women don’t work when they’re pregnant, or make sane decisions while in the family way; as if Palin hadn’t already worked through one pregnancy. Michelle Goldberg observed that in Todd Purdham’s Vanity Fair profile of Palin, several sources pegged Palin as having a textbook case of narcissistic personality disorder for exhibiting exactly the same kind of self-centered traits demonstrated by male politicians who are presumed to be sane. Even here, on The Huffington Post, blogger Andy Ostoy referred to Palin as “the most famous MILF in America”. But Ostoy’s narcissistic crudeness (like I really care who you’d like to do, Andy) is nothing compared to some of the comments made by readers of otherwise fine, upstanding liberal blogs. The intrepid Echidne went wading into those slimy waters (so you and don’t have to), protesting as she did: I hate McCain for what he did to me as a feminist, by putting me in the position of having to wade into the sewers of lefty blogs to find out what sexist crap might be floating around on the topic of Sarah Palin. I do that not to defend Palin but to defend the women of the future who might one day run for the office, and I do it with great bitterness, because I’m going to be told off for spending time on someone like Palin by all those who don’t see that certain comments are not just about Palin but about women in politics in general. And here’s a taste (blech!) of what she found in the comments sections of Eschaton and Democratic Underground : =========== Let’s put it this way. Sarah Palin is probably a sexual object in the sense of most porn starlets. Good sex (there is no other kind) but you want her out of your bed before the cock crows, because the thought of having to make small talk with her over breakfast repulses you no end. ============== Palin’s not hot. She’s actually pretty dick deflating, in an ignorant-stupid-moralistic way. Sorry, but she’s a typical 40 - something GOP woman that thinks with that push-up bra, tummy tuck panty hose, and makeup from hell that she still has it. she doesn’t. ================ she gets on national tv and rambles for 20 minutes… And do we get a great shot of her tits? NO!!!!! ============ I could’ve straightened her out with a good, hard spanking, but Cindy wouldn’t let me. Now look what’s happened . . . –John McCain Editorial note from Stan: of course, that’s not really John McCain writing ============ palin’s pregnant with levi’s love child. =========== I hope she can become a spokesperson for drilling in ANWR now, and helping this country become independent of foreign oil. She should pose naked on a drilling rig. =============== she thought she was pulling of a cunning stunt with her announcement. =============== This asshole is going to be a constant reminder of what you can do with NO qualifications Goodbye you whore. Enough already! Whether it’s a news anchor, an unnamed source, a blogger or commenter, it’s time to put a stop to this barrage of gender-based hatred. It’s not only right; it’s smart. There’s plenty to criticize about Sarah Palin, her latest gambit, and others who share her politics without stooping to the lowest forms of name-calling. Keep the critique on the up-and-up, and you’ll have more credibility. So please join me in helping to put a stop to what really amounts to a war on all women: When you see or hear a sexist quote about Palin, Tweet it, and add the hashtag: #palinsexism. More on Sarah Palin

Read the original: 
Adele Stan: Stop the Sexist Rants on Palin!

Several events of the past week should be a wake-up call to the Obama administration. Bottom line: the medicine isn’t working. Stronger stuff is needed. Consider: The June Unemployment Numbers . The green-shoots school was expecting that the rising rate of unemployment would continue to slow, as it did in May. But instead the number spiked back up. A total of 467,000 jobs were lost. The unemployment rate rose to 9.5 percent, and OECD economists project that U.S. unemployment will still be in double digits as late as 2011. The 9.5 percent official figure — the worst since 1983 — conceals even worse news. The number of long-term unemployed is at record levels. This is the only recession since the Great Depression in which the job loss wiped out all the job growth of the previous recovery. As our friends at the Economic Policy Institute report. We now have fewer jobs than in May 2000 when the recovery began, though the economy now has 12.5 million more workers. And there is less than one job opening for every five people seeking jobs. Hidden unemployment is also setting records - people with part time work who want full time work, as well as people whose hours have been involuntarily cut. Until strong economic growth returns, companies will not resume hiring. And as long as layoffs continue, that means fewer customers and the downward spiral continues. As EPI observes, President Obama’s economic stimulus simply wasn’t designed for a recession this deep. And I would add that stimulus funds are getting out too slowly. Compounding the problem is inadequate government policy on three crucial fronts: State Fiscal Collapse. The states, unlike the Federal government, are not permitted to run current budget deficits. So in a deep recession, when tax receipts fall, their only choice is to cut program spending or raise taxes. Both are of course perverse in a recession, since they only further undercut consumer purchasing power. As the new fiscal year begins, nearly every state is raising taxes or fees, or laying off workers and reducing programs. At least 48 states face red ink. Some of the state budget crisis is self-inflicted, as in the dance to the death between California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democrats in the legislature, compounded by a two-thirds supermajority requirement for any kind of tax reform. But most states are just plain hurting. Massachusetts, with one of the most liberal governors, Deval Patrick, just hiked its sales taxes by 25 percent. A total of 24 other states have enacted tax increases and another 12 all have tax hikes on their agendas. Federal aid under the stimulus covers just 30 to 40 percent of the state shortfall, which is expected to total $350 billion by 2011. And 39 states have cut program outlays on the needy, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities . The New York Times reports that several states are cutting out summer school. This is just plain nuts. Some aspects of the recovery program, such as rebuilding a banking system that serves the real economy, are truly challenging. But this part is really simple. Washington is the one part of the government with the capacity to run deficits. So Congress should pass an emergency revenue-sharing law, giving the states another $150 billion immediately. The only condition is what policy wonks call maintenance-of-effort. To receive the money, the states must maintain program outlay levels and taxing systems that were in effect on a date certain, say July 1, 2008. Most of the stimulus money is still unspent because of various bureaucratic hurdles at all levels of government. This approach would break through all that. Washington would simply cut fifty checks. The Foreclosure Catastrophe. When the Obama administration took office, they basically continued the Bush administration’s program of voluntary loan modifications. They sweetened the deal by paying banks to reduce the principal or interest, spending $75 billion for banks (money that might have gone directly to homeowners.) But with most distressed mortgages having been converted to securities, and the banks that collect the payments not wishing to get sued, the program is mostly a bust. The Treasury says that something like 50,000 mortgages have been modified, out of several million at risk of foreclosures. Treasury keeps telling Congress to wait a few more months to let the program kick in. But according to the New York Times’ indispensable Gretchen Morgenson , the program is actually going backwards. Out of a sample of 3.5 million sub-prime and alt-a (undocumented mortgages better known as “liar loans”) handled by five of the nation’s biggest lenders, servicers modified 23,749 in February, but only 19,041 in May and 18,179 in June. Meanwhile, foreclosures in progress are over 844,000. The consequence of this policy failure is a continuing downward spiral of more vacant homes, continuing declines in property values and home equity, depressed home construction, and stresses on homeowners who spend every penny of disposable income to keep their houses. The government needs a Roosevelt-scale mortgage refinancing program with one goal–to keep people from losing their homes. As Morgenson reports, when a bank forecloses, it loses about 63 percent of the loan value. Wouldn’t it be better to reduce the monthly payments by 63 percent, and allow people to keep their homes? But only a much more direct government intervention can do that. Busted Banks. The Administration’s policy of pumping up busted banks, such as Citigroup and Bank of America has been a success only in the sense that these zombies are still in business. But surely the right test is whether credit is flowing again to deserving borrowers. Reports from the small business and community reinvestment communities suggest that credit is still very right, despite Federal Reserve policies of cutting short term interest rates almost to zero . I still have to pinch myself when I realize that the President of the United States is Barack Hussein Obama. Like the rest of the progressive community, my heart swells when Obama, in Egypt, makes a brilliant speech on Middle East, or accelerates the progress of redeeming full civil rights for gays and lesbians. (I could find some quibbles on these fronts as well.) But these are not the issues that will cost him his presidency if he fails to grasp that the economic recovery and the moment of reform are slipping away. As Republican missteps turn from tragedy to farce and back again, we should not get too cocky. The Republican ticket in 2012 could be Palin-Sanford; if unemployment is 11 percent, it will win. Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect, www.prospect.org and a senior fellow at Demos, www.demos.org . His recent book is “Obama’s Challenge,” www.obamaschallenge.com . More on The Recession

More:
Robert Kuttner: 3 Reasons We Need an Economic Wake Up Call

There is an old expression which says, “In a crisis, do nothing.” Wise words indeed, which means that soon-to-be-ex-governor Sarah Palin no doubt would never heed them. She’s sort of adopted another philosophy. It’s more like, “In a crisis, fly off the handle, be reactionary and threaten to sue someone for defamation in the hopes of intimidating the entire blogosphere and all national print and televised media into not talking about something.” I’m not an oddsmaker, but this strategy seems destined to become a crumpled up tin can on the refuse pile of epic failure. There’s no doubt that the week has been a bad one for the governor. It started with an unflattering Vanity Fair article . This was followed by a CBS piece detailing several leaked emails in which she asked the McCain campaign to lie about Todd Palin’s 7-year membership in a secessionist party. McCain strategist Steve Schmidt responded to her request saying that Todd was a member, and it was a secessionist party and he wasn’t going to create an issue in the media if it didn’t exist already, nor would he lie for her. The statement you are suggesting be released would be innaccurate. The innaccuracy would bring greater media attention to this matter and be a distraction. According to your staff there have been no media inquiries into this and you received no questions about it during your interviews. If you are asked about it you should smile and say many alaskans who love their country join the party because it speeks to a tradition of political independence. Todd loves his country. We will not put out a statement and inflame this and create a situation where john has to adress this.” Palin’s week culminated, of course, in a strange, twitchy, impulsive announcement from her home on the shore of Lake Lucille, that she would be stepping down from office, and resigning. The last time Alaskans were this gobsmacked by the governor was when she said ‘yes’ to John McCain when he popped the question back in August. Her reason for resigning? Here’s where it got really strange. The media was unfair. People were filing ethics complaints against her. Bloggers were making silly photoshops. She didn’t want to be a lame duck. The state would be better off without her. We kept waiting to hear the real reason, the reason that would explain it all. We waited for the reason that would come at the end, after all the silly stuff. But it never came. That was it. We were left scratching our heads. A woman who was the Vice Presidential candidate for the Republican Party, and who has been deemed in some circles to be a plausible contender for her party’s presidential nominee in 2012, is quitting her job as governor, 17 months before the end of her first term, because people are picking on her? This just didn’t compute. Even in the wildest contortionist spin of her most ardent supporters, this was not going to improve her chances in 2012. What this means is that now, the line on her resume right underneath “Almost-one-term governor” reads “Mayor of a small Alaskan town with a population of 7000 people.” This is not the way to be taken seriously. Yes, she draws crowds, but so does Brittany Spears, and I sure wouldn’t vote for her to take up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Naturally, with the overwhelming doubt in the minds of the public that these could possibly be the real reasons she was stepping down, questions were asked. Phones started ringing in Alaska from friends and relatives who wanted the “real story.” Alaskans were even asking each other what they thought was really going on. Questions were many and answers were few. There seemed to be dozens of rumors circulating about the governor at any given point in time, and this week was no different. People were muttering about personal family problems, about new ethics complaints, about legal cases involving her use of personal off-the-radar Yahoo email accounts to conduct state business. Then there was talk about the legality of her legal defense fund which is currently being questioned, or maybe even personal illness. But the ones that seems to have gotten under the governor’s skin were reports involving rumors floating about town that there was some kind of shenanigans going on with the simultaneous building of the governor’s house, and the Wasilla Sports Complex, and a supposed IRS investigation. Was this the infamous rumor of an “iceberg” that could sink the S.S. Palin as had been reported on another Alaskan blog ? Are any of these rumors actually true? Who knows. Are they being talked about in open conversation at holiday barbeques all over the state today? Oh, yes. And all this brings us to the issue at hand which involves Palin, her attorney Thomas Van Flein, and a certain Shannyn Moore . Moore is a radio personality, a Huffington Post blogger, and frequent guest on MSNBC’’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann. There were scads of blogs, both local and national that reported on the rumors above, many in greater detail and with more certainty than Moore did. But Moore really got under the soon-to-be-ex governor’s skin. Why? Presumably because Palin watches TV more than she reads. Today Van Flein issued a four page letter regarding the reporting of these rumors and it was sent by SarahPAC spokeswoman Meghan Stapleton to media outlets across the state. Van Flein’s letter threatening legal action specifically pointed the finger at Alaska blogger Shannyn Moore as “most notably” claiming as “fact” that Palin resigned under federal investigation. Van Flein, asked why he singled out Moore, said it’s because she went on national television and talked about it. Moore was on with MSNBC’s David Shuster on Friday, the day Palin said she will resign. “There is a scandal rumor here that there is a criminal investigation into some activities and that’s been rumored for about, I don’t know, probably six weeks or two months,” Moore told him. Despite the fact that she specifically refers twice to the report as a “rumor,” Van Flein says she portrayed the story as fact. The only fact is that there are rumors . I know because I’ve been hearing them since last October. They even have a name - “Housegate.” If you Google “Palin Housegate,” you get 8,600 references, beginning back with an article that appeared in the Village Voice. Googling “Palin sports complex scandal” gets you 230,000. How many mentions are required to constitute a rumor? It’s probably less than 230,000. I’m not exactly sure how the legal dynamic duo of Palin-Van Flein is planning to un-rumorize almost a quarter of a million online references to a rumor that started 8 months ago, but it will be interesting to watch. “I’ll sue you for defamation!” is the toothless wonder of the legal world. The bluster is meant to scare people, intimidate them, and get them to be quiet. In this particular case, it’s not going to work. Moore has already discussed the threat on her radio show, where she said emphatically, “Bring it on.” She said she already gotten legal advice, and has a long list of attorneys who had emailed her, stepping up and eagerly offering to depose Sarah Palin in such a case. Now that would make for some damn good blogging material. So why would this bizarre comical scenario be taking place at all? Remember how McCain strategist Steve Schmidt had to intervene and explain to Palin that it just wasn’t a good idea to over-react and start making grand statements to the media about negative things being said about her? He firmly told her no. And he had to do it twice. Her personal attorney, on the other hand, is being paid to do what she wants. After a recent online fundraiser, Palin’s legal defense fund may be well stocked, so it’s no skin off the nose of her legal counsel who has been appearing on talk radio shows, and now writing intimidating letters. And there’s obviously nobody in Palin’s inner sanctum who feels like telling her it’s a really bad idea. So she marches on. Using the substantial might of the Executive branch of government to bring down unenforceable legal threats on a private citizen in Alaska, and attempting to curtail free speech through intimidation on the Fourth of July? Not a particularly brilliant PR move. By specifically singling out and naming Moore, Palin has done two things; she has shown herself to be a reactionary immature politician, and she has made Shannyn Moore a lot better known. And she is not the only one in Sarah Palin’s crosshairs, mind you. You stand warned Huffington Post, New York Times, MSNBC and The Washington Post! You just better knock it off! The New York Times and Washington Post haven’t written anything about this, but Van Flein said he believed they were asking questions. “What I’ve been informed is that they’ve been interviewing people in Wasilla about this, and have tried to interview the governor’s parents about it,” Van Flein said. OK, in the case of The New York Times and the Washington Post, you’d better stop even thinking about asking questions about it. In solidarity with my friend and fellow Alaskan blogger, may I be the next to report to the team of Palin-Van Flein, and to the entire blogosphere at large: THERE ARE RUMORS. There. I said it. Sue me. More on Sarah Palin

See original here: 
AKMuckraker: Huffington Post Blogger in Palin’s Cross Hairs

There is a lot we don’t know about Sarah Palin’s decision to resign. But there is one thing we do know: She thought it was politically damaging. No one announces good news late on Friday before Fourth of July weekend. That is someone who is trying to bury bad news as much as possible. With Michael Jackson and Mark Sanford stories still lingering around, everyone on vacation, and as little reporters working as possible, she releases this bombshell. That’s someone who obviously thinks what she is doing is not going to help her, at least in the short term. There are three main possibilities for why she did this: 1. Political Reasons She is going to run for President in 2012 and she thinks she is better served going around the country laying the groundwork for that run rather than stuck in Alaska. Plus, she already checked off “Governor of Alaska” on her resume. No need to linger. Take the short term hit on the early resignation and build for the long term move. If this is what she’s thinking, then I think she made a mistake. She looks callous and indifferent to any office she holds. It makes her seem flighty and overly ambitious. Plus, does anyone have any confidence that she gives a damn about policy or making a difference? No, her main interest is plainly obvious now — the career of Sarah Palin. 2. Personal Reasons No, not because she wants to better take care of her family. Come on, how funny does that sound? She seemed fine with juggling her family and her career when she was on a national ticket. No, by personal reasons I mean — money. The Palins have always had an eye for the good life. This is her one chance to definitively cash in. Who knows if an opportunity like this comes along again? Huge speaking fees , book advance, etc. Hopefully, she makes the money and increases her profile at the same time, setting her up for a decent shot at the Republican primary. Win or lose, she gets more famous, repeats the cycle and makes even more bank. This strategy probably will work. Will she gain enough momentum for a decent shot at the presidency? No, this could backfire in that regard. Will she make plenty of money trying? Yes. 3. Upcoming Scandal This is always possible when a politician resigns abruptly and talks about spending time with their family. There are already rumors floating out there that there are federal investigators in Alaska already looking into influence peddling for financial favors. These stories would dovetail nicely with the “go for the money” attitude described above. She could also just be tired of all the ethics investigations when she has already checked off the “Governor of Alaska” line in her resume. It’s so tiresome being in public office and trying to appear ethical when you can be as unethical as you like in the private sector. We need more information before figuring which of these possibilities (or combination of possibilities) is closer to true. But what we do know is that whatever the reason was, she gets that it makes her look pretty bad now. We’ll probably find out soon enough why she was willing to take this hit at this time. Watch The Young Turks Here More on Sarah Palin

Read the original post:
Cenk Uygur: Here’s What We Know About Sarah Palin’s Decision

NEW YORK — Federal authorities are investigating a new outbreak of a bacteria-triggered illness, this time related to a sweet treat treasured by the heartbroken and children-at-heart _ packaged raw cookie dough. The federal Centers for Disease Control said its preliminary investigation shows “a strong association” between eating raw refrigerated cookie dough made by Nestle and the illnesses of 65 people in 29 states whose lab results have turned up E. coli bacteria since March. About 25 of those people have been hospitalized, but no one has died. E. coli is a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause bloody diarrhea, dehydration and, in the most severe cases, kidney failure. Nestle USA voluntarily recalled all of its Toll House refrigerated cookie dough products after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration advised consumers to throw away any Nestle Toll House cookie dough products in their homes and asked retailers, restaurateurs and other foodservice operations not to sell or serve any of the refrigerated cookie dough products. Customers also can return any recalled product where they bought it for a full refund. The recall does not affect other Toll House products, including ice cream that contains raw Toll House dough. “This has been a very quickly moving situation,” said Roz O’Hearn, spokeswoman for Nestle’s baking division, adding the company took action within 24 hours of learning of the problem. Spokeswoman Laurie MacDonald for Nestle USA in Glendale, Calif., a unit of Switzerland-based Nestle SA, said the company has temporarily stopped making the refrigerated dough products while the FDA investigates its factory. “We hope to resume production as soon as possible,” she said. Nestle holds a 41 percent share of the prepared cookie dough market. The recall includes refrigerated cookie bar dough, cookie dough tubs, cookie dough tubes, limited edition cookie dough items, seasonal cookie dough and Ultimates cookie bar dough. Nestle said about 300,000 cases of Nestle Toll House cookie dough are affected by the recall, which covers chocolate chip dough, gingerbread, sugar, peanut butter dough and other varieties. The FDA said consumers should not try to cook the dough, even though it would be safe to eat if cooked, because the bacteria could move to their hands and to countertops and other cooking surfaces. Raw cookie dough is so popular that it has spawned more than 40 groups on Facebook, complete with postings that read like love notes. Stacey Oyler, a 33-year-old San Francisco resident, called it her “secret indulgence” _ a treat that became irresistible when she was pregnant with her second child last August. She said she still indulges occasionally. “I love the combination of the salt and sweet,” she said. “You can’t get that from a piece of chocolate.” But no raw cookie is necessarily safe. The eggs in Nestle Toll House’s dough are pasteurized, which eliminates most of the risk of salmonella infection from raw eggs. But other ingredients could contain pathogens or bacteria, and the company warns in product labels not to eat the dough raw. Several recent food recalls have been related to bacterial contamination, including a salmonella outbreak last winter traced to a peanut company that sickened more than 600 people and that was blamed for at least nine deaths. A separate outbreak of salmonella last year linked to jalapeno peppers from Mexico led 1,400 people to become ill. Sarah Klein, staff attorney in the food safety group at consumer advocacy group Center for Science in the Public Interest, called the cookie dough news disheartening. “Unfortunately, I don’t think that people who have been working in food safety for years can be surprised at this point and sadly, I don’t think the American people are surprised either,” Klein said. ___ AP Business Writer Michelle Chapman contributed to this report.

Continued here:
Nestle Cookie Dough Recalled

With the culmination of last week’s Democratic gubernatorial primary in Virginia, the key players in the high-profile races for the 2009 election cycle are now known. With the possible exception of the Virginia Democrats, of course, the starting lineups have been known for a while. But with the primary schedule now in the rearview mirror, we can look ahead to November, and examine what (if anything) the current polling tells us about what to expect in November. First, the obvious and obligatory caveat: elections are a volatile thing. Whatever tea leaves we can attempt to read in June may be completely invalid by July, to say nothing of November. So, expect this analysis to serve as the jumping-off point, and not the final word. VIRGINIA At one point in the year, Republicans were crowing about a likely pick-up in Virginia. They had managed to clear the field for their preferred candidate, former state Attorney General Bob McDonnell. He had modest, but real, polling leads over all three potential Democratic candidates, according to Daily Kos’ pre-primary survey. Then, the once-competitive Democratic primary became a runaway. And instead of Terry McAuliffe, the NoVa resident by way of upstate New York, the Democratic nominee was instead Creigh Deeds, who hailed from rural west-central Virginia. Deeds rocketed out of the gate, with a post-primary poll from Rasmussen showing that Deeds, once down fifteen points in the Rasmussen poll, now was staked to a six-point advantage (47-41). Some of this, to be sure, is afterglow from his impressive and decisive primary win. But there is some reason to believe that Deeds’ current poll position is more indicative of his actual strength in the race than the less audacious poll numbers he had last month. Take, as an example, Deeds’ performance with Democrats: PRE-PRIMARY POLLING (DEMOCRATIC PREFERENCE) Daily Kos/Research 2000 Survey, May 18-20, 2009 Creigh Deeds (D) 56% Bob McDonnell (R) 16% Not Sure/Other 28% POST-PRIMARY POLLING (DEMOCRATIC PREFERENCE) Rasmussen Survey, June 10, 2009 Creigh Deeds (D) 89% Bob McDonnell (R) 8% Not Sure/Other 4% Looking just at Democrats, it is pretty clear that the aberration was BEFORE the primary, rather than after it. Even the most optimistic Republican could not reasonably expect that the Democratic nominee would lead Democrats by just forty points. In effect, McDonnell’s early double-digit advantage over Creigh Deeds was based almost solely on the fact that Democrats were a far greater proportion of the undecided voters than were Republicans. In all probability, these were Moran and McAuliffe supporters who were staying on the fence out of loyalty to their preferred horse in the race. The long primary season might have also paid a dividend for Creigh Deeds with Independent voters, as well. Looking solely at the Rasmussen polling on the race, we see that in April, Deeds only had the support of 18% of Independents, a group with which he trailed McDonnell by 22 points (lots of undecideds, as always, with the Indies). Fast forward to this week: after having the airwaves essentially to themselves, the Democrats managed to eat into McDonnell’s sizable edge with Independent voters. Now, with what Rasmussen terms “unaffiliated voters”, the McDonnell edge is down to just seven points. Deeds, at 36% of the Independent vote, has doubled his support with that group in just seven weeks. This race, by all rights, will be a toss-up in the Fall. But the Republican Party was put on notice this week. While history might be on their side (the party out of the White House has, virtually without exception, won the governorship of Virginia), the polls no longer are. It appears that Creigh Deeds might be uniquely positioned to retain this office for the Democrats. NEW JERSEY Unlike Virginia, which saw a pretty decisive shift in the polling over the course of the primary season, New Jersey has remained remarkably steady. On paper, this is very good news for the GOP nominee, former U.S. Attorney Chris Christie. Two post-primary polls (one from Quinnipiac , the other from Rasmussen ) gave Christie a lead over incumbent Democratic Governor Jon Corzine outside of the statistical margin of error. However, a Republican declaration of victory here might be premature as well, despite these very distressing numbers for Team Corzine. For one thing, there is the fact that the GOP appears to have nominated an essentially blank slate. Even after a drawn-out primary with conservative insurgent candidate Steve Lonegan, Chris Christie is still something of an unknown quantity. According to the Q poll, Christie has a pretty laudable 36/16 split on his favorabilities. The one cause for concern for team Christie: this means that nearly half of the electorate in New Jersey does not hold a set opinion of their nominee. Rasmussen defines things a bit differently, and as such they have a far smaller corps of truly uncertain voters on Christie (just 12%). However, from Rasmussen we can see that opinions on Christie are very soft–only 27% of the New Jersey electorate have strong opinions about him one way or another, and they were evenly split. In Virginia, by contrast, while only a slightly larger group (31%) had strong opinions of Creigh Deeds, those with strong opinions were far more likely to hold strongly POSITIVE opinions of Deeds than strongly negative ones. The bottom line–given how little of Christie’s support is calcified, Corzine will have time (and one can readily presume, resources) with which to define his challenger. It might not be enough–Corzine is an incumbent state executive at a time when Governors of both parties are, by and large, taking on water big time in the polls. However, those GOPers gloating about a lead in the upper single digits for Christie might want to remember one small fact of Garden State politics–come October and November, New Jersey has a peculiar habit of coming home to the Democrats. Some claim this is myth, but there is ample evidence from last year’s elections. Look for example, at the disparity between September and October polling in last year’s presidential race: Net Democratic Lead–September N.J. Polling (10 polls) : 7.4% Net Democratic Lead–October N.J. Polling (12 polls) : 15.7% Obama defeated McCain in New Jersey by 15.5%. Wait, a loyal Republican might say. This is nothing more than a reflection of the fact that McCain’s campaign imploded in late September, staking Obama to that October lead. Fine. With that in mind, let’s look at the disparity between September and October polling in last year’s U.S. SENATE race between Democrat Frank Lautenberg and Republican Dick Zimmer. Net Democratic Lead–September N.J. Polling (8 polls) : 9.8% Net Democratic Lead–October N.J. Polling (11 polls) : 15.1% Lautenberg defeated Zimmer in New Jersey by 14.1%. The numbers do not lie. This is not an urban legend. New Jersey voters may be frustrated with the Democratic Party, but they eventually decide that the alternative (electing Republicans) is less appetizing. Given that Christie has shown signs that he is a pretty   standard right-winger , it is not hard to imagine New Jersey voters forsaking their own trepidation about Corzine and returning him for another term. The most probable outcome is a split decision in the two governor’s races in the Fall, seeing how both of them are, at day’s end, a coin flip. But what was once unthinkable is now at least plausible–the Democrats could emerge from the 2009 cycle with their formidable winning streak still intact.

See more here: 
VA-GOV/NJ-GOV: The Early Line on 2009

40 More Years: How the Democrats Will Rule the Next Generation By James Carville Simon and Schuster New York, New York: 2009 209 pages $24.95 “American presidential politics is generally not a back-and-forth enterprise. There are eras in which one party dominates. Today, a Democratic majority is emerging, and it’s my hypothesis, one I share with a great many others, that his majority will guarantee the Democrats remain in power for the next forty years.” It’s already too late to hold back the people who’ve rushed to the comment section without reading even this far in to the essay to declare that predicting the future is stupid, that nobody should predict that we’ll win because then Democrats will get lazy or something, and to say they dislike James Carville. It’s too bad if that happens, because it’s a worthwhile discussion to have. Carville has been a wildly successful political operative; he managed a decisive Democratic win over an incumbent Republican president, several statewide races and, since 1992, has been probably the most successful international political consultant, playing key roles in the victories of Tony Blair, Ehud Barak and several others. His crusade against DNC chair Howard Dean was petty, misguided and unproductive. But he’s still a supremely talented operative and observer of American politics. Carville’s success in electing center-left candidates in the US and across the globe gives him a rare practitioner’s perspective on what’s become a major discussion among political observers; namely, are the Republicans screwed, and are the Democrats embarking upon a period of dominance. American politics has tended to operate on roughly 40 year cycles, especially since the late 19th century. Over the last decade or so there’s been reason to think that Democrats were on the verge of partisan realignment favoring Democrats. Looking at these trends, in November 2007 I began to discuss ( here , here , here and here ) the parallels between the election of 1932 and what we could see in the approaching election of 2008. The victory of Barack Obama and expansion of our Congressional majorities, and the reception so far of the electorate to the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress, give further support to the belief that Democrats could dominate the political and policy agenda of the next several decades, control Congress and win the majority of presidential elections until mid-century or so. Carville should have valuable contributions to this discussion. Unfortunately, 40 More Years doesn’t offer much to one looking for sound historical, political and demographic evidence and arguments for whether and why the country may be undergoing a political realignment away from the transitional period since Nixon’s 1968 victory that hastened the end of the New Deal order that dominated American politics since 1932. Nevertheless, anyone looking for excellent arguments for why voters should choose Democrats should read what is an engaging and very effective polemic. Part of Carville’s shtick, which has made him the most famous and recognized political operative since Pat Buchanan, is his rapid-fire, associative, sometimes even frenetic verbal style. 40 More Years is written in that voice, which makes it a quick and entertaining read. However, it’s a weakness for a book that suggests it will deliver an extended argument; indeed, a lot of the book has a “oh, another thing I just thought of have to throw in” feel. As much as an extended argument that Carville has is summed up at the beginning of the first chapter: The Republicans got spanked in 2008, and they’re going to keep getting spanked. The explanation is simple: • They’ve destroyed the myth of conservative competence. • They’re corrupt. • They’ve lost the culture war. That argument really isn’t wrong , it’s just that it’s incomplete. Carville sees an opening provided by the Republican meltdown. While he doesn’t discuss it, that opening was provided by the narrow but decisive Republican victories in 2002 and 2004, which for the first time since the early 1950’s gave them complete control of the executive and legislative branches, and thus exposed them as solely responsible for whatever went wrong. And what went wrong during that four year period was a shallow and jobless recovery from a recession, the beginnings of the collapse of the housing market, Republicans overplaying their hands and pursuing horribly unpopular positions on Social Security privatization and interfering in the end-of-life decisions for Terri Schaivo, and exposing their gross incompetence in dealing with hurricane Katrina and the civil war, ethnic cleansing and general chaos in Iraq that peaked just prior to the Democrats’ victories in the 2006 election. What’s missing, however, is that these trends have been brewing since the early 90’s. Carville mentions Kevin Phillips’ (surprisingly out-of-print) The Emerging Republican Majority, but he doesn’t mention John Judis and Ruy Teixeira’s 2002 book The Emerging Democratic Majority , who predicted a Democratic realignment not because of Republican incompetence but more because of long-term trends creating a Democratic majority: Today’s Democrats are the party of the transition from urban industrialization to a new postindustrial metropolitan order in which men and women play equal roles and in which white America is supplanted by multiracial, multiethnic America. This transition is occurring in the three critical realms of work, values and geography. Professionals and highly educated workers are growing in numbers and prominence, and they are voting Democratic. Work is important to Americans, but so are pleasure and personal satisfaction, and Democrats have favored more family-friendly policies of the types found in the social welfare states like Canada and Europe and a embrace of cultural tolerance and diversity. Democrats have championed social libertarianism in people’s personal lives, which is in tune with the changes in society and a stark contrast to the censorious intolerance of the Republicans, who initially benefitted from a backlash to the civil rights and feminist movements. And the rural share of the national vote, which leans conservative, is declining, and population growth is heavily concentrated in centers dominated by what Richard Florida has defined as the creative class . Carville doesn’t touch on much of this, other than some cursory comments on the youth vote. He also barely discusses the financial backing of Democrats; typically, realignments coincide with shifts of significant–and ascendant–sectors of industry allying themselves with the rising party.  Carville mentions that Democrats raised a ton of money in 2008, but doesn’t really examine it deeply.  He mentions Daily Kos and other blogs, but again, his examination is cursory and not particularly enlightening, and other than raving about Media Matters for America, he doesn’t really talk about the corrective role that progressive media has been playing with the traditional media. Like the partisan warrior he is, Carville focuses heavily on Republican failures and Democratic hagiography. Fox News lies, Sarah Palin is an extremist simpleton, Hillary Clinton is great, Bill Clinton was a good president, the Republicans stole the 2000 election in Florida, and again and again, the Bush administration helped bring about the post-Katrina disaster in Carville’s beloved New Orleans.   Carville does not, however discuss the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and the ugly reaction the Bush administration helped engineer for their rank political gain in 2002 and 2004. Again, it was Judis who, in a 2007 article about empirical psychological studies on terrorism and the American electorate, described the political effects of those attacks, and why they helped stall the Democratic realignment: In the months after September 11, most Americans were caught up in the same reaction to the tragedy–and that included adulation for Bush, even among many Democrats. But over the next few years, faced with two elections, Bush had to maintain his popularity; and he did so by constantly reviving memories of that dark day. As the 2002 election approached, voters turned their attention to the recession, as well as Enron and other scandals–all to the Democrats’ favor. At that point, Bush, who had stood aside in the November 2001 gubernatorial elections that Democrats won, sought to base the 2002 election on terrorism. Bush and Karl Rove used the full arsenal of scare tactics to evoke fears of another September 11. The result was that the electorate became sharply polarized between conservatives and liberals and between Republicans and Democrats, while those caught in the middle tended to side with the Republicans–exactly as the psychologists’ experiments might have predicted. Conservatives and conservative-leaning swing-voters were susceptible to appeals based on fear, and these appeals took people’s attention away fom the long-term advantages held by Democrats. (The timidity of the Democratic response to Bush’s fearmongering also appears to have suppressed Democratic voting enthusiasm, especially in 2002.) But as the war, Katrina, Social Security and Terri Schaivo overpowered terrorism as a concern for voters—and frankly, four years worth of older people (who were especially susceptible to the terror and anti-gay messages) dying and young liberal voters entering the electorate, by 2006 the realignment predicted by Judis and Teixeira in 2002 resumed, and appears to have accelerated in 2008. Carville doesn’t discuss the long-term trends, but he does focus more attention that I’ve previously seen on a memo written after the 2000 election by Bush pollster Mathew Dowd. For Carville, that memo—we only know of it’s existence because of reporting, as nobody outside the Bush inner circle has read it—is the seed of the Republican demise. It was in that memo that Dowd pushed the conclusion that, contrary to how they campaign in 2000, the Bush administration could safely ignore appealing to the center of the electorate, because, he argued, almost nobody is persuadable, so the goal should be ginning up Republican base turnout. And to do that, the administration governed in a manner almost entirely geared toward pleasing the extreme of the GOP base. Had it not been for 9-11 and the Bush fearmongering, Republicans probably would have taken a bath in the 2002 and 2004 elections. The perverse result of their staving off Dem advances in those two elections was their perfidy and incompetence were allowed to achieve new depths, and the resulting collapse in 2006 and 2008 probably seem to people more tied to the Republican collapse. In reality, what would probably have been happening more incrementally over the previous elections was, like water held back by a damn, a more devastating torrent when it finally broke loose in 2006 and 2008. Thus, Dowd’s memo shouldn’t be given disproportionate influence for the seeming Democratic realignment, but it can be given credit for the intensity of the swing toward Democrats in the last two elections. Much of 40 More Years is dedicated to arguing that Democrats are right and Republicans are wrong. (An earlier Carville book is even titled We’re Right, They’re Wrong: A Handbook for Spirited Progressives ) However, being right isn’t necessarily correlated with winning elections. You win elections typically because whether you’re right or wrong, your candidates and party are trusted, and they’re usually trusted because voters think your candidates and party share their values and agree with them on what they want from government. Carville even acknowledges elsewhere in the book that this is the case when he declares that there have only been two “Big Ideas” since LBJ’s Great Society—supply-side economics and neoconservative—and “they were new, bold, easy to explain, and profoundly stupid.” Carville, building on Roosevelt’s New Deal and Truman’s Fair Deal, offers up the slogan the Real Deal. But he admits that he doesn’t have the elements that will make up the core of the next Big Idea. That’s now largely in the hands of the Obama administration, and their success—and the alternating cooperation and productive prodding they need from the Democratic Congress—will determine whether Democrats can solidify their emerging majority. Despite being weak on long-term analysis, Carville’s book is, however, an excellent polemic. It contains numerous worthwhile insights, such as his claim that in a parliamentary system a leader who responded like Bush did to Katrina would probably have been immediately voted out of power. There’s a good section called Res Judicata on how to shut down Republican attempts to argue on settled subjects, mostly matters that the Republicans have tried to remove from the realm of science and empirical study and replace with matters of faith. And anyone who wants to talk about why Democrats do a far better job of providing economic growth that spreads throughout the population. Much of the raw data comes from Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age (reviewed here by SusanG), but Carville, like any good consultant, does a great job of framing the arguments. It should be required reading for every ad maker, press operative and Democratic candidate. There’s no correct answer to the question to whether we’re in the beginning of an age of Democratic party dominance; it’s too early to know. There are better arguments than the one provided by James Carville in 40 More Years. But following his advice on how to talk to voters and shut down stupid crap from Republicans could help Democrats lock in that realignment.

The rest is here:
Book Review: James Carville’s "40 More Years"

On Friday, June 5, 2009, at an event featuring aspiring politicians Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich that was broadcast over the global media networks of GodTV, a rising leader in the rapidly reconfiguring Christian right who has publicly called for acts of Christian martyrdom prayed over and blessed Huckabee and Gingrich: TheCall founder Lou Engle. The June 5, 2009, Rock Church event has received some media notice but coverage -which has noted Newt Gingrich declared Americans are “surrounded by paganism” , and that he and Mike Huckabee made stump speeches calling for Christian conservatives to become more involved in electoral politics- has almost wholly missed the significance. Leaders on the Christian right have been giving such speeches for decades, but the two-day Rock Church conference was not business as usual. Rather, it showcased the rapid reconfiguration of the Christian right around the rising, highly militant but poorly understood charismatic wing of the new Christian right, a movement which includes both Ted Haggard and Sarah Palin .) One point of the spear for the new Christian right is an intense, raspy-voiced man who presided over the June 5, 2009 Rock Church event, layed hands on Mike Huckabee, and pledged the commitment of his prayer warriors to Huckabee and Gingrich was Lou Engle, founder of TheCall - which played a significant role in the push to pass the anti-gay marriage Proposition Eight in the lead up to the November 4, 2008 presidential election. Only days before Huckabee and Gingrich received Lou Engle’s endorsement at Rock Church, on Sunday May 31, 2009, late-term abortion doctor George Tiller was gunned down in the lobby of his Wichita, Kansas church. The next morning CBS’s Jeff Glor reported, “We did speak with the accused shooters’ ex-wife yesterday. She said she was not surprised this happened and that she believed Roeder wanted to be a martyr for the cause.” The November 1, 2008 TheCall San Diego event was the capstone event for the pro-Proposition Eight, anti-gay marriage push in California prior to the November 4, 2008 presidential election. Towards the end of the event, which attracted an estimated 30,000 attendees to San Diego’s Qualcomm Stadium despite sweltering heat, TheCall founder Lou Engle, and his disciple Eddie Brown, as captured in footage taken at TheCall San Diego by documentary film-maker Michael W. Wilson made calls, from onstage before thousands of impassioned followers, for acts of Christian martyrdom. Engle has in the recent past declared that decades of legalized abortion since Roe v. Wade have incurred a blood debt which demands to be paid in blood. [ more on Gingrich, Huckabee and Engle ]

Originally posted here:
Bruce Wilson: Video: Christian Martyr Movement Head Blesses Huckabee & Gingrich

Primary election polls conducted well in advance of an election usually do not have a ton of probative value. One would have to suppose this maxim is doubly true when the poll is conducted roughly 30 MONTHS prior to the primary election. And, yet, there is something somewhat valuable in the 2012 Republican primary poll released this week by CNN . Take a look at these results: Republican Primary Survey–2012, Conducted By CNN (Released 6/2) Mike Huckabee 22% Sarah Palin 21% Mitt Romney 21% Newt Gingrich 13% Someone Else (vol.) 10% Jeb Bush 6% No Opinion 4% No One (vol.) 3% CNN names five viable Republicans (well, as viable as Republicans can be right now). All of the candidates have high name recognition, either by virtue of previous presidential bids or other brushes with national notoriety. The lack of a clear favorite is rather clearly articulated by the fact that there are THREE of the five leading candidates within one percentage point of one another. Coupled with the fact that NO ONE is over 22%, and it becomes evident that there is no clear Republican frontrunner for 2012. And…yet…the story is not who is at the front of the pack. The story is about the guy bringing up the rear. John Ellis Bush. On paper, this is nonsensical. Every person in front of Jeb Bush in the queue has a huge political liability, whether it is Huckabee’s staunch social conservatism, Romney’s past ideological hedgings as Governor, Gingrich’s checkered past as Speaker, or Palin’s awkward introduction to the national stage. On paper, Jeb Bush should be able to absolutely blast this field into political oblivion. He is the former governor of what will, by 2012, be the third largest state in the Union. While serving as governor, his approval ratings were almost uniformly in the high 50s or better. His families have ties to Washington dating back three generations and eight decades. He is, for all of his ideological foibles that would drive progressives mad, one of the more telegenic advocates from the political right-wing. On the stump, he would be at no worse than a draw with the other four named candidates. And, despite all that, there he is. Not just in fifth place, but in an almost unthinkable position: dead last, in a landslide. There is really only one rational explanation for this: Bush fatigue. Conventional wisdom would seem to indicate that this is, by all rights, a phenomenon limited to Democratic and Independent voters. After all, as the final days of the Bush presidency were flying off of the calendar, we remember that George W. Bush was languishing with approval ratings in the 20s. We also remember, though, that a majority of Republicans were still willing to stand in the face of nearly uniform public opinion. A fairly strong majority of them were willing to state their approval for this president and his eight-year record. Conventional wisdom, even going as far back as 2006, was that Jeb Bush was demurring from a 2008 presidential bid because he could win the primary, but couldn’t win the general. Consider this reference from an insightful 2006 article in Ireland’s Village online publication (boldtype indicates my emphasis): Senior Republican pollsters like Matthew Dowd believe that while Jeb Bush would easily win the Republican primary, the Bush fatigue that has set in since last year would virtually guarantee a win for Hillary Clinton. Jeb Bush and the Republican party have quietly decided that the country just isn’t ready for four more years of the Bush family. This poll stands as a pretty profound refutation of what Dowd and company believed three years ago. Even the Republican Party, it would seem, is not willing to cast its lot with another Bush. It is possible, of course, that this is a little bit of rational voting on the part of the GOP electorate. It is possible that they have arrived at the same conclusion that Dowd did back in 2006. Therefore, there is not much sense in voting for a candidate in the primary that you know will get throttled come November. This, of course, has to be quite bittersweet for Jeb Bush. One of the most oft-rumored backstories in the Bush family saga is that everyone in the Bush family presumed that it would be Jeb, and not George W., that was destined for the White House. Check out this brief passage from the Village article linked to earlier in this piece: Despite, or perhaps because of, a record that suggests he is far more “conservative” than he is compassionate, Jeb Bush was always destined for great things in the Republican party. Many senior Republicans, including those in his own family, believed that it was the sober, articulate Jeb – not his erratic, feckless older brother – who would follow his father to the White House. These whispers were indirectly confirmed by Jeb Bush’s own son, who, in an exchange documented in Kevin Phillips’ book American Dynasty , somewhat directly confirmed during his uncle’s first inaugural that the Bush family did not necessarily foresee W. as the legitimate heir to the dynasty. “No one would have picked my uncle. If you came up to any close member of my family six years ago and said my uncle wanted to be president, they’d probably laugh in your face. We were really surprised.” In the book, Phillips also points out that George W. Bush stole his brother’s thunder in another key way. When he announced his bid for governor shortly after the off-year elections in 1993, he took some light off of his younger brother, who had already committed to the Florida governors race months earlier. Even more so, given that W’s decision set up a high profile revenge matchup with Texas Governor Ann Richards, who had famously lampooned their father in 1988 with her “silver foot in his mouth” dig at the Democratic National Convention. At every turn, it seems, George W. Bush has indirectly stifled the political ambitions of his younger sibling. In 1994, one could argue that Jeb Bush might have been able to reverse his narrow defeat to incumbent Lawton Chiles had Republicans not had their attention divided between that high-profile gubernatorial election and the one taking place several hundred miles to the west. W’s victory, and Jeb’s defeat, set the stage for the next decade. By the time that Jeb had avenged his defeat in 1994 and earned election to the Florida statehouse in 1998, his older brother was the undisputed GOP frontrunner for 2000, having won re-election with nearly 70% of the vote. Within hours of CNN declaring Jeb Bush the new governor of Florida, they were releasing exit polling results showing that George W. Bush had a modest lead over Al Gore in what had to have been the first general election poll of the 2000 election cycle. If the outcomes of 1994 retarded Jeb Bush’s national ambitions, the outcomes of 2001-2008 may well have destroyed them. This poll is certianly notable for how far back from the remainder of the potential 2012 field Jeb Bush really is. Of course, it goes without saying that a poll in June of 2009 is not the final word on Election 2012. It is possible that three years will be a respectable interval for voters in the GOP to shed their Bush fatigue. If not, then Jeb Bush might be one of those rare figures in American politics: a politician that everyone targeted for political stardom, who never wound up running for president.

Read the original here:
The Greatest Victim of Bush Fatigue

Just out of curiosity and not as a matter of personal interest, do you think there’s any truth to reports in the news media that President Obama is unhappy with his vice president because of his outspoken nature and penchant for sticking his foot in his mouth? J. Biden, Wilmington, DE Dear Mr. Biden: As far as I can tell, there probably is some truth to such reports, but I wouldn’t worry about it as long as Dick Cheney is still around. Just out of curiosity and not as a matter of personal interest, do you think there’s any truth to reports in the news media that Colin Powell is unhappy with me because of some of the things I’ve said about him recently? R. Cheney, address withheld. Dear Mr. Cheney: I can’t imagine why Gen. Powell would be upset with you just because you said he has already left the Republican Party and you don’t know if he is still a Republican. Why don’t you invite him to go hunting with you? I can’t seem to convince people that I wasn’t briefed about the CIA’s harsh interrogation methods at Guantanamo, including such terrible things as waterboarding, when I was a member of the House Intelligence Committee. And now that I am Speaker of the House, the Republicans, and even some Democrats, think I wasn’t telling the truth. What do you think I should say? Nancy Pelosi, Washington DC Dear Madam Speaker: I would suggest you take your cue from what Franklin Roosevelt’s press secretary Steve Early said when he asked FDR what he should tell reporters about a controversial statement he had made in a speech in Pittsburgh. FDR said, “Steve, tell them I’ve never been in Pittsburgh.” I recently gave up a good job in the Senate to become secretary of State, which I enjoy very much. But my husband insists that I take him along whenever I represent the U.S. in my foreign travels. He seems to think that he knows more about my job than I do. Any ideas about how I can gently persuade him to back off? H. Clinton, Washington DC Dear Madam Secretary: Actually, your husband probably does know more about your job than you do, but maybe you could ask President Obama to appoint him as a special envoy to a country like Haiti, where he would never be heard from again. There have been a lot of different proposals about how we can rescue the banking and investment community and the automobile industry, but I haven’t heard anybody suggest a better way thanI have suggested, which is to spend three or four trillion dollars to bail them out. Do you think the American people will go along with this? T. Geithner, Washington DC Dear Mr. Geithner: I’m not an economist or financial expert, but I don’t think I would make Bernie Madoff the poster child for your plan for economic recovery. I am having some trouble adjusting to life in the Senate after running for president last year, and wonder if you have any suggestions about how I can get back in the groove, so to speak? Senator John McCain, R-Arizona Dear Senator McCain: Well, I guess you could begin by admitting that your choice of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska was a miscalculation the size of Mount McKinley. Ever since I said that Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s nominee as the first Hispanic member of the U.S. Supreme Court, should step down because she’s let her ethnicity and experience as a Latina influence her decisions as a judge, I’ve sensed that this is not going over well with most American. Do you think that I should back off? N. Gingrich, Washington DC Dear Mr. Gingrich: Well, as I told you after you shut down the federal government when you were Speaker of the House of Representatives in 1995, you might think twice before going on late night TV talk shows with a live snake wrapped around your neck. After reading about all the problems newspapers and magazine are having trying to survive these days, I’m concerned about the future of print journalism. Do you think Matt Drudge and Arianna Huffington represent the future of American journalism? A. Sulzberger Jr., New York NY Dear Mr. Sulzberger: I wouldn’t presume to advise you on how to compete in the Brave New World of the Internet, but I suggest you might want to think about changing your slogan of “All the News That’s Fit to Print.” I have some nuclear weapons I’m offering for sale in the hope that it will impress the world that my country is important. I wonder if there’s any market for them these days? K. Il Sung, Pyongyang, North Korea Dear Mr. Nut Case: Why don’t you ask the millions of your citizens who are starving if they would like to trade them for food?

See the original post: 
Al Eisele: Answering the mail from HuffPost readers

Via a tip from a user, Glenn Beck certainly thinks that mere video games influence behavior: But he doesn’t think that using the “news” as a platform for fearmongering day in, day out might cause unstable elements of society to presume they should take action based on his rantings and the other conservative rantings that so inundate the airwaves. At least, not if the fearmongering is done by Glenn Beck. This isn’t new, of course, and isn’t confined to Beck. Media influence on individual actions has been a talking point for twenty some odd years. Conservatives believe Spongebob Squarepants, the PBS show ‘Arthur’ and one of Teletubbies — you know, the gay pride one — can turn kids homosexual, and they so believed that Murphy Brown encouraged single motherhood that a American vice president condemned the fictional character by name. According to conservatives, everything on TV influences behavior, whether it’s promiscuity, violence, or thinking that an asexual cartoon sea creature is coming on to you. They think rap music causes violence, video games promote violence, and that Rachel Ray wearing a checkered scarf is a coded signal of terrorism’s insidious grip on the Food Network. But they don’t believe that “news reporters” constantly questioning whether the president is really loyal or not to this country might cause some people to take violent action against that president? Or that constant talk of the imminent overrun of America by “one worlders”, or government officials attempting to invoke sharia law, while supposing a simultaneous effort to confiscate guns might perhaps influence people to stockpile more guns and anticipate an imminent need to use them? N o, they’re not that stupid. They just pretend to be so that they don’t get called out on it irresponsible, conspiracy-theory-based fearmongering every damn second of the day, on every conceivable issue. Fox treats both news and government as if it’s one of those daytime talk shows where the only goal is to get a bunch of no-good, paranoid morons together and then piss them all off until someone throws a chair. That is why O’Reilly is a star: that’s why the Glenn Beck show exists . On the internet, rightwing bloggers both large and small expand upon the themes daily. People like Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly devote their days to talking about the supposedly un-American activities of liberals among us: one of their fans goes to a church and starts shooting people he believes to be liberals. People like Glenn Beck continually shout on-air about the supposed efforts of President Obama to surreptitiously take their guns: a unstable viewer starts shooting police officers that come to his house, and his friends cite his fear of the imminent “Obama gun ban” as one of the motivating factors. Fearmongering — being eager transmitters for whole hosts of the worst of right-wing conspiracy theories, so long as it brings in readers, viewers, or voters — is a prime function of the conservative movement, from Glenn Beck’s show to Sarah Palin rallies, from blogs to talk radio to the entire Fox News network. The language is deliberately panicked, exclusionary, and eliminationist, premised on constant, day-in-day-out assertions that liberals, Democrats, or others are not merely people of differing political opinions, but that they are less than American, are traitors to the country, or an imminent threat to the rights and freedoms of “true” patriots. It seems hardly an outrageous presumption that some among their listeners will internalize the message of President Obama as traitor, and non-conservatives as enemies… and then act upon those beliefs with violence, either planned or spontaneous. Given the expanding list of examples of just that, in fact, it seems a proven connection.

Here is the original post:
The Fearmongering Of The Right

Via a tip from a user, Glenn Beck certainly thinks that mere video games influence behavior: But he doesn’t think that using the “news” as a platform for fearmongering day in, day out might cause unstable elements of society to presume they should take action based on his rantings and the other conservative rantings that so inundate the airwaves. At least, not if the fearmongering is done by Glenn Beck. This isn’t new, of course, and isn’t confined to Beck. Media influence on individual actions has been a talking point for twenty some odd years. Conservatives believe Spongebob Squarepants, the PBS show ‘Arthur’ and one of Teletubbies — you know, the gay pride one — can turn kids homosexual, and they so believed that Murphy Brown encouraged single motherhood that a American vice president condemned the fictional character by name. According to conservatives, everything on TV influences behavior, whether it’s promiscuity, violence, or thinking that an asexual cartoon sea creature is coming on to you. They think rap music causes violence, video games promote violence, and that Rachel Ray wearing a checkered scarf is a coded signal of terrorism’s insidious grip on the Food Network. But they don’t believe that “news reporters” constantly questioning whether the president is really loyal or not to this country might cause some people to take violent action against that president? Or that constant talk of the imminent overrun of America by “one worlders”, or government officials attempting to invoke sharia law, while supposing a simultaneous effort to confiscate guns might perhaps influence people to stockpile more guns and anticipate an imminent need to use them? N o, they’re not that stupid. They just pretend to be so that they don’t get called out on it irresponsible, conspiracy-theory-based fearmongering every damn second of the day, on every conceivable issue. Fox treats both news and government as if it’s one of those daytime talk shows where the only goal is to get a bunch of no-good, paranoid morons together and then piss them all off until someone throws a chair. That is why O’Reilly is a star: that’s why the Glenn Beck show exists . On the internet, rightwing bloggers both large and small expand upon the themes daily. People like Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly devote their days to talking about the supposedly un-American activities of liberals among us: one of their fans goes to a church and starts shooting people he believes to be liberals. People like Glenn Beck continually shout on-air about the supposed efforts of President Obama to surreptitiously take their guns: a unstable viewer starts shooting police officers that come to his house, and his friends cite his fear of the imminent “Obama gun ban” as one of the motivating factors. Fearmongering — being eager transmitters for whole hosts of the worst of right-wing conspiracy theories, so long as it brings in readers, viewers, or voters — is a prime function of the conservative movement, from Glenn Beck’s show to Sarah Palin rallies, from blogs to talk radio to the entire Fox News network. The language is deliberately panicked, exclusionary, and eliminationist, premised on constant, day-in-day-out assertions that liberals, Democrats, or others are not merely people of differing political opinions, but that they are less than American, are traitors to the country, or an imminent threat to the rights and freedoms of “true” patriots. It seems hardly an outrageous presumption that some among their listeners will internalize the message of President Obama as traitor, and non-conservatives as enemies… and then act upon those beliefs with violence, either planned or spontaneous. Given the expanding list of examples of just that, in fact, it seems a proven connection.

Read the rest here: 
The Fearmongering Of The Right

They be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. The Holy Bible , Matthew Many of my readers have been wondering what happened to the leaders of the Republican Party since the election when the party took such a beating. Here with a report. The leader whose career has generated the most interest is, of course, Joe the Plumber. Many people thought Joe would complete whatever training he needed to become a licensed plumber. That was not to be. Unlike John McCain, who returned quietly to the United States Senate to continue his life as a senator, and Sarah Palin, who went back to Alaska to resume being a governor, Joe went in a brand new direction. He became a correspondent for Pajamas TV . His first assignment sent him to Israel, a position for which he was uniquely qualified. Before the 2008 election he had an extensive interview with Shepard Smith of Fox News in which he explained why a vote for Barack Obama was a vote for the “death of Israel.” The interview was lengthy and I’ll not try to synthesize Joe’s cogent explanation in a few hundred words. It was no surprise, however, to learn that because of his incisive analysis of Mr. Obama’s position he was hired by Pajamas and sent to Israel. A quick review of Pajama’s webpage gives an idea of the kind of in-depth reporting Joe did from there. Joe posted many stories including “what he thinks Israel’s response [to the proposed cease fire with Hamas] will be based on his conversations with regular Israelis”, and an analysis of “what the media should and should not do in time of war.” After completing his assignment in Israel he returned to Washington where, according to a posting on Pajama’s website, on February 5 he was asked to “investigate the stimulus package” proposed by Mr. Obama. On February 11 the site said he had a report wrapping up “his investigation of the stimulus bill for PJTV.” His next big assignment was to be part of the Conservative 2.0 Conference that was being held in conjunction with the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) 2009 convention that took place February 26-28. Joe was to participate in a panel entitled “Bias in Media and Education.” His appearance there was also listed in the CPAC agenda. Joe was not the only celebrity to be part of the CPAC meeting. Many of the failed presidential candidates from the 2008 election season were there to make their suggestions as to how to save the country from the plight into which George Bush had thrust it. Their main message was that whatever the new president was doing was wrong, ignoring the fact that the recent election suggests that much of the country thought everything they’d done during the preceding eight years was even more wrong. The main speaker was not, however, a failed candidate but an icon of the conservative movement and someone who said shortly after Mr. Obama’s inauguration “I want him to fail.” The speaker was none other than Rush Limbaugh. According to reports Mr. Limbaugh was slated to speak for an hour but because he had so much to say, he spoke for almost an hour and a half. Explaining what he meant by saying he wanted Obama to fail he explained that the president’s plans include “rampant government growth, wealth that is not being created yet . . . being spent” and it is that policy that he hopes will fail. It is clear what Joe’s future might be. He could be another Walter Cronkite. It is less clear what Rush Limbaugh’s future is. White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, observed that Mr. Limbaugh is the “voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party.” He pointed out that whenever a Republican criticized Rush, the critic found it necessary to “run back and apologize to him and say they were misunderstood.” Mr. Emanuel was probably thinking of Michael Steele, the new Republican National Committee chairman. Responding to CNN’s D.L. Hughley’s statement that Rush is the “de facto leader of the Republican party,” Mr. Steele said that the title belonged to him and went on to say that Rush is a “mere entertainer” whose show is “incendiary” and “ugly.” Using his golden microphone, Rush went on the attack the following day referring to Mr. Steele as a “so-called Republican” and saying the party needed a little leadership.” In response to Rush’s attack Mr. Steele retreated saying: “My intent was not to go after Rush-I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh. I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. . . . There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership.” Now that that we all agree he’s the leader we can move on. It’s not too early to focus on the upcoming presidential elections in 2012 and it’s certainly not too early to suggest that an ideal Republican ticket would be led by Rush Limbaugh with Joe the Plumber as his running mate.

Read the original here:
Christopher Brauchli: Rush and Joe — The Republican Party’s Future

I know that there are many Republicans out there, who think that Sarah Palin is a complete “whack job” (to quote a source in the McCain campaign). I know this because I just had dinner with one of them the other night. My impression was that she voted for Obama, almost out of desperation, because she wouldn’t be able to sleep at night knowing Sarah Palin was a heartbeat away from the presidency. I’m sure many of those people watched Governor Bobby Jindal’s response to Obama’s speech tonight hoping that there was, indeed, and up and coming young Republican that wasn’t….well….embarrassing. His underwhelming performance was more than a little bit “me me me” and quite devoid on actual policy. It was a pretty obvious opening act to his 2012 campaign. And, he didn’t mention veterans. And he mocked volcano preparedness (was that just to tick off the land of Palin?) And he tried to use Hurricaine Katrina as a Republican talking point, and that story may in fact be a lie. And he didn’t really exude sincerity either. OK, let’s face it. That speech was pretty damn bad. But these people are desperate for SOMEone. And he’s still a relief from the whiny, hand-wringing, gun totin’, winkin’, cookie bakin’, spotlight hoggin’ Wasilla gal with the crazy witch hunting pastor. You remember that guy, right? Pastor Muthee from Africa (which is a continent by the way, not a country) who came to fame and fortune by driving a witch, menacingly named “Mama Jane” from a village, after killing the demon in the form of a python she kept as a pet. The one who flew multiple times to Wasilla and prayed the witches away from Sarah Palin, while she stood at the altar with arms extended and palms toward heaven. Then he asked Wasillans to pray that God would take over the banks and the schools and the businesses and the minds of the little children, and of course, the government. Still don’t remember him? Here’s a reminder. 2:57 - First mention of Sarah 5:00 - We need God to ‘take over the education system.’ 5:27 - We need God to ‘take over the media’ and Hollywood itself. 6:08 - We need the government run by born-again Christians. 6:58 - Praying for Sarah to become governor (Doesn’t this impact their tax-exempt status? Anyone?) 7:12 - Sarah herself enters and is “prayed upon”. 8:38 - Another witchcraft reference. Doesn’t it seem even weirder now than it did back in October? So, yeah. Those Republicans I mention, are looking long and hard at Jindal. After last night’s performance, they may not be dancing in the streets, but at least he’s not the star of that video clip above. Not so fast, my disenchanted conservative friends. This came to my attention, and made me start to wonder what exactly is IN that red Kool-Aid? This has just got to make you wonder. Let’s wind the Bobby Jindal time machine back to 1994, when he wrote an article entitled…are you ready? Are you sitting down? “Beating a Demon: Physical Dimensions of Spiritual Warfare.” No, this was not some term paper for a creative writing class, or an abstract for Comparative World Religions or Cultural Anthropology. This was an actual true-to-life story; a personal narrative, if you will. Yup. Bobby Jindal - Demon Beater. Spiritual Warrior. Exorcist Extraordinaire. Who knew? Did he put this on his resume under “Skills and Talents”? The original article will cost you money to see at The New Oxford Review . But for those of you not wanting to part with your hard earned $1.50, here are some of the highlights. Some background first. Jindal’s best friend Susan has not been doing well. She’s been diagnosed with skin cancer, and her behavior has become strange and erratic. She is surrounded by “sulphurous smells,” and has come to a prayer meeting for help. Jindal writes: The students, led by Susan’s sister and Louise, a member of a charismatic church, engaged in loud and desperate prayers while holding Susan with one hand. Kneeling on the ground, my friends were chanting, “Satan, I command you to leave this woman.” Others exhorted all “demons to leave in the name of Christ.” It is no exaggeration to note the tears and sweat among those assembled. Susan lashed out at the assembled students with verbal assaults. Whenever I concentrated long enough to begin prayer, I felt some type of physical force distracting me. It was as if something was pushing down on my chest, making it very hard for me to breathe. . . Though I could find no cause for my chest pains, I was very scared of what was happening to me and Susan. I began to think that the demon would only attack me if I tried to pray or fight back; thus, I resigned myself to leaving it alone in an attempt to find peace for myself. It appeared as if we were observing a tremendous battle between the Susan we knew and loved and some strange evil force. But the momentum had shifted and we now sensed that victory was at hand.While Alice and Louise held Susan, her sister continued holding the Bible to her face. Almost taunting the evil spirit that had almost beaten us minutes before, the students dared Susan to read biblical passages. She choked on certain passages and could not finish the sentence “Jesus is Lord.” Over and over, she repeated “Jesus is L..L..LL,” often ending in profanities. In between her futile attempts, Susan pleaded with us to continue trying and often smiled between the grimaces that accompanied her readings of Scripture. Just as suddenly as she went into the trance, Susan suddenly reappeared and claimed “Jesus is Lord.” With an almost comical smile, Susan then looked up as if awakening from a deep sleep and asked, “Has something happened?” She did not remember any of the past few hours and was startled to find her friends breaking out in cheers and laughter, overwhelmed by sudden joy and relief. I leave you with this thought to ponder. Why are these two the new great hopes of the Republican Party; the shining stars; the young energetic faces of the GOP’s future? If this is the case, the best movie analogy may not be “The Exorcist”. It just might be “Night of the Living Dead.” Dems, just sit tight and don’t be corrupt. The world is yours.

See more here: 
AKMuckraker: Witches and Demons and Republicans….Oh My!

Gov. Bobby Jindal’s task tonight, to rebut President Obama’s first address to a joint session of Congress, was a thankless one. But it still constituted an opportunity for the Louisiana Republican to show that he could handle the national spotlight, present himself as a fresh face of the Republican Party, and stand up to the current president oratorically. On each of these three hurdles, he came up short. Both Democrats and Republicans alike panned Jindal’s rebuttal in terms that were decidedly harsh: “amateurish,” “laughable” and, most commonly, “a missed opportunity.” “After watching Jindal,” one Democratic strategist emailed, “I’d pay a lot of money to be back watching a Palin speech.” “Awkward with capital A,” emailed another. The punditry was equally brutal. Part of the problem was the crux of Jindal’s address, which consisted almost entirely of red meat for conservatives. The Governor offered criticism for anything other than tax cuts and ridiculed government spending for items that are either widely supported — “$8 billion for high-speed rail” — or seemingly essential — “$140 million for something called ‘volcano monitoring’” (isn’t Louisiana Exhibit A in the need for natural disaster warning?). “You know, I think Bobby Jindal is a very promising politician,” said New York Times columnist David Brooks, appearing on PBS, “and I oppose the stimulus because I thought it was poorly drafted. But to come up at this moment in history with a stale “government is the problem,” “we can’t trust the federal government” — it’s just a disaster for the Republican Party. The country is in a panic right now. They may not like the way the Democrats have passed the stimulus bill, but that idea … that government is going to have no role, the federal government has no role in this … it’s just a form of nihilism. It’s just not where the country is, it’s not where the future of the country is. There’s an intra-Republican debate.” And yet, much of the critique of Jindal’s address focused on his hokey, folksy, seemingly-forced tone and vernacular. The Governor, who has never held court on the national stage before — remember, his speech at the Republican convention was called off after Hurricane Gustav made landfall — showed a bit of wetness behind the ears. And the commentators let him have it, even on Fox News . BRIT HUME: “The speech read a lot better than it sounded. This was not Bobby Jindal’s greatest oratorical moment.” NINA EASTON: “The delivery was not exactly terrific.” CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: “Jindal didn’t have a chance. He follows Obama, who in making speeches, is in a league of his own. He’s in a Reagan-esque league. … [Jindal] tried the best he could.” JUAN WILLIAMS: “It came off as amateurish, and even the tempo in which he spoke was sing-songy. He was telling stories that seemed very simplistic and almost childish. All said, the speech was received with disappointment by conservatives who have looked to the Governor as the Republican Party’s next star. Jindal’s background and resume — he was raised by Indian-immigrant parents and has an undisputed intellect — seem, at least superficially, like key pillars upon which to forge a new kind of GOP candidacy. But other politicians have been panned for their State of the Union rebuttals in the past and managed to achieve national success, including Gov. Tim Kaine, who now heads the DNC, and Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who appears poised to be nominated Secretary of Health and Human Services.

View original here: 
Bobby Jindal Response Panned By Pundits, Republicans And Democrats Alike

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip — Israel rejected international pressure to suspend its air offensive against Palestinian militants whose rocket barrages are striking close to the Israeli heartland, sending warplanes Wednesday to demolish smuggling tunnels that are the lifeline of Gaza’s Islamic Hamas rulers. The diplomatic action was set in motion by the scale of destruction in Gaza since Israel unleashed its campaign Saturday, and a casualty toll that Gaza officials now put at 390 dead and some 1,600 wounded. Hamas says some 200 uniformed members of Hamas security forces have been killed, and the U.N. says at least 60 Palestinian civilians have died. Four Israelis have been killed by militant rocket fire, including three civilians. The chief of Israel’s internal security services, Yuval Diskin, told Cabinet ministers Wednesday that Hamas’ ability to rule had been “badly impaired.” Weapons development facilities have been “completely wiped out” and the network of smuggling tunnels has been badly damaged, a participant in the meeting quoted Diskin as saying. He spoke on condition of anonymity because the meeting was closed to the media. Overnight, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert discussed a 48-hour truce proposal floated by France with his foreign and defense ministers. The meeting ended with a decision to continue the punishing aerial campaign. “Giving Hamas a respite just to regroup, rearm is a mistake,” Olmert spokesman Mark Regev said. “The pressure on the Hamas military machine must continue.” Calls for an immediate cease-fire have also come from the United States, the European Union, the United Nations and Russia. President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice personally called leaders in the Middle East on Tuesday to press for a durable solution. Underlying the Israeli decision to keep fighting are the mightier weapons that Hamas has smuggled into Gaza through underground tunnels along the border with Egypt. Previously, militants had relied on crude homemade rockets that could fly just 12 miles to terrorize Israeli border communities. Now, they are firing industrial-grade weapons that have dramatically expanded their range and put more than one-tenth of Israel’s population in their sights. More than two dozens rockets and mortar shells were fired by mid-day Wednesday, including five that hit in and around the major southern Israeli city of Beersheba, 22 miles from Gaza. One hit an empty school. Another landed in a small farming community about 20 miles southeast of Tel Aviv. No serious casualties were reported. School was canceled in large swaths of Israel’s south because of the rocket threat. The 18,000 students at Ben-Gurion University in Beersheba, southern Israel’s only university, were also told to stay home. Early on Wednesday, Israeli aircraft pounded smuggling tunnels under the Gaza-Egypt border in another attempt to sever the lifeline that keeps Hamas in power by supplying weapons, food and fuel. Israel and Egypt blockaded Gaza after Hamas violently seized control of the territory in June 2007 and have cracked open their borders only to let in limited amounts of humanitarian aid. A huge explosion rocked a tunnel that housed a fuel pipeline and aircraft also smashed the house of a smuggling kingpin. In all, two tunnels were destroyed in the raid, Egyptian security officials in Rafah said. An Egyptian official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to speak to the media, said Israel has destroyed 120 tunnels since the aerial campaign began. According to conservative estimates, there were at least 200 tunnels before Israeli warplanes began striking. In Gaza City, powerful airstrikes sent high-rise apartment buildings swaying and showered streets with broken glass and pulverized concrete. The Israeli military said government buildings were hit, including an office of Gaza’s Hamas prime minister, Ismail Haniyeh. A Palestinian medic was killed and two others were wounded when an Israeli missile struck next to their ambulance east of Gaza City, Palestinians said. The Israeli military said it did not know of the incident. Israeli navy ships also fired at Hamas positions along the coastline. Diskin, the Israeli security services chief, said Hamas was trying to smuggle out some of its activists to Egypt through tunnels that were still passable. Other militants were hiding in Gaza hospitals, some disguised as doctors and nurses, and in mosques, where militants had set up command and control centers, Diskin said. Although Hamas leaders have been driven underground, spokesman Taher Nunu said the Gaza government was functioning and had met over the past few days. “What our people want is clear: an immediate stop to all kinds of aggression, the end of the siege by all means, the opening of all border crossings, and international guarantees that the occupation will not renew this terrorist war again,” Nunu said in a statement. Israel has been massing troops and armor along the Gaza border in an indication the air campaign could morph into a ground operation. The government approved a plan to call up an additional 2,500 reserve soldiers late Tuesday, following a decision earlier this week to authorize a call-up of 6,700 soldiers. The call-ups have yet to be carried out. In two phone calls to Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Monday and Tuesday, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner appealed to him to consider a truce to allow time for humanitarian relief supplies to enter Gaza, two senior officials in Barak’s office said. While rejecting the truce, Israel said it would allow 2,000 tons of food and medical supplies to enter Gaza on Wednesday, in addition to 4,000 tons the military says have been allowed in since the offensive began. Several dozen chronically ill Gazans have also been authorized to enter Israel for treatment Wednesday, the military said. The U.N. planned to resume food aid distribution on Thursday, after halting it two weeks ago because of shortages caused by the blockade. Most of Gaza’s 1.4 million residents rely on U.N. food handouts. Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni was to travel Thursday to Paris for talks with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who has put his growing international stature to use in other conflict zones, most recently to help halt fighting between Russia and Georgia in August. Kouchner said Wednesday he and Sarkozy are considering traveling to Israel next week. A Hamas spokesman said militants wouldn’t halt their rocket and mortar fire until Israel ended its blockade. “If they halt the aggression and the blockade, then Hamas will study these suggestions,” Mushir Masri said. Israel fears that opening crossings with Gaza would allow Hamas _ which remains officially committed to Israel’s destruction _ to strengthen its hold on the territory even further. ___ Associated Press Writer Matti Friedman reported from Jerusalem and Sarah El Deeb reported from Cairo.

Read the original here: 
Israel rejects truce call, attacks Gaza

There is something very ugly happening out there in the hinterlands these days–a brewing cauldron of racist anger being directed at President-elect Barack Obama as he and his family get ready to move into the White House. It’s a mean-spirited bigotry that is finding its way onto the internet and right-wing blogs across the country. It makes for a troubling portrait of a significant cross-section of the American polity as Obama prepares to take the oath of office as the 44th President of these United States. Nowhere have these tendencies been more out-front and prominent than at TeamSarah.org , a website organized by “a coalition of women dedicated to advancing the values that Sarah Palin represents in the political process.” Men, according to an exclamatory notice, are welcome, too. The web site is funded–and hosted–by the Susan B. Anthony List Candidate Fund Project , a national right-wing, pro-life Political Action Committee headed up by one Marjorie Dannenfelser, an ardent pro-life advocate. I know about Dannenfelser and the Susan B. Anthony group because earlier this year, the San Francisco Chronicle pitted Ms. Dannenfelser and me against each other in an op-ed page debate over the qualifications of Governor Palin to speak for families with special-needs children. Needless to say, Ms. Dannensfelser championed the activities of Governor Palin in this regard, while I did not . I have a special needs child and I find the idea of Palin speaking on my child’s behalf an absolute outrage. No friend of special needs families is she. So I was not surprised to find that the Anthony group was behind the Team Sarah web site. According to Ms. Dannenfelser “Team Sarah was formed to capitalize off the enthusiasm of the Palin Vice Presidential candidacy with the goal of reaching women voters and urging them to support John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin. Our goal was to win the Election. Several prominent women are involved with the project, including D.C. veteran Barbara Comstock, former First Lady candidate Jeri Thompson, FRC Action Vice President Connie Mackey, and actress Janine Turner , formerly (appropriately) of Northern Exposure .” Now they are carrying the banner of Palin for President in 2012. (According to their website, membership is 62,639 and counting.) Nor was I surprised when I went to the site to find all sorts pro-life and anti-abortion links, with lots of Christian hyperbole. There are also links to “Catholics for Sarah,” “Christians for Sarah,” and, of course, obligatory links to Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. There’s also a good amount of “clinging to our guns and our religion” in rhetoric that sounds straight out of the 17th century. You can even find out why so many people hate Sarah Palin–”Her husband is a masculine hottie ,” writes Dana. “Now I’m a straight guy, but I know when a guy is hott and Todd is hott. [sic] The left usually views masculine hotties as wife beaters who oppress their woman.” Okay. And you are correct to presume that spelling and grammar do not seem to be highly valued on the site. (And, because of that, all spelling from the site is left exactly as it appears.) There’s also an incessant whine about the left-wing media bashing Palin, especially on the Huffington Post . Says Ronald: “Most people (like the media) who try to make others believe that Sara is dumb and stupid or inexperienced actually fear her because of her faith and goodness.” So that’s it. But what’s interesting is that there are actually more blog topics about “Obama” than about “Palin.” Of course, Obama’s citizenship, birth certificate, and alleged Muslim upbringing are constantly questioned, along with his youthful drug use (though funny, Palin’s admitted use of marijuana is not, and we won’t even mention Levi Johnston’s mother). There are also a lot of references to Obama being the anti-Christ: “He is the antichrist sent here to destroy America. Nobody knows who he is or where he was born.” And then there’s some plain, downright nastiness and plenty of good ol’ fashioned racism that, well, certainly doesn’t sound Christian, if you catch my drift. When a blogger named James asks if anybody has bought the new Obama coins, SavantNoir responds: “[Y]es James, and i melted it down to see the look of agnoy on his face, made it a BB pellet and shot it into a pile of shit.” On one blog Heather describes Election Day as the “most terrible” in history and asks “how long until obama is shot??????” Josie responds: “There are plenty of people that would like to see Obama end that way.” Nice. Then there’s the “Obama the Snowman” song: Obama the Snowman Was a very scary soul With a marijuana pipe And two eyes made out of skoal Obama the Snowman Is a Kenyan they say He liked his white nose snow But the Americans know How he stole their country one day And guess what? It sounds exactly like the kind of racist remarks that were being sent recently on State of Alaska government emails . Under a post entitled “Police prepare for RIOTS,” by one BarbaraJo, one concerned blogger named Tommygun responded: “For people in urban/Obama areas–do this now: 1. Stock up on some basic supplies–food, health and hygiene, water, etc. 2. Keep track of where your family members are. 3. Work up meeting points in your community for your family (different spots in town where members are to go if problems occur). 4. Check and prepare any weapons you may have.” In response, a blogger named Johnny got more to the point: “Well niggers will occasionally chimp out like this, am I right?” While several Team Sarah members condemned that particular post, it’s remnants are still up on the web site. Then there’s the probing political analysis you can find on Team Sarah: “Funny thing, when voters are offered the chance, they always vote to ban gay marriage. What I really find hilarious though, is the gays supported Barry Obama in force. And yet, thanks to Barry’s “blackness” the negroes came out in force in California to vote for him! And negroes are pretty conventional when t comes to values. Most are rather conservative, which is why I can’t understand for the life of me why the vote for democrats.” There’s also a lot of Michelle Obama bashing, too, where she is often referred to as “Bitchelle.” Take this current thread: GaryP : This Obama worship has got to stop! Politico is now saying that since Michelle “gave up so much”, that she should get a salary as well! Biruta : She should be paid millions of counterfeit money, just as fake as her husband and as worthless as herself. AmericanDog: Pay her the sum of $1.oo and then tax her at the rate of 53 % to appease her husbands new tax plans. And she would still be over paid……. Ava M: I have never actually HATED anyone in politics before now….She is stupid, mean, power hungry, manipulative, corrupt, essentially ignorant–a poster girl for Institutionalized Black Racism and Agression, a take-no-prisoners warrior for Political Correctnes aka Socialist Realism and a racially driven Communist fellow traveller. Let her go run an African country. She doesn’t fit in here with the American People. Apparently, she, like her husband, isn’t one of us . Sound familiar? Then there was the musing about the Obama Inaugural, first reported in the Alaska Dispatch by its fine reporter, Amanda Coyne: Wendell : I just can’t wait to see the Inaugeral ball… I heard the Presidential Waltz will be replaced by Barack and Michelle “Crumpin”. tami : I am sure michelle will dance like a horse Wendell: followed by the new cabinet break dancing… Christopher: Not trying to get too racial, but I have never met a black woman who could not dance. tommykb3grz: the 4th of july watermellon roll on the south lawn Wendell: a 4-inch diameter Presidential Seal in gold hanging from Obama’s neck Surely, by now, you get the point. And just when you think you’ve seen it all, “Team Sarah” member Jarhead comes up with this: “Aside form Obama being an utter Moron I suppose he is a nice enough person. I personally put his happy little smile on every Terrorist face in Rainbow six [a video game], just before my cross hairs line up…” So much for Christian charity. As for Sarah Palin herself, she has yet to officially sign up for the web site, though she did send a note to the founders of the organization. “I received the packet of letters through Team Sarah and am inspired!,” she wrote. “Thank you for all you are doing for women, families, children… America!”

View post: 
Geoffrey Dunn: ‘Watermelon Roll’: More Racism from ‘Team Sarah’

Kathleen Parker, one of the first conservative writers to call foul on Sarah Palin as a VP pick, is back this time seizing up Caroline Kennedy in comparison to Palin. It is a legitimate question: Why is the resume-thin Caroline Kennedy being treated seriously as a prospective appointee to the U.S. Senate when the comparatively more-qualified Gov. Sarah Palin received such a harsh review?… …In Kennedy’s case, those actors would be senators, not heads of other, potentially belligerent, nations. If appointed, she would be a single vote among 100 and otherwise a placeholder until 2010, when she would have to run for election as any other. Parker helped turn a conservative tide against Palin during the election when she wrote “Palin Problem: She’s Out Of Her League” for The National Review . See and excerpt below: It was fun while it lasted. Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League. No one hates saying that more than I do. Like so many women, I’ve been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I’ve also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted.

Excerpt from: 
Kathleen Parker: Caroline Kennedy Is No Sarah Palin

Apparently Chicago was getting a little too big for its britches about their favorite son and it got a big old biotch slap. First Oprah announced that she literally had gotten too big for her britches. She admitted - and what tacky person asked? - that she has hit the double centenary pound mark. I’m sorry you feel so bad about it, Oprah, and for health’s sake you probably should try to shed a few pounds, but heck you are one big beautiful black woman, so don’t get all shamey, do what you can and look gorgeous in the meantime. It might be karma for that wheel barrel of fat you had carted out on stage a while back. Then Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, with the very slim resume, got carted off for allegedly trying to sell Barrack Obama’s vacant Senate seat. It’s not like it’s never been done before, but you have to admire this guy’s level of transparency. Rod married Chicago alderman Dick Mell’s potty-mouthed daughter and rose to governor on a reform plank. Like the reform-minded guv from Alaska he got bored with the job and sought a national platform. There are no transcripts of Palin trying to sell Sen. Ted Steven’s old seat. Yet. Though we face huge state deficits, I hope my New York Governor Patterson doesn’t try to sell off Hillary Clinton’s senate seat. And who knew being governor was such a giant yawn? The “expletive laced” transcripts made young Rod sound like he was off his meds. The subpoenaed Team of Rovals linked the scandal to Barack Obama, Tony Rezko and maybe Boss Tweed. With audacity of hype FOX news denounced the pay-to-play demands of the governor and wanted off with his bleeping bushy head. Meantime the slobbying, mendacious GOP sees “ethics” as their mantra for the next election. Gag me with a forklift. It is sad that selling vacant senate seats is seen as a viable revenue stream in this economy. Desperate times. While America shopped, our unregulated capital markets turned into ponzi scum and high stakes poker parlors. Desperate measures. The damage continues to trickle down and very good, decent, hardworking people, who shower before and after work, are being hammered. Ironically gay and straight are equal in the great leveling juggernaut of this recession. The LGBT community is reeling. Individual memberships, donations and corporate funding have dried up and LGBT groups are cutting staff or going under. The Day Without Gay is real and it’s here and threatens to turn into weeks and months. Now more than ever it’s time for our own version of pay-to-play. In whatever year-end giving we can afford we need to support our LGBT centers and organizations, local, state, national and international. We also need to support straight organizations run by courageous out LGBT leaders. We need to lean on our straight allies to pay up with us. It’s time for some Pay-to-Gay.

See more here: 
Kate Clinton: It’s Pay-to-Gay Time

WASHINGTON — Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said Wednesday she would consider serving in the Senate if God gave her the opportunity and Alaskans wanted her to take the job. The state’s senior senator, Republican Ted Stevens, fell behind as the count resumed in his re-election bid. Stevens, who has been in the Senate for 40 years, led by more than 3,000 votes when the Election Day count ended last week. He dropped 814 votes behind his Democratic challenger, Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich, early Thursday as Alaska election officials began tabulating an estimated 90,000 absentee and provisional ballots. Tens of thousands of ballots remained to be counted. Even if he is re-elected, Stevens could be ousted by the Senate for his conviction on seven felony counts of failing to report more than $250,000 in gifts, mostly renovations on his home. If Stevens loses his seat, Palin could run for it in a special election. She also could challenge incumbent GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski in 2010. Palin, who was the GOP vice presidential nominee, has two years left on her term as governor. She told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Wednesday that she wants to serve her constituents the best she can. “At this point it is as governor,” she said. “Now if something shifted dramatically and if it were, if it were acknowledged up there that I could be put to better use for my state in the U.S. Senate, I would certainly consider that but that would take a special election and everything else,” she said. “I am not one to appoint myself or a member of my family to take the place of any vacancy.” Pressed in a separate interview with CNN’s Larry King about whether she would serve out her term as governor, Palin said, “I will do what the people of Alaska want me to do.” She added, however, “if they call an audible on me, and if they say they want me in another position, I’m going to do it. … My life is in God’s hands. If he’s got doors open for me, that I believe are in our state’s best interest, the nation’s best interest, I’m going to go through those doors.” While she was on the GOP ticket, Palin put aside questions about Stevens’ Senate seat.

See the original post here:
Palin Leaves Door Open For Senate Run

UPDATED on November 13 at 1:29 AM EST: The gap has now widened to 814 votes between Mark Begich and Ted Stevens in the Alaska Senate race: Republican Sen. Ted Stevens, the titan of Alaska politics convicted of felony charges last month, fell behind by more than 800 votes Wednesday as the count resumed in his re-election bid. Democrat Mark Begich, the two-term mayor of Anchorage, began the day down more than 3,200 votes but went up by 814 as officials resumed their counting of early and absentee ballots. The tally was 132,196 to 131,382. Neither side was claiming victory or conceding defeat, with tens of thousands of outstanding ballots. “I’ve always said that this would be a close race,” Begich said in a statement. “I’m confident that Alaskans, like the rest of the country, want a new direction in Washington, and ultimately that will be reflected in the results.” Stevens’ campaign did not immediately return a call seeking comment. And those neck-and-neck Senate races get even closer. The three Senate races that will determine whether the Democrats gain that coveted 60-seat majority are still deadlocked - by the slimmest of margins from 3 votes in Alaska to 200 votes in Minnesota and a tense runoff in Georgia. In Alaska, per the Associated Press : Republican Sen. Ted Stevens, a titan of Alaska politics convicted of felony charges last month, fell behind by three votes Wednesday as the count resumed in his re-election bid. Democrat Mark Begich, the two-term mayor of Anchorage, began Wednesday down more than 3,200 votes but closed the gap as officials resumed counting early and absentee ballots. The tally was 125,019 to 125,016. Neither side expected to be able to claim victory Wednesday. By late afternoon, officials had counted more than 44,000 of the roughly 90,000 outstanding ballots. In Minnesota, where the recount will stretch into mid-December , per the Associated Press : After the two candidates spent nearly $40 million combined - most of it on ads tarring the other - Coleman leads by about 200 votes out of almost 3 million cast. An automatic recount is to start next week. “This is an extraordinarily close and bitterly fought election, and both candidates have reason to think that they may have won,” said Kathryn Pearson, a political scientist at the University of Minnesota. “They’re not going to let the final stage of this go down without a fight as well.” In Georgia, per the Wall Street Journal : In Georgia, Mr. Martin, a former state legislator, stunned political observers by forcing the runoff with Sen. Chambliss, whose seat not long ago was considered safe. The incumbent had a $12 million war chest that dwarfed the $3 million raised by Mr. Martin. The combination of anti-Republican sentiment and Sen. Chambliss’s lethargic early campaigning and support for the $700 billion Wall Street bailout changed the dynamics of the race. Final results haven’t been certified, but the latest tally released by election officials showed Sen. Chambliss with 49.8% of the vote to Mr. Martin’s 46.8%. Libertarian candidate Allen Buckley received 3.4% and won’t be in the runoff, which is scheduled for Dec. 2. He hasn’t endorsed either of the other candidates. Sen. John McCain is scheduled to join Sen. Chambliss at a rally Thursday in Atlanta, and Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is scheduled to campaign for Sen. Chambliss on Sunday. A Chambliss spokeswoman said the campaign hopes to get several other big-name Republicans to visit the state, such as Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

Continued here:
Neck And Neck: Senate Races Deadlocked

ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Republican Sen. Ted Stevens, a titan of Alaska politics convicted of felony charges last month, fell behind by three votes Wednesday as the count resumed in his re-election bid. Democrat Mark Begich, the two-term mayor of Anchorage, began Wednesday down more than 3,200 votes but closed the gap as officials resumed counting early and absentee ballots. The tally was 125,019 to 125,016. Neither side expected to be able to claim victory Wednesday. By late afternoon, officials had counted more than 44,000 of the roughly 90,000 outstanding ballots. “Right now we’re cautiously optimistic,” said Bethany Lesser, spokeswoman for the state Democratic Party. “There’s obviously more votes to come in, but it goes to show how hard we worked to get the vote out early and how important that was.” Stevens’ campaign did not immediately return a call seeking comment. Last month, a federal jury in Washington convicted Stevens of lying on Senate disclosure forms to conceal more than $250,000 in gifts and home renovations from an oil field services company. That might have spelled quick political doom for a lesser figure, but the 84-year-old Stevens is revered here for his decades of public service _ and especially for scoring the state enormous sums of federal money. Begich would be the first Democrat to win a Senate race in Alaska since the mid-1970s and a win would put his party one step closer to a filibuster-proof 60-vote majority in the Senate. Democrats are also trying to unseat Republicans in unresolved contests in Georgia and Minnesota. Fellow senators have called on Stevens to resign, and he could face expulsion if he doesn’t _ in which case a special election would be held to determine his replacement. Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, fresh from her failed run at the vice presidency, said Wednesday she’d be interested in serving in the Senate. Should the result remain close a recount is possible. In Alaska, the losing candidate or a collection of 10 voters has three days to petition for a recount unless the vote was a tie, in which case it would be automatic. If the difference between the candidates is 0.5 percent of the total votes cast, the state pays for the recount, to be started within three days of the recount petition. The state Elections Division has 10 days to complete the recount. ___ Associated Press writer Andrew Taylor in Washington contributed to this report.

See the original post here: 
Stevens Trailing By 3 Votes In Alaska Senate Race

WASHINGTON — Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said Wednesday she would consider serving in the Senate if God gave her the opportunity and Alaskans wanted her to take the job. The state’s senior senator, Republican Ted Stevens, held a dwindling lead as the count resumed in his re-election bid. Stevens, who has been in the Senate for 40 years, led by just over 3,000 votes when the Election Day count ended last week. His lead narrowed to less than 1,000 votes Wednesday as Alaska election officials counted the first 28,000 of an estimated 90,000 absentee and provisional ballots. Even if he is re-elected, Stevens could be ousted by the Senate for his conviction on seven felony counts of failing to report more than $250,000 in gifts, mostly renovations on his home. If Stevens loses his seat, Palin could run for it in a special election. She also could challenge incumbent GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski in 2010. Palin, who was the GOP vice presidential nominee, has two years left on her term as governor. She told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Wednesday that she wants to serve her constituents the best she can. “At this point it is as governor,” she said. “Now if something shifted dramatically and if it were, if it were acknowledged up there that I could be put to better use for my state in the U.S. Senate, I would certainly consider that but that would take a special election and everything else,” she said. “I am not one to appoint myself or a member of my family to take the place of any vacancy.” Pressed in a separate interview with CNN’s Larry King about whether she would serve out her term as governor, Palin said, “I will do what the people of Alaska want me to do.” She added, however, “if they call an audible on me, and if they say they want me in another position, I’m going to do it. … My life is in God’s hands. If he’s got doors open for me, that I believe are in our state’s best interest, the nation’s best interest, I’m going to go through those doors.” While she was on the GOP ticket, Palin put aside questions about Stevens’ Senate seat.

More:
Palin Back In The Lower 48, Leaves Door Open for Possible Senate Run

Sen. John McCain is scheduled to visit Georgia on Thursday to campaign for GOP Sen. Saxby Chambliss, and Sarah Palin may not be far behind. Mitt Romney on Tuesday gave $5,000 to Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman as he monitors a statewide recount. And the counting of absentee and mail-in ballots resumes today in Alaska. The campaign isn’t over yet in three Senate races, and the stakes are high: If Democrats win them all, they could secure a majority large enough to steamroll over Republican objections to their agenda.

Original post:
McCain To Hit Campaign Trail For Senate Races

Welcome to the 2008 Presidential Election post-season. And now for the All-Star Honors. It was a wild ride, shaped by all manner of unprecedented outcomes, unruly dynamics, and unexpected faces. What follows is the most sensational all-star election team in history. As expected, most of the spots went to the winning team. Most Valuable Player The 2008 Election MVP is #44, the 6′3″ left-hander from Hawaii. On his resume: raised more money than any campaign in history ($700M+); inspired 15M new or lapsed voters; singlehandedly ignited a tidal wave of global optimism; redefined modern campaigning with the Internet; defeated not one but several titanic opponents (Clinton, McCain) — and, oh yeah, overcame gi-normous historical barriers. The 44th President of the United States did all this without breaking a sweat. Not bad for someone with “no experience.” The Runner Up Never mind the naysayers: this man won’t stay down. Since Y2K alone, the Mac suffered a heartbreaking primary defeat, resuscitated himself within his party to launch a second presidential bid, lost his frontrunner status (and a good chunk of change), then rose from the ashes to snatch the GOP nomination. And for all the criticism, the former Navy pilot came within an economic meltdown of the 2008 Winner’s Cup. His incredibly gracious concession speech proves that the fundamentals of the man are strong. McCain returns to the Senate with a Goldwater-esque opportunity to transform himself from defeated presidential candidate to honored elder statesman. FIRST TEAM The Risk Takers JFK won a Pulitzer for his Profiles in Courage. 239,000 Iowans get an All-Star nod for theirs. On January 3, Iowa’s Democratic caucus-goers (most of them women) defied conventional wisdom and gave Obama a decisive victory in the primary’s opening round. Long before 65M other Americans joined in the chorus, residents of the Tall Corn State said, “Yes, We Can!” And when these mavericks of the Midwest embraced the half Kenyan son of a Kansan for the presidency, the whole world sat up and took notice. Lest history forget, we’ll always owe a debt of gratitude to the Hawkeye State for helping a young Harvard grad fell one of history’s great barriers. The Launcher Months before the bailout gave them something better to do, economists at the University of Maryland tried to quantify Oprah’s impact on Obama’s primary win. We may never know how the Queen of Talk altered the race for the Prince of Change. But what’s perfectly clear is this: the first major foray into politics by arguably the world’s most trusted face gave Obama incredible media coverage less than a month before Iowa. It also lent him a sparkle that ultimately drew voters, celebrities and leaders to his side. Our president wouldn’t be president if he hadn’t won Iowa. And make no mistake about it: Barack Hussein Obama wouldn’t have won Iowa without Oprah’s unusual and effective backing. “The chosen one,” as Lady O called him, was in small part chosen by her. The Wright Words No presidential campaign would be complete without (at least) one epic setback: Reagan (Iowa loss), Dukakis (Willie Horton), Clinton #1 (New Hampshire), Bush #2 (the recount), etc. This March, Reverend Wright was the fire that threatened to burn up Obama’s candidacy. As “God damn America!” ran 24/7 on cable and the Internet, Obama’s prospects in Pennsylvania, Ohio and elsewhere seemed to melt away. Then came the second great American speech of the 21st century (a certain 2004 DNC speech was the first). Obama’s March 18th address on race at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia reset the campaign narrative — and media coverage with it. With the boil subsided, North Carolina and Indiana primary voters (just barely) cauterized the campaign’s wound and let the healing begin. The A Team Into the company of Lee Atwater, James Carville, and Karl Rove enters a chief campaign strategist for the ages. Don’t let the throwback comb-over fool you: the most forward-thinking man in politics may well be David Axelrod. His record is impeccable: a 2004 Senate victory, terrific pre-campaign positioning inside and outside the Senate, the Iowa victory, February’s 11-state primary run, debate prep, campaign commercials and more. But along with what’s been called a “flawless” campaign strategy, Axelrod’s true genius was allowing other all-stars to do what they did best. From well-known names like Tom Daschle and David Plouffe to behind-the-scenes smarty-pants like Valerie Jarrett (key adviser) and Robert Gibbs (communications director)–Obama’s team was loaded down with talent. Like Chicago Bulls coach Phil Jackson did with Michael Jordan and Dennis Rodman in the 90s, Axelrod allowed multiple stars to shine at once. No easy feat. Just ask the McCain aides currently leaking Palin dirt to the press. The Meltdown Gas prices didn’t do it. McCain’s age didn’t do it. Iraq, the budget deficit, Sarah Palin’s interview with Katie Couric didn’t come close. It was the economic meltdown–and the contrasting reactions of McCain (suspend my campaign) and Obama (a President must multi-task)–that ultimately broke open this election. As the economy melted at warp-speed through early October, Obama secured a steady lead in the polls–a lead he never lost. Second Team The Game-Changer Any honest observer will agree (without smirking) to the following: that without the 44-year-old chief executive of the nation’s largest state, the McCain campaign would have been DOA after the RNC. Yes, Governor Palin was a poorly vetted and flawed choice. But she changed the game entirely. In the first 48 hours after Palin’s convention debut, the Obama campaign might have delegitimized her on the basis of her Alaska corruption controversies and pregnant daughter. They didn’t. And so for the next 30 days, Sarah the Barracuda gave the McCain campaign new life, new energy and new vitality. Call her what you will: the winking woman from Wasilla helped keep America interested in the most significant presidential race in history. The Rainmaker If money is the mother’s milk of American politics, the Obama campaign built the biggest dairy machine in American history. Like her candidate, Penny Pritzker (Obama’s National Finance Chair) is by no means a Washington insider. The 49-year-old scion of the Hyatt Hotel fortune got behind Illinois’ favorite son long before it was the “in” thing to do. Pritzker’s millions not only helped Obama out-organize Clinton in February but funded important counter-ads during the “cling-to-their-guns” and Jeremiah Wright fiascos of the spring. During the final push, Pritzer’s money machine allowed Obama to run 2-3 times more commercials than McCain in key battleground states including the “new blue” states (see Honorable Mentions below). The Benedictor Next to Oprah’s, Caroline Kennedy’s rare and poignant endorsement was the second most important of the campaign. Kennedy’s January 27th piece in the New York Times (”A President Like My Father”) draped the full weight, glory and elegance of Camelot around Obama’s shoulders–positioning him as this generation’s JFK. While Obama went on to lose the Massachusetts primary to Senator Clinton a few days later, Kennedy’s endorsement (along with her uncle Teddy’s) elevated the Illinois Senator to a different level in the minds of millions, giving him a gravitas and a sparkle he never lost. The Joker What’s tougher than a pit bull in lipstick? Turns out, a comedienne pretending to be a pit bull in lipstick. Sarah Palin survived the bad press and botched interviews, but Tina Fey’s dead-on impressions ultimately killed the candidate’s approval numbers. From early September to Election Day, Saturday Night Live’s leading lady did side-splitting impressions of Alaska’s Governor. By Halloween Palin’s unfavorable ratings were up almost 20%, and 59% of registered voters felt she wasn’t qualified to be President. Sure, the Couric and Gibson interviews diminished the public’s view of Palin. But Fey was the real impact player here. No comic has had such an effect on presidential politics since Chevy Chase reshaped public opinion of incumbent President Gerald Ford in 1975-76 with his hilarious impersonations of a bumbling chief executive. The Webmaster Chris Hughes was in high school less than ten years ago. Maybe that’s why he ran such a kickass digital operation. The openly gay North Carolina native co-founded Facebook with his Harvard roommates–then walked away from millions in stock options to lead Obama’s digital team. The result? The most transcendent victory in global democratic history. The role of the Internet in Obama’s success is now the stuff of legend. The little-website-that-could raised money ($700M+), organized volunteers (1M+), turned out voters (65M+), countered false rumors, and inspired billions at home and abroad. All under the guidance of a 24-year-old digital chief bringing his unique understanding of the web’s viral nature to the world of presidential politics. ^5! The Tone-Setter Rachel Maddow, Elisabeth Hasselbeck, Keith Olbermann and Sean Hannity all burnished their stars during this election season. But quiet as it’s kept, Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC’s Hardball, had as big an impact on this election as any talking head. From his Clinton critiques during the primary to his “thrill going up my leg” comment about the race speech, his contempt for McCain’s election tactics to his blunt pronouncements on the debates and the conventions–Matthews truly shaped political insider coverage of the campaign. To be sure, Hardball draws far fewer viewers than Maddow or Olbermann (just under 1M vs. their 2M). But Matthews was must-see-TV for political insiders, bloggers and media types, meaning his hard-hitting comments reverberated far throughout the campaign. The Arbiter This spring, when a trailing but gaining Hillary Clinton challenged the nomination rules by looking for a new way to determine the Democratic Party’s nominee, Nancy Pelosi firmly pronounced that the party’s nomination principles should remain “the same.” Noting that the super delegates should not overturn the will of the elected delegates, the Speaker of the House frustrated Clintonites and helped assure Obama’s path to the nomination. The Challenger It’s counterintuitive, I know. But Senator Clinton’s refusal to go quietly into that good night may have helped Obama usher in his new day. How? (1) Because the primary continued two months longer than needed, the race reached key battleground states in the spring, prompting 1M more voters to register in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio. (2) The increased media coverage that came with the extended primary–local newspaper profiles, TV stories, appearances on The View and other shows–allowed more Americans to “get comfortable” with Obama. (3) Clinton tested Obama on his toughest general election challenge: could he secure enough typically Democratic working class white voters? By identifying that elephant in the room early, the country and the media had more time to address it than had it been raised in Willie Horton-like fashion near the end of a general election. So before we drub Senator Clinton for overstaying her welcome, let’s remember that she may have (indirectly) helped usher Obama into her old digs. Honorable Mentions 1. Florida Governor Charlie Crist Who helped McCain wrap up the nomination with a critical primary endorsement 2. MoveOn.org The influential liberal political organization that rallied to Obama during the primaries and kept the liberal base motivated through Election Day 3. Wil.i.am Whose online video, “Yes We Can,” energized young Obama voters at a critical point 4. Nate Silver The outstanding quantitative analysis who shaped the media discussion of the race 5. African-American Voters Who provided almost 1 of 5 of Obama’s general election votes 6. Indiana & The “New Blues” NC, NM, NV, CO, OH, IN

Here is the original:
Carlos Watson: The All-Star Election Team, 2008

Education

Undergraduate

Graduate

Organizing and other work experience

Teaching

Law Practice

Illinois Senate 1996-2004

Sponsored Bill Statistics

United States Senate 2004-present

Bills / Amendments Passed

Other Bills Introduced