IMPALIN’ — Stop Sarah Palin for President in 2012

NEW YORK — Put Angelina Jolie’s face on a magazine cover and sales will surely rise. Get her to write a memoir and it would be worth millions. But write a book about her, without her cooperation, and you’re taking a chance. Coming a week after the release of her latest film, “Salt,” a biography has been published. “Angelina,” by Andrew Morton, is out with an announced first printing of 150,000 copies and the promise of a “spellbinding” adventure. Openly billed as “Unauthorized,” the book includes intimate details on her troubled childhood, on such past lovers as Billy Bob Thornton and Timothy Hutton and, of course, her years with Brad Pitt. Morton has a strong commercial history, but better when he works with a subject’s involvement (Princess Diana, Monica Lewinsky) than without (Tom Cruise, Madonna). In the age of the Internet, the unauthorized biography has been increasingly scooped by instant, endless online gossip. “Sales of tell-all celebrity biographies have been negatively impacted by the information that is available on the Internet or in print,” says Patricia Bostelman, vice president of marketing for Barnes & Noble Inc. “The Morton book is also competing with all the press Jolie has been getting around the launch of `Salt,’ in which she is deliberately staying on message about her life with Brad and the kids. The audience for the book has often read all the key revelations prior to publication.” “There is much more competition from the tabloids and the Internet, so you have to go beyond the day-to-day gossip,” says Morton’s editor, Hope Dellon of St. Martin’s Press. “It’s got to go deeper than that. It’s got to have some fresh insight and revelations, and we think Andrew’s book does.” The Jolie book tells of her strained relationship with her father, actor Jon Voight; her cultish bond with Thornton and her ever-growing family with Pitt. Identified sources include a childhood caretaker, an alleged former drug dealer and a close friend of Jolie’s mother, the late Marcheline Bertrand, whom Dellon believes is given a fresh and thorough take in Morton’s book. Unnamed friends and associates are cited for allegations that Jolie fought with co-star Winona Ryder on the set of “Girl, Interrupted,” or had been intrigued by Pitt long before they became involved. A critique of Pitt’s ex-wife, Jennifer Aniston, was offered by “a psychologist who has met with Jennifer socially,” while insights on Pitt-Jolie were provided by a “psychologist in the Brad, Angie and Jennifer circle,” and “an observer with an inside track on the couple.” “It’s a dilemma, because there are people working in Hollywood who if we used their names would have every door closed on them,” Dellon says. “We make sure that what they say seems plausible and they seem to know what they’re talking about.” The unauthorized celebrity book was defined and mastered by Kitty Kelley, who in the 1980s and 1990s had million sellers in hardcover alone with biographies of Frank Sinatra and Nancy Reagan. Her latest, “Oprah,” was a hit by most standards, but not for Kelley, who herself has said that the Internet endangers her kind of book. “Oprah” has sold just 115,000 copies so far, according to Nielsen BookScan, which tracks around 70-75 percent of sales. “The sales of `Oprah’ were well below our expectations,” Bostelman said, adding that the book was still a best seller. Beyond Kelley, there is a core of writers taking on familiar celebrities, including C. David Heymann (the Kennedys) and Edward Klein (Katie Couric, Hillary Clinton). But the market is so tough now that not even the death of Michael Jackson could expand it. Only a couple of Jackson biographies, briefly, were best sellers, among them Ian Halperin’s “Unmasked” and J. Randy Taraborrelli’s “Michael Jackson,” an updated edition of an older book. “Everyone was on overload,” says Taraborrelli’s publisher, Jamie Raab of Grand Central Publishing. “We put out the one book because it was essentially already written. By the time a new one would have come, people would have been satiated. There were many proposals floating around and we passed on them.” The celebrity books most likely to sell are those written by (or at least involving) the celebrities themselves. Chelsea Handler, Tori Spelling and Mackenzie Phillips are among those with recent hits. While some memoirs flop, such as Sarah Silverman’s, more celebrities keep getting signed up. A month after Silverman’s book came out, Demi Moore reached a seven-figure deal with the same publisher, HarperCollins. “There is a distinction between biographies and celebrity memoirs,” Bostelman says. “Celebrity memoirs seem to be gaining sales depending on the strength of the author’s platform and fan base.” “A lot of those books don’t work, but some work extremely well,” says Raab, who published Jon Stewart’s best-selling “America (The Book)” and has another Stewart work, “The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Presents Earth (The Book),” scheduled for the fall. “The ones that work are the ones written by celebrities who actually want to write a book and have something to say. Jon Stewart has worked very hard on his books and that clearly makes a difference. It’s his work and he’s committed to it.” More on Angelina Jolie

See the rest here: 
Angelina Jolie Book And Other Celebrity Bios Take A Hit From Internet Gossip

A Conversation With Indigo Girls Mike Ragogna : Your new live album Staring Down The Brilliant Dream is presented like a book. Is it supposed to imply the album’s like a journal? Emily Saliers : Well, it’s supposed to be opened and held like a book. It has chapters, 35 songs, and it’s fabulous. In this day of ordering online, it’s really nice to hold something that’s really beautiful in your hands, listen to the music, and appreciate that part of it. They’re songs that were recorded from live shows between 2006 to 2009. Brian Speiser recorded them, and Amy and I went through a slew of them and decided we wanted to put an album out. The tracks sounded so good that we decided well, let’s put out a double live album. MR : How did you decide on the tracklist? Amy Ray : For me, the criteria first was what sounded good because we were listening for what felt good, what sounded good, and then after that, it was kind of a lot of different criteria. If we had four different versions, it was which one felt the best, or if we should put the band on it, or if should we do it as a duo. There were so many choices to be made, and we just had some priorities. The first priority was it had to feel good and be sort of unique and special. Then we just tried to kind of spread things out amongst which record’s songs came from because we wanted to represent different records and different parts of our lives, and a career that had happened over those three years of recording. The last live record we made was 15 years ago, so we tried to often get songs that we had been doing since that point live. We kind of whittled it down as we would get to 100, and then get to 50, and then we ended up mixing about 37, picking from that. ES : It was really a process of listening to the tracks. We did want to find some more obscure songs or ones that were not, well, “Closer To Fine.” I was surprised that we even chose that one. But we chose that one because Jill Hennessy and Michelle Malone sang with us on that one. Michelle was an old friend. We have known her forever and she’s a great artist. Jill Hennessy we had just met a couple of days before. I knew she was an actress, but didn’t know she was a singer. So, that just captured a very special moment. We didn’t go in to it having any preconceived thoughts about what tracks would happen. We just knew we had some special moments that probably were going to be go to songs like “Don’t Think Twice” that we sang with Brandi Carlile. She is one of our favorite artists, and then “Wild Horses” we sang with Michelle Malone. We’ve been doing that song for close to two decades with her, so those were just special songs. We wanted to get a good number of band songs on the record. It was a very special band. MR : I was lucky enough to interview Brandi for Huffington Post a while back. What a great artist. AR : She’s a great artist. She really is. And another favorite for us is Justin Vernon from the band Bon Iver. We are a huge fan, and we just took a shot in the dark and said, “Do you want to come play a few shows?” and it turned out that he was a big fan and he wanted to. So, we did about a week of shows, and they were really fun. We got to watch him play and see how he does his thing. We played for about a week with Justin opening for us, and I got to talk to him about recording and see how he does his thing. For me and Emily, those are the things that kind of energize us and keep us going. Lilith Fair was also another great time for us. MR : Are there any concerts that you remember to this day as being unusually outstanding? ES : Many. Maybe too many to mention. The great thing about putting this live record together is that it allowed us to revisit many of those live concerts together. Amy and I poured over countless songs and concerts and picked certain ones that not only were recordings that came out great, but that really captured what happened that night. On all of those songs, we actually listed the places where they were and our memories of that night. AR : I think both of us measure our experiences by who we were playing with or who we were collaborating with. A long time ago, there was a moment in our career when we said, “We can’t believe we’re here opening for The Grateful Dead…it’s so historical!” Then we opened for R.E.M a lot at the beginning. That was another one of those things where we will never forget what that felt like, and I think, most recently, we did a lot of touring with Brandi Carlile. She started out opening for us and now she’s co-headlining. It’s been great to watch her career and it’s been great. It was really exciting the first time we sang together because we were like, “Wow, this really works and it was really fun.” It was a collaboration that we knew could continue for a long time. MR : Were there any recordings that didn’t make the cut because of space? ES : In terms of ones that really stick out that aren’t on the record? We were opening for The Grateful Dead in Eugene, Oregon, we played with Joan Baez early on, The Bottom Line in New York, and the Lilith Fair and Lilith tours–I was just a fan, sitting by the side of a stage watching these incredible women perform. Playing Central Park in the summer is incredible. There are lots of memories from New York. Playing Radio City Music Hall, my pants legs were shaking I was so nervous. Those are all memorable concerts, really, there are so many because our fans are amazing. We’ve been doing this for 30 years now, since High School. There are lots of great memories because our fans are incredible and every night is a good night, honestly. MR : When you go onstage, it seems like you improvise your set list, like anything can happen. ES : Honestly, we are a bar band. Before we got signed and before we put our first record on a major label, we were a bar band. We played clubs and had our friends in the audience who were musicians and were totally Mötley Crëw. We would invite them up on stage and had that spontaneity, so we were never a band that had a slick set list. Every night, we would change the set list and also allow room for requests from fans. If we could make it work with the set list, then we would put it in so that’s the spirit of the Indigo Girls. It’s what we captured on this record. MR : Were you tempted to take this live collection further back, like all the way to the Back On The Bus, Y’all period? ES : This is meant to be a collection of songs that people haven’t heard yet. The only other live thing we put out was 1200 Curfews which our fans really liked. People refer to that record a lot, so all these years later, we haven’t really put out all that much live material except stuff which has been recorded by people’s phones or whatever. We’re all for that. So, we just decided it was time to put out a live disc of songs that have never been heard before except by those people who have been at the concerts. MR : There was a synergy between Lilith Fair and Indigo Girls that brought a lot of attention to the group. Do you remember what it was like going from having a small, loyal following to having your huge fan base? ES : Well, we have had an interesting trajectory because when our record from Epic first came out, it sold really well and got some notoriety, and it was very exciting. We went from being a bar band to being signed to a major label and having a pretty successful first record, so that was all cool. We sort of leveled out as careers often do, and then Lilith was a total shot in the arm for us professionally and personally and was a great experience. So, it was an opportunity to mix with people like Sheryl Crow, the Dixie Chicks, Sarah McLachlan, and Chrissy Hynde, who are amazing artists. So, that really introduced us to a larger audience. Plus, it was just so much fun. It was one of the pinnacles of our career. MR : Indigo Girls is an act that is very associated with the original Lilith Fair, one of the highlights, right? AR : (Laughs) Oh I don’t know. We’ve knocked down a lot of doors and said, “Come sing with us or let’s collaborate on something,” and I guess that’s just how we are and how we were brought up. Our music scene is all about collaboration, and if you have festivals, part of the point of them is to enjoy playing with each other. It’s kind of how we saw Lilith, and a little bit of that started happening. I don’t know if it might have happened anyway, if we weren’t there with those tours. A lot of the same artists would be together for a few weeks, and at some point, you start really knowing each other and wanting to play together, and we hurried that process along I guess. MR : And, of course, Lilith Fair really created an awareness of women in music. ES : Well, at that time, there were naysayers, and, you know, there is no way women can sell this many tickets. There was a lot of sexism in the industry at the time. Lilith had this joyous “yes we can” feeling and it was a great tour. MR : Do you feel like there’s been some evolution since the days Lilith fair began? AR : Yeah, in some ways. And in some ways it’s a mixed bag. MR : This project ends with the Indigo Girls’ version of “Wild Horses” that is almost spiritual. ES : “Wild Horses” was such a classic song. Probably one of the best songs ever written, and we grew up with Michelle Malone who is from Atlanta. We have played shows with her and have been friends forever and ever, and we just started playing that song together. We don’t play a lot of cover songs, but there are a handful that we have just come to call our own over the years like “Midnight Train to Georgia” and “Don’t Think Twice its Alright.” “Wild Horses” was one of them as well. When we were going over the tracks we came across that version and just loved it. It was a part of our history, and it came out really well. We really love it and the performance. So, we decided it should go on there. MR : Who are some of your favorite acoustic acts? AR : There is so much independent music right now that you get exposed to, and for me, as far as acoustic music goes, I like Lindsay Fuller. I like Amelia Curran who I think is in Nova Scotia right now, and she’s a great songwriter. And Brandi Carlile, of course. I think she is sort of one of the best voices of our generation, and could be considered the Patsy Cline of our time I think. MR : It’s a Brandi fan club. Nice. AR : It’s very exciting that on every level, there are a lot of great artists. When you get into bands, there are The Gossip and Thea K who I really think is such a visionary and really amazing. The group Men which is another alternative band. There are so many great artists that cross between different genres, if you’re just going to talk about woman artists, there is a lot of diversity and a lot of great woman artists. Those who are getting exposure in a main stream way, that’s a whole different story; but I don’t know how important the main stream is anymore. It’s a very complicated question now because things are so broken apart in the major label world. It’s hard, I think, for woman to access radio and big print media, and really get the shot at playing Bonnaroo or some of the bigger festivals. You are still not getting those opportunities, especially in rock. That’s got to change. When that changes, I will feel like we’re really making some headway. MR : What’s your advice for new acts? AR : The Internet’s pretty important. I think the tools are changing constantly. Social networking–whether it be Twitter, Facebook, or YouTube video; some way of having a presence on the Internet and keeping up with that. It’s a lot of work, so I think you need to pick. You need to sort of choose your areas and focus on those so you’re not killing yourself and killing your creativity while you’re spending all your time doing that. It’s a pretty important thing. For me, I feel that, in any genre of music, it sort of about songwriting, unless you’re like a pure pop image where what’s more important is maybe videos and imaging and stuff. If you’re an artist that’s not about that, live performances are still really important if you want to have a long career. It’s got to be more than just Internet. It’s got to be something where people feel that they can build a community around you that’s visceral, that they can relate to you, and I don’t think you can do that unless you can go out and play live. So, that’s where my emphasis would be if I were a new artist. I think that it’s hard because there are a lot of artists that are trying to get shows, and it’s hard to get gigs sometimes. But you have to invent them. You have to do house concerts or play at this or that party and do whatever it takes to get started and start building a community around you. MR : It seems like live shows always have been where you truly bond, where you become “family” with the band. AR : I think you’re right. I think it’s so important. I think even Internet community stuff plays on that because people feel like they’ve discovered something on YouTube or whatever, and they spread it virally and it creates this kind of relationship that is sort of intimate. But I think it can only go so far. There has to be that other level where you see that person play. (transcribed by Erika Richards & Theo Shier) Tracks : Disc One 1. Heartache For Everyone 2. Closer To Fine 3. Go 4. Come On Home 5. Devotion 6. Cold Beer And Remote Control 7. Moment Of Forgiveness 8. Fill It Up Again 9. Sugar Tongue 10. Fly Away 11. Ozilline 12. Don’t Think Twice, It’s All Right 13. Kid Fears 14. Watershed 15. Shame On You Disc Two 1. Get Out The Map 2. Salty South 3. The Wood Song 4. Three County Highway 5. Digging For Your Dream 6. Rock And Roll Heaven’s Gate 7. Believe In Love 8. Fugitive 9. Cordova 10. What Are You Like 11. Second Time Around 12. Love Of Our Lives 13. Become You 14. Prince Of Darkness 15. Tether 16. Wild Horses A Conversation With Sugarland’s Kristian Bush Mike Ragogna : So, what are you up to these days? Kristian Bush : Well, we are in the middle of a tour. We just finished the first leg of the Lilith Tour and the Lilith Fair, and we are about to go and finish out the rest of the year with the headlining tour. MR : The headlining tour is called the Incredible Machine tour? KB : Yes it is. MR : And that’s based on your new album coming out in October called The Incredible Machine ? KB : There you go. That’s right. MR : You have a new single called “Stuck Like Glue.” What was your inspiration for that? KB : Interestingly, whenever you are making an album–and I don’t know really what the percentages are–the last two or three songs that you write for the record, many times, end up being the singles. It’s fascinating to me that that happens. I think “Pour Some Sugar On Me” was that way, and was the last one that they put on the record. It’s strange but it feels like you get the sense of the whole piece of art that you are making. Then the last two or three songs are so well-focused because you kind of know where and what part of your talent and your heart you’re digging at. MR : You’re a Grammy winning act, and you’ve had a lot of number one records. By this point, a lot of acts are falling into a routine and writing the same things over and over again, yet Sugarland’s music seems to be progressing. Are you conscious of that as you make your records, that this is still an evolving process? KB : Yes. This will be our fourth record together. There are so many people who haven’t heard our music or don’t even know what we do. I am in Los Angeles right now, and I was out watching fireworks where people had no idea who I was or what I do. Then you play 20 questions and I say, “Yeah, I am in a band called Sugarland,” and they go, “Cool. Is it a good band?” You can’t assume that anyone knows your job or what you do. It was really fun to meet them, but in that same moment, well, as an artist, you hope that you’re always growing all the time, and we have been really lucky with the career that we’ve had. Our band has become excited about what we are going to do next. MR : Speaking of that, you have this YouTube weekend review. Can you describe what that is? KB : Things are happening at such a rapid pace right now. We are out on tour in support of a record that hasn’t even been released yet which is a little bit backwards. Traditionally in the ’70s or in the early ’80s, people used to go out and do the tour and then release the record and then tour again. We wanted to make sure that because we were not going to be able to get everywhere we wanted to get to before the album came out, we wanted everyone to kind of participate in it. To tune in and see the different kind of things that are going on during a tour. A lot of folks are saying that during the touring season this year, there are not a lot of folks coming out, and I don’t know if we are just extremely lucky or if everyone who turns out just happens to be Sugarland fans. But our shows are packed. I am so excited about it. MR : The music paradigm has changed so much, you absolutely have to go think beyond physical products. KB : I have to say it does feel a little like it’s anyone’s game to figure out how to sell records. I have to applaud our manager and record company for embracing this idea. It was our manager’s idea. We were talking about the days when we used to go into the music store and look at the dry erase board with the upcoming record release dates in anticipation. There were even days I would stay up until midnight just to get the album. I still remember those days and there was a certain amount of excitement about that. And how did you get excited about that? Our manager was saying, “You know, the record business is not broken. It’s actually alive. The thing that is different is that it doesn’t feel like there is that excitement anymore before an album comes out.” So, that was the inspiration for playing the songs live and touring the album. We started asking people to pull out their phones, and start taking videos and upload on YouTube and share it with each other, get excited about the album. When you’re at a show, it’s really obvious that the audience is the show. The audience is a part of our show and is a part of our record, so they should be involved. We are excited because we’ve heard the music and can’t wait for it to be released. I can’t wait for fans who have been listening to Incredible Machine for four months, hear the recording of it. It’s one of the most beautiful recordings that I have ever done. I am so proud as a producer and a musician, and as an artist and writer. MR : To what do you attribute the huge success of Sugarland? KB : It’s a combination of every other band’s kind of answer to that question. It’s one part really great luck, another part is it takes a whole lot of work to be lucky. You have to stay on it every day. You have to practice. It’s where opportunity and talent meet. It isn’t just being good, it’s somebody giving you the shot at being on TV or giving you the shot when they loved that song on the radio and you are asked for another one. There are a lot of great, great songs, and a lot of great bands, singers, and producers in this world. They may make one or two great things. But to do four, five, six or seven…that’s when you are into the upper echelons, really trying to hone your craft and work hard every day at doing this. This business is really aggressive, and they only want to know what have you done for them lately. MR : What is your advice for new bands that are just starting out right now. KB : Here is a great example. We were just at Lilith Fair, and in the parking lot, there were a bunch of stages as well as the main stage. There was a stage in the parking lot, and there was a band on that stage called Grace Potter and the Nocturnals. A dear friend of mine who I trust said you have to catch Grace Potter. So, I go up and I walk up in the middle of the crowd full of women and watch and these guys light it up. Just killed it on a stage with a generator and a tent with people selling Luna Bars. And I sat and thought about this for days. I didn’t miss a single set of theirs, and I invited them to dinner and I now have a new band crush. I sat down and talked to them and their journey through this. It was going to be different than what my journey was for a lot of reasons. The music business they are in is six or seven years down the road from the business I started in. Even with just the fans. Go one person at a time. This is the advice I would give any band. Go up on stage, play your heart out, and work hard. Work hard at making great songs, and then go perform them because people will believe you when they see you play these things, when they see you sweat them. (transcribed by Erika Richards)

Read the original:
Mike Ragogna: Brilliant Dreams: Conversations with Indigo Girls and Sugarland’s Kristian Bush

As summer keeps rolling along, we make it to the middle of another busy week. This week, perhaps, busier than most, as Congress steams towards a summer break, and most of us are still unpacking from NN10. Some highlights for this Wednesday: Rasmussen is apparently no longer able to prop up the train wreck that is the Sharron Angle for Senate campaign. One Democratic incumbent apparently isn’t afraid to release internal polling (probably because it is really good news for said incumbent). Even as the DCCC widens their defensive posture, they also look ready to play some offense. Find out where the DCCC sees an opportunity to carve into the GOP territory. All that (and more!) in this midweek edition of the Wrap… THE U.S. SENATE NH-Sen: Ayotte big primary lead, shrinking general election lead The endorsement of “mama grizzly” Sarah Palin might be a total albatross around the neck of state Attorney General Kelly Ayotte, but there is one place it is paying huge dividends: the Republican Primary . Ayotte now has a commanding lead in the GOP primary, scheduled to be held on September 14th. Ayotte leads with 47% of the vote, well ahead of also-rans Bill Binnie (14%), Ovide Lamontagne (8%) and Jim Bender (6%). Meanwhile, a second pollster confirms PPP’s finding that Kelly Ayotte’s once solid lead over Democrat Paul Hodes is dissipating. The WMUR poll , conducted by the University of New Hampshire, finds that Ayotte’s lead over Hodes has been cut almost in half. Ayotte still leads (45-37), but that is a far cry from the fifteen-point edge that UNH had her staked to as recently as April. Hodes also trails free-spending businessman Bill Binnie (41-38), but now leads both Jim Bender (39-36) and Ovide Lamontagne (42-36). This poll, like the PPP poll earlier in the week, shows a sharp change in the favorabilities for Ayotte. At an exceptionally good 38/13 favorability spread just three months ago, Ayotte now finds herself at a 36/27 spread in her favorabilities. NY-Sen: Gillibrand maintains solid edge in Senate race Over time, there has been virtually no movement in the Empire State, as freshman Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand continues to easily lead her Republican challengers. Such is the finding of a new Quinnipiac poll , which has the Democrat staked to 20+ point leads over either prospective GOP contender. She leads Bruce Blakeman by a 48-27 margin, and enjoys a slightly wider edge against David Malpass (49-24). Part of what continues to propel Gillibrand is the fact that her challengers remain essentially unknown. Indeed, in the GOP primary to select Gillibrand’s opponent, more than two-thirds of Republicans remain undecided (Blakeman leads 19-11 among the handful of voters who have gotten off the fence). WI-Sen: A real reason for Johnson’s dithering on the BP stock? Followers of the Wrap know that we have been keeping an eye on the on again/off again vacillations of GOP Senate candidate Ron Johnson, who owns a heaping helping of BP stock and has been pressured to dump it. Some of the time, Johnson says he will put it into a blind trust. Other times, he says he’ll sell it to finance his campaign (the ads write themselves, don’t they?). Still other times, he implies that he’ll just hold onto it. Now, we might have a better explanation for why he is not sticking with a single plan: Monday at a luncheon for Wispolitics, he said he was basing his decision to sell on “market conditions.” In other words, if he dumps BP stock at any point in the campaign, it will not be based on any moral decisions not to yield financial gain from the scandal-ridden company, nor will it be in an expression of protest for what BP has wrought to the Gulf Coast. It will be because he can make the most money to funnel into his campaign. Touching. THE U.S. HOUSE CO-04: Is imploded Gubernatorial race Markey’s salvation? An interesting take today from Kasie Hunt over at Politico , who wonders aloud if Tom Tancredo’s gubernatorial bid, still in its infancy, could be a death blow to the fortunes of GOP House contender Cory Gardner. It so happens that the party welcoming Tancredo into the fold (the American Constitution Party) already has a candidate running in the 4th district, farmer Doug Aden. Aden is a old-school John Bircher, and any exposure to the American Constitution Party could have some downstream benefit for Aden, which could make all the difference in a close race. IN-03: Open seat race in NE Indiana no contest, according to GOP poll In 2006, Democrat Tom Hayhurst came shockingly close to knocking off longtime Republican incumbent Mark Souder in the heavily-GOP 3rd district of Indiana. If a new internal poll by American Viewpoint for state Senator Marlin Stutzman is to be believed, the open seat race will not be nearly as competitive . Stutzman is claiming a two-to-one lead over Hayhurst (56-29), according to the survey. The open seat election was created when Souder resigned in the wake of the revelations that he had enjoyed an extramarital affair with a female staffer. KY-03: Yarmuth internal claims enormous Democratic lead While it seems inevitable that several freshman and sophomore Democrats from the wave elections of 2006 and 2008 are in deep trouble, one who is apparently not imperiled is Louisville Democrat John Yarmuth. According to an internal poll from Cooper and Secrest, Yarmuth has a twenty-six point edge (58-32) over Republican Todd Lally. Yarmuth’s district is certainly the bluest in Kentucky, but was held by Republican Anne Northup from 1996-2006. NH-02: Sparks fly in competitive Dem primary In one of the few truly competitive Democratic primaries remaining on the primary election calendar, Orange-to-Blue candidate Ann McLane Kuster is taking dead aim at rival (and Lieberman admirer) Katrina Swett over the issue of the Bush tax cuts. At issue is Swett’s statement that she would have voted against the tax cuts, which flies in the face of her history of support for the cuts, which dates back to 2002. PA-06: Is Gerlach safer than usual in swing 6th district? Actions sometimes speak louder than words, so Democrats have to be wondering about the rather startling degree of confidence which perpetually embattled GOP incumbent Jim Gerlach is showing. Gerlach is sending money along to the NRCC to the tune of roughly $100K over the course of the cycle. He is also touting internal polling numbers from Wilson Research showing him with a two-to-one edge (54-29) over Democratic challenger Manan Trivedi. The polling numbers, in particular, are a bit hard to believe, given that Gerlach survived by only two points in 2008 against a dramatically outfunded and outgunned Democratic challenger that received little national assistance. RACE FOR THE HOUSE: The DCCC ad buys continue to pile up In addition to the sixty or so districts that had already been identified as locations where the DCCC would be reserving advertising time, the D-Trip added another twenty seats to the shopping list. The good news for fans of an aggressive Democratic campaign is the fact that a half-dozen of those districts are Republican-held seats where the DCCC is planning on playing some offense. This includes three open seats (DE-AL, FL-25, and IL-10), as well as a trio of GOP incumbents (Djou in HI-01, Cao in LA-02, and Dent in PA-15). There are also a couple of defensive buys that might make folks a bit concerned, as they are seats that no one necessarily thought of as pure toss-ups. Fitting that bill are incumbent Kurt Schrader (OR-05) as well as the open seat in MA-10, where Bill Delahunt is retiring. THE GUBERNATORIAL RACES GA-Gov: Deal the subject of federal grand jury investigation? This is the kind of thing that has a funny tendency to blow up successful election ventures: the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported late last night that a federal grand jury sought both documents and interviews related to the business practices of former Congressman (and current GOP gubernatorial candidate) Nathan Deal. Deal, you will recall, got into ethics problems in the final days of his House career by possibly using his power as a Congressman to preserve an obscure government program that was filling the coffers of his private auto-salvage business to the tune of over a quarter of a million dollars per year. He resigned from the House (obstensibly to focus on his gubernatorial bid) before the ethics committee could complete their investigation of him. MI-Gov: New EPIC-MRA poll confirms Bernero primary surge With less than a week to go until primary day, it looks like the late surge by Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero is legit. A new poll out today from respected local pollsters EPIC-MRA puts Bernero at an eight-point lead over state House Speaker Andy Dillon. As might be expected, the pollster notes that Bernero, almost universally considered to be the more progressive of the two candidates, is moving into a solid advantage with core Democratic constituencies. NY-Gov: Cuomo (still) lapping the field, according to Q Poll Quinnipiac is the latest pollster to confirm one of the most stubborn trends of the 2010 cycle, as they are about the 40th straight poll to put Democratic gubernatorial candidate Andrew Cuomo at roughly a two-to-one advantage over the pair of Republicans trying to claim the seat. The Q poll puts Cuomo up 56-26 over former GOP Congressman Rick Lazio, and gives Cuomo an equivalent 55-25 lead over businessman Carl Paladino. As for which Republican will earn the right to get smacked around by Cuomo, Lazio has a sixteen point lead (39-23) over Paladino. This represents a tightening of the race for Paladino, who trailed by 29 points one month ago. THE RAS-A-POLL-OOZA How dark a day it must be for conservatives when even their most favored pollster abandons them. Even the House of Ras cannot prop up the featherweight candidacy of Sharron Angle, nor can they market a Mark Kirk surge in the wake of the beating he has taken in the press over the last few months. They can’t even keep Ron Wyden under 50% anymore, it would seem. That’s OK, hard core righties, the House of Ras hasn’t totally abandoned you. You still have Alabama… AL-Gov: Robert Bentley (R) 55%, Ron Sparks (D) 35% IL-Sen: Alexi Giannoulias (D) 43%, Mark Kirk (R) 41% NV-Sen: Sen. Harry Reid (D) 45%, Sharron Angle (R) 43% OR-Sen: Sen. Ron Wyden (D) 51%, Jim Huffman (R) 35%

Here is the original:
Polling and Political Wrap, 7/28/10

You’ve probably seen Gary Shteyngart in the news lately. That’s because his new novel, “Super Sad True Love Story,” just came out yesterday from Random House. The Huffington Post recently sat down for lemonade with Shteyngart, who is Russian, who told us about the likelihood of Sarah Palin being able to see Russia from her house/ getting elected to the Oval Office. Check back for more Shteyngart videos throughout the week! WATCH: More on Sarah Palin

More here: 
Gary Shteyngart On Sarah Palin And ‘Super Sad True Love Story’ (VIDEO)

PPP returns to New Hampshire for the first time since April. Public Policy Polling (PDF). 7/23-25. Voters. MoE 3.26%. ( 4/17-15 results) Kelly Ayotte (R) 45% (47) Paul Hodes (D) 42% (40) Bill Binnie (R) 46% (46) Paul Hodes (D) 41% (41) Jim Bender (R) 42% (40) Paul Hodes (D) 43% (43) Ovide Lamontagne (R) 38% (38) Paul Hodes (D) 43% (43) In short, the head-to-heads between Paul Hodes and Bill Binnie and Ovide Lamontagne have held steady, Hodes has lost a little ground against Jim Bender, and he’s gained ground against frontrunner Kelly Ayotte. The change against Ayotte is the significant piece here. Significant because she’s the frontrunner by a large margin , but most significant because this is the first time a poll has the gap between Ayotte and Hodes under seven points in nearly a year. As Tom Jensen notes , “There’s not much doubt that the shift in the race is all about Ayotte.” While Hodes’ net favorability has improved slightly (from 32% favorable/39% unfavorable to 35/40), Ayotte’s net favorability has plummeted from 34/24 to 36/39. In particular, Hodes has opened up a massive lead among moderates. What’s the explanation? Ayotte’s problems with the FRM ponzi scheme may have had some effect. But PPP’s Jensen points to Sarah Palin. Palin endorsed Ayotte last week, highlighting Ayotte’s anti-abortion stance. Not only is New Hampshire a solidly pro-choice state, but 51% of voters in the state say they’re less likely to back a Palin endorsed candidate to only 26% who say that support would make them more inclined to vote for someone. Among moderates that widens to 65% who say a Palin endorsement would turn them off to 14% who it would make more supportive. This is Ayotte’s first major sign of vulnerability. Will it be the opening wedge that Hodes uses to break the race open, or will it be another opportunity that slips away?

View post: 
NH-Sen: PPP finds tightening race

In the weeks following its mid-May release, I found myself, in public and print, issuing wrong-headed disclaimers and qualifications about my novel, The Bradbury Report . I was worried that my concept, cloning (a relatively ‘high’ concept), might subsume everything else, i.e. the more important stuff, I meant to do in the book. I expressed concern that the word ‘cloning’ used in any way connected to my novel - this was, of course, inevitable - would mark it, misleadingly, as science fiction. I said that before the moment of the book’s conception, I’d had no special interest in the issue of human cloning, that I knew pretty much only what every reasonably sentient non-expert might know. I was at great pains to point out I was neither scientist nor trained ethicist, and that my interest in human cloning was a novelist’s interest. In my mind and heart, The Bradbury Report remains, first, a story about doomed love(s). But it would be disingenuous and disloyal to deny that, willy or nilly, by virtue of its most conspicuous subject, my novel, in the ways a novel can, engages, participates in, the debate about human cloning. I see my own diffidence, post-publication, and I am dismayed. In any tolerably enlightened discussion of human cloning, a hopeful distinction now is made between therapeutic and reproductive cloning, with virtually all the current ethical and political debate about the former. Therapeutic cloning entails the production of, or the use of already existing, human embryos, from which are harvested stem cells for use in research on, and potentially in, the treatment of disease. When it is perfected, reproductive cloning will be used to create a human “copy” with essentially the identical DNA as its human “original.” My novel proceeds on the assumption that human reproductive cloning will not only soon be possible (may, indeed, already be possible), but, precisely because it will be possible, and because it could be used to satisfy a range of perceived needs, and because of the enormous profit for any entity that could satisfy those needs, reproductive cloning is inevitable. George W. Bush is well known to be opposed to both therapeutic and reproductive cloning. Barack Obama, a few days after his inauguration, lifted Bush’s interdiction on therapeutic cloning, but categorically ruled out reproductive cloning, calling it “dangerous” and “profoundly wrong,” asserting that it “has no place in our society or any society.” The international community is divided on the subject of therapeutic cloning, but in broad, if not universal agreement about reproductive cloning. (In The Bradbury Report, the United States, which, for good or ill, is not unused to standing alone on difficult issues, is alone among civilized nations in sanctioning reproductive cloning.) In my novel the clones are harvested for spare parts, an inarguably obscene and arguably unlikely future. It is reassuring, I’d add naive, to think that progress made in stem cell research on the prevention and treatment of disease will render superfluous, unwanted, all further work in reproductive cloning. My guess - notwithstanding the version of the future I posit in The Bradbury Report - is that it will not, finally, be medical need that drives us to clone human beings. Here’s a sample of what might be offered you, for a fee, by your local practitioner: Narcissism run amuck - You could have yourself cloned, and raise yourself from birth. You could do this more than once. Your clone, when he came of age, could have himself cloned And so on. Multiple demi-generations of you. Perpetuation not of your line, but of your self. Positive eugenics - You could have and raise as your child - according to what you prize most, to the cast and measure of your vanity - Brad Pitt and/or Angelina Jolie; Kobe Bryant and/or Derek Jeter and/or O.J. Simpson; Barack Obama and/or George W. Bush and/or Sarah Palin; Phillip Roth and/or Don DeLillo or, if you were strapped for funds, me. Any combination of the above. So could your neighbors. When you have a choice, why not get the very best child? Why want the child you get, when you can get the child you want? Death, thou shalt die - You could replace loved ones who are deceased, or otherwise unrecognizable. You could have and raise the identical twin of your dead child. You could have and raise from infancy your dead father or mother or spouse, or anyone else whose loss you grieve. It is neither, I think, alarmist nor too soon to expand the debate. It is not too soon to ask: What form or forms will the practice of human reproductive cloning take? What purposes will it serve; what needs will it satisfy? To what degree will it be regulated, and by whom? What will the ramifications be? For us ‘originals?’ For the clones? For the self? For the family? For society? For the species (because it is asexual reproduction, cloning subverts diversity)? For what we might one day mean when we talk about love? It is about love, amidst the ruins of human cloning, that in The Bradbury Report I am most interested.

The rest is here: 
Steven Polansky: The Subject is Cloning

The Wrap is being written, for what it is worth, by a guy wearing a parka at the moment. Because…seriously…when you have languished in 108-degree heat for five days, 75 degrees feels downright frosty . Here is hoping that everyone has made it home from Netroots Nation 2010 in Vegas safely and happily. And for those who haven’t had their political fill in the wake of that wondrous event, there is quite a bit to peruse in the Monday edition of the Wrap…. THE U.S. SENATE IN-Sen: Indiana Dems tweak Coats for lobbyist past While the Wrap will not cover every new ad that gets launched this cycle, I am enough of a sucker for parody ads that this one made the cut . The Indiana Democratic Party gives a good-natured smack to Republican nominee Dan Coats (a former Senator and lobbyist) by going through his lobbying greatest hits by riffing off of the famous “priceless” MasterCard commercials. Worth a watch, to be sure. KS-Sen: Moran’s former campaign head kisses Tiahrt, tells on Moran Paul Moore used to be the campaign manager for Senate candidate Jerry Moran. He has now endorsed Moran’s opponent, Congressman Todd Tiahrt. That, in itself, is interesting. But it gets more interesting when you see what Moore is saying about Moran. Moore complains in an AP article that Moran “winced” at being referred to as a conservative, fearful of alienating pro-choice moderates in a state whose rivalry between mods and cons is the stuff of legend. That is probably not the story Moran wants to see with eight days remaining in his primary. LA-Sen: Vitter internal claims enormous primary edge The Vitter/NRSC internal poll giving him a big lead over Charlie Melancon was posted on the Wrap this weekend, but SSP’s Crisitunity caught another data point of note in that internal. The poll gives Vitter a dominant edge in the Republican primary: Vitter polls at 76%, with former judge Chet Traylor at 5% and former Indie House candidate Nick Accardo at 2%. NH-Sen: Palin becoming Paul Hodes’ best asset, according to PPP Tom Jensen from PPP is a master poll-tease. Today, he hinted at the results his crew will release tomorrow in the New Hampshire Senate race. From the looks of things, the Sarah Palin endorsement of Attorney General Kelly Ayotte had divergent impacts on the landscape in the Granite State. Jensen teases that the tip of the cap from Mama Grizzly has made Ayotte more popular than ever among GOP primary voters, but less popular than ever among the general electorate. Expect Ayotte’s edge over Hodes to be smaller than ever when the poll is released tomorrow. SC-Sen: Alvin Greene…Superstar This is a pretty unbelievable statistic : according to Yahoo’s Michael Calderone, the candidate who received more media coverage than any other 2010 candidate is…Alvin Greene, the accidental Senate nominee from South Carolina. Greene tops the chart, followed by Nikki Haley, Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina. In fairness to the American press, however, this study by Pew only included media coverage from June 8th (the primary day for South Carolina) through July 18th. WI-Sen: Ron Johnson hates the President, loves BP Two separate news items from the weekend paint a pretty ugly picture of likely GOP Senate nominee Ron Johnson. The first one came during the weekend, when Johnson sat mute while a campaign town hall guest ripped President Obama as a “criminal” and an “American-hater.” When asked if he agreed with that sentiment, Johnson stammered a bit, saying “I am not going to argue with…arm wrestle you about it.” On Monday, Johnson revealed something he can stand for–profitting from BP. After saying two weeks ago he was going to dump his BP stock, Johnson is now saying that he has not made a final decision . Either way, he is a pretty bad guy. Either he sells the stock and pays for his campaign with BP’s blood on his hands, or he keeps the stocks and advocates on their behalf, because he personally stands to gain from their success. THE U.S. HOUSE MN-06: Clark claims major endorsement for general election Law enforcement will apparently have the back of Democratic House contender (and NN10 attendee) Tarryl Clark. The MPPOA, the largest police union in the state, has endorsed Clark over incumbent Republican Michele Bachmann. The union has endorsed Republicans in the past (including Norm Coleman in 2008), but has never endorsed Bachmann in her three bids for the House. NE-02: Terry told to keep partying ways to a minimum This is delicious, especially for a candidate in the Heartland. Both Roll Call and the New York Post ran stories today highlighting the renewed efforts of Minority Leader John Boehner to keep his caucus out of trouble amid a wave of frat-like behavior, particularly with female lobbyists. The best nugget from the stories, however, is the actions of one Lee Terry , who is locked into a potentially competitive battle with Democrat Tom White. Check out this little excerpt from one of the Post’s reporters: GOP Rep. Lee Terry of Nebraska — who’s in a tough race against Democratic opponent Tom White — was witnessed by Page Six in close conversation with a comely lobbyist at the Capitol Hill Club in DC recently. “Why did you get me so drunk?” Terry asked the giggling woman, among other personal remarks. When Terry realized he was sitting near a reporter, he quickly changed the topic of conversation to his three children and the struggle to pay their college tuition. Terry was given a 100 percent rating by the Christian Coalition for his pro-family voting record. NM-01: Dueling polls paint very different pictures of race Depending on who you believe, either Democrat Martin Heinrich has a double-digit lead in his re-election bid with Jon Barela, or he is trailing him. Those are the split verdicts from a pair of polls that came to light today. KOB’s poll, conducted by SurveyUSA, had Barela out in front of Henrich by a 51-45 margin. This shows a bit of consistency for SUSA, who has been bearish on Democratic prospects virtually across the board. Heinrich’s campaign immediately countered with a poll from GQR (a Democratic pollster, but one that has been pretty even-handed in the past). They polled about two weeks ago, and had Heinrich leading Barela by a dozen points (53-41). PA-03: Kelly internal poll claims double digit lead over Dem freshman This is an internal poll with a fairly small sample size, so use more salt than what would normally be prescribed for an internal. That said, a new Tarrance poll conducted for Republican challenger Mike Kelly has the Republican staked to an eleven-point edge over Democratic incumbent Kathy Dahlkemper (48-37). The poll claims a surprisingly high level of name recognition (67%) for Kelly. RI-01: Progressive upstart nabs major endorsement He might not be the leading fundraiser in the Democratic field, but progressive candidate (and NN10 attendee) David Segal claimed a big endorsement in his bid to topple better-funded candidates like Providence Mayor Kevin Cicilline and former state party chair William Lynch. Segal, a state legislator, earned the endorsement of the state teachers union. The union is on an endorsement kick, having given Lincoln Chafee their nod late last week. THE GUBERNATORIAL RACES GA-Gov: Deal internal poll claims a toss-up in runoff It is still a couple of weeks until the gubernatorial runoff for the GOP in the Peach State, and last week’s primary runner-up has a new poll out claiming that it is a coin flip (PDF file) . The poll, taken for former Congressman Nathan Deal by McLaughlin, claims a one-point lead for Deal over primary frontrunner Karen Handel (39-38). The winner of the Handel-Deal runoff will battle with former Democratic Governor Roy Barnes in November. KY-Gov (2011): Former Rand Paul manager teasing ‘11 ticket reveal By the end of the week, we will know why former Rand Paul campaign manager David Adams parachuted out of the Paul campaign. A tweet from local political site Bluegrass Politics claims that Adams will unveil a candidate for the 2011 gubernatorial race. The GOP will be challenging incumbent Democratic Governor Steve Beshear, and Adams claims that the candidate he will be working with will have Tea Party support. OK-Gov: General more competitive than primaries, according to new poll There was some seriously interesting polling data emerging from the Sooner State over the weekend. Apparently, tomorrow’s primaries are not going to be terribly competitive . As expected, Congresswoman Mary Fallin is cleaning house on the GOP side, with a 56-18 lead over state legislator Randy Brogdon. However, the Democratic side was expected to be a bit more competitive than it apparently will be: Attorney General Drew Edmondson has a 49-33 lead over Lt. Governor Jari Askins. Even more interesting, however, is that the general election is considerably closer than most folks would have wagered. Fallin leads Askins by just six points (46-40) and Edmondson by just eight points (47-39). Despite the deep-red profile of Oklahoma, this would be a pickup for the GOP, as Fallin would replace term-limited Democrat Brad Henry. TN-Gov: Haslam has sizeable primary and general elex leads, says M-D With about a week to go until their primary elections, Mason Dixon has waded into Tennessee, and they see good news for the uber-wealthy mayor of Knoxville, Republican Bill Haslam. The Mason Dixon poll has Haslam leading Congressman Zach Wamp by eleven points (36-25), with Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey trailing with 20% of the vote. Haslam also has a sizeable lead (49-31) over the sole Democrat in the running, Mike McWherter. All three Republicans hold leads over McWherter, although both Wamp (45-38) and Ramsey (43-38) are considerably weaker than Haslam. THE RAS-A-POLL-OOZA The House of Ras goes from the desert to the prairies to the sea with their trio of polling results. None of them would qualify as a surprise, though, as the continued rule of incumbents and quasi-incumbents carries the day. This is good news for two Republicans (Senator John McCain and Governor-turned-Senate candidate John Hoeven) and one Democrat (Governor Deval Patrick). AZ-Sen (R): Sen. John McCain 54%, J.D. Hayworth 34% MA-Gov: Gov. Deval Patrick (D) 38%, Charlie Baker (R) 34%, Tim Cahill (I) 17% ND-Sen: John Hoeven (R) 69%, Tracy Potter (D) 22%

See the original post: 
Polling and Political Wrap, 7/26/10

It was one year ago today, when our ex-half-governor Sarah Palin stood in Fairbanks, Alaska and stepped down from the governorship. After first declaring herself a “lame duck,” and then decrying the ineffectual nature of lame ducks in general, there was simply nothing else she could do. But she did take the opportunity on that day to explain to all of us what she’d be doing with all of her newly found and self-inflicted free time. Because let’s face it — the only time we up here in Alaska were more surprised than when she accepted the nomination for VP was when she quit. So we were curious. And then she declared that she was going “to chart a new course to advance the state.” What would she do, we wondered? Would she become a lobbyist for gasline issues? Would she become a spokesmodel for Princess Cruises? Would she use her celebrity to promote wild salmon or Alaska crab? Would she continue to fight for the oil tax system she put in place so the other Republicans in the legislature wouldn’t hack it off at the knees? Would she try to get us a major league sports team? Would she take on issues of poverty in rural areas? Domestic violence? Sexual assault? Teen pregnancy? Education? What ? What would this “new course” be, and how would the state advance? Even if you don’t like Sarah Palin, you’ve got to admit she has influence. And if she’d decided not to waste that influence, and do something to better the state — well good for her. She wasn’t much of a governor, so Plan B might have some potential. Granted, she hadn’t used the power of celebrity much for the benefit of others while she was governor. For instance, her titanic stature as a public figure would have easily solved many of the emergency food and fuel shortages in Western Alaska the past two winters. Imagine a public service announcement with Sarah Palin saying something like: Hi, I’m governor Sarah Palin and I’m here with an important message for All Alaskans, and to personally ask for your help. Our Native communities in rural areas are in trouble. Imagine if, because of circumstances beyond your control like unseasonably cold weather and poor fish runs, you were forced to choose between keeping your family warm, or feeding them? What would you say to your elders and your children? How would you feel? We can’t turn a blind eye to the suffering of our fellow Americans. We’re better than that. Alaskans have big hearts, and we know how to help each other when we get in trouble. It’s part of the Frontier spirit for communities to support each other in times of desperate need. So please, make a donation to Organization X, that is ensuring that staple foods, baby formula and basic necessities are getting to needy Alaskan families in the poorest and most remote areas of the state. In the America I know, people step up for families. I know you feel the same way. Thank you, and God bless you. I would like to think that most people in Palin’s position of public influence seeking ways to advance the state would have tried to help. A letter like that to locals, and on a national level would have brought a flood of relief. But that winter, the real Governor Palin’s answer to the crisis was (after six weeks of doing nothing and having her apathy called out by bloggers, community leaders, Native elders, and covered in the mainstream media) to fly out on a private jet to one rural community with Rev. Franklin Graham at her side, and a plate of homemade cookies. But the “let them eat cookies” strategy of dealing with this crisis wasn’t the only plan. There were also some food boxes that had been stuffed with little proselytizing fliers from “Samaritan’s Purse,” Graham’s evangelical relief organization. Her conservative message was clear. People in need? Sorry, not the government’s problem. However, look and see how crises can be handled by private organizations doing God’s work. So now that she would no longer be part of the problem government, surely she’d be part of the private solution. Right? “Now people who know me, they know how much I love this state … “With this decision, now I will be able to fight even harder for you, for what is right and for the truth,” Palin continued. “And I have never felt you need a title to do that.” So what has she done in the past year — her first as a private citizen, unfettered by the burden of governing, and a title — to chart a new course for the state of Alaska? Her celebrated oil tax reform called ACES (Alaska’s Clear and Equitable Share) that was passed with blood, sweat, tears and Democrats, is in the cross-hairs of the legislature. It was her big legacy legislation, the only good thing she ever did, and it’s in trouble with Palin nowhere to be seen. There is no relief in sight for Western Alaska which teeters on the brink of disaster with every winter. The last great wild salmon run on the continent in Bristol Bay is threatened by the looming specter of a huge copper and gold mine at its headwaters. The potential for environmental disaster from the Pebble Mine is epic, and would arguably affect the nation’s seafood supply more than the current Gulf tragedy. Domestic violence, sexual assault, alcohol and drug abuse, incest, and the desperate and tragic migration of Native Alaskans from village life into big cities all continue to plague our state. Our high school drop out rate is astronomical. Each of these issues and so many more could benefit from a powerful national voice speaking up for those who can’t. Palin, instead, has used her time, her energy and her star power to - write a book about herself and tour the nation. She’s become a contributor on Fox News to repeat talking points about (irony alert) what an ineffectual leader the President has become. She has continued to chant the mantra “drill baby, drill” even as the southeast faces an environmental holocaust. She’s Facebook blasted a journalist who rented the house next door that she refused to buy. In a painful demonstration of philosophical inconsistency, she’s endorsed candidates from former campaign supporter Fairbanks attorney Joe Miller, to exporter of American jobs Carly Fiorina, to establishment candidate John McCain to “anti-Marxist utopia” Tea Party candidate Clint Didier. She slammed two students at their own college while raking in six figures for speaking there . She’s courted conventions of bowlers, loggers and liquor wholesalers, built a giant “fortress of solitude” next to her house, written on her hand, almost got away with another year of shirking her property taxes , spent $14,000 de-icing the wings of private jets using her PAC money, and has somehow managed to pull in an estimated $20 million by putting English-like words in random order and speaking them aloud. She’s even demonstrated xenophobia and religious intolerance in 140 characters or less , by telling New Yorkers what should and should not be built near the World Trade Center site. Mayor Michael Bloomberg told her to mind her own business. Speaking of her own business, that brings us back to the question — what has she done to help the state of Alaska? Not much. It’s been a busy year.

Here is the original:
Jeanne Devon ("AKMuckraker"): Palin’s Promise to Alaska Falls Flat One Year Later: Happy Anniversary

Few will forget the revealing moment when Barack Obama characterized his opponent, Hillary Clinton, as “likeable enough.” At the time I recall being offended by that remark, finding it cold, ungenerous, and in debate terms, insultingly dumb. Nevertheless, writing on the Huffington Post during the campaign I described myself as swinging from Obama to Hillary, back and forth, and finally landing in the Obama camp, swayed by his superb rhetoric, and his promise of a fresh start for the country after the worrying/wearying Bush years. There was also my distrust of Hillary’s bellicose rhetoric, and the thought that he could bring a strength of character and a passion to his Presidency that we had not seen since FDR. I believed that he, Obama, would clean up the mess of the Bush years, knowing that it would take time, but we would see the beginnings of a fresh start for this country by this summer of 2010. I see now that I made a huge mistake, and I will own up to it. It was not the Shirley Sherrod miscalculation that brought me to this realization, but rather a look at the great accomplishments of Barack Obama during his time in office — health care reform, finance reform — and I find them riddled with compromises that seriously weaken them. Yes, “likeable enough,” but all lacking the essential core of change that will set the country on a better course. More than the policies themselves it is Obama that I find myself drawing away from. Mind you, in any contest between Obama, a man of great intelligence and good will, and his next Presidential opponent, Sarah Rand Mitt-Gingrich, Obama will get my vote, but it’s cast to keep people whom I regard as potential evildoers wrapped in the flag from capturing the Presidency. My man has not just failed me. Worse, he has profoundly disappointed me. Let me start with where his policies have touched the lives of people I know. The giving of the monies to banks — the big bailout — without the necessary strings attached. Yes, strings matter. This accounts for the total failure of the mortgage modification program (a ruse that tricked struggling homeowners into believing they had a chance to hold on to homes) and the fact that my elderly friend Molly barely escaped life in the streets at 76 when her apartment of twenty years was foreclosed. That program was half red tap, half bad will. Now she is living in a modest rental, which will take whatever Social Security monies she gets, leaving her without enough for food or medicine. Acts have consequences and this is a bitter one for the old, the poor, and the unemployed. Why were agreements with the banks not in place before the billions were given to save them? Where were the conditions imposed upon these banks so that small business might be encouraged to expand with mandatory bank-loans for those with good credit histories? Nowhere. So the banks horded their billions, played money games too inscrutable for me or you to fathom and ended up richer than ever while the unemployed faced despair. Having just returned from ten days of sweltering on my beloved Maine coast, Obama’s failure to deal with global warming, his runaway from this reality, will cost my three pre-school grand-daughters dearly in the years to come, and I am unforgiving about that. No fight, not even an audible whimper. Life in the future, it seems, is to be lived as an air-conditioned nightmare. It is easy to see why FDR was able to take on the challenge of repressive conservatism — being a white aristocrat all he had to do was turn a deaf ear to those who claimed he was a traitor to his class, and act on his principals, many of which were based on a compassionate arrogance. He also had the advantage of Hoover being president in the early years of the Great Depression so the country knew what had gone so wrong in the past, and who had brought it about. Obama arrived as the Bush Recession was gaining ground, but its full impact had yet to be felt. It landed with a great thud in Obama’s lap. As our first African American President Obama has found it harder to oppose those forces of hatred and repression, the country club conservatives and their allies, the Fox News bigots, reluctant to confront the race card that these jokers use daily to diminish him and his presidency. Roosevelt would have looked Rupert Murdoch or Roger Ailes in the eye and called them scoundrels. There was Hearst, Westbrook Pegler and Father Coughlin (the Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck of that day) and other press lords attacking FDR and Eleanor daily, yet the Roosevelts never bowed to them and forged ahead with policies designed to save the country during the Great Depression. Yes, yes, I know about the viral nature of the internet and 24 hour cable news and how it can manipulate false news, but the internet and cable news is no stronger than a strong leader. I now feel that Hillary would have stood up to these forces with greater strength and courage as a brilliant woman — not without faults — not always wed to the truth — but showing a toughness and a character that this country needs in leadership. At the very least we would see her washing down an oil soaked pelican in the Gulf, and not traipsing with his family in a North Eastern seaside resort. Obama has no idea how much his “cool” in the face of the oil spill has cost him. Symbols do matter. We are only half-way through the Obama presidency, but there is nothing in what he has done or said, as President that gives me confidence that he will not keep throwing red meat to the roaring conservative lions, as witnessed by the disaster that is taking shape in Afghanistan: Obama’s self-inflicted wound, one that costs trillions in resources needed by this country, and thousands in lives belonging to the families of the servicemen and women serving abroad. Obama seems to have begun his presidency operating on the Machiavellian principle of betraying his friends and rewarding his enemies, all done under cover of reaching out for bi-partisanship. Well, that may have worked in the Renaissance but right now it is the wrong policy at the wrong time — and I fear — by the wrong President. The first order of business is for Obama to change his advisors who surround him and who have consistently misled him. If the Congress or the Senate changes hands into a Republican Majority, as many predict it will, it will not be because the Republicans have anything to offer except a negative, a strong, bracing dose of nativism, and a mean spirited stinginess disguised as fiscal conservatism. The hate inherent in their policies is always asleep but never dead in American life, and ready to be awakened in difficult times. Report card for the nay saying Republican congress: F Minus. Report Card for this Obama administration: C Plus. And I am a very generous marker. Note from this teacher to parent or guardian. Barack is a very clever, well-spoken young man, quick to learn, but he must show more spirit and guile in standing up to bullies like Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, and — as a lover of movies — let him take on the wicked fat man of the forties films, that Sydney Greenstreet of the right, Rush Limbaugh. More Bogart please, and much less Leslie Howard. Most of all we would like to see a little more of the Chicago street organizer in his attitude and a little less Harvard Law Review . More on Barack Obama

Read the original:
Sherman Yellen: You’re Likeable Enough, Barack, but the Midterm Grade Is C Plus

Oprah Winfrey, the ‘queen’ of American TV, has offered the cash-strapped Duchess of York her own prime-time chat show. A source close to Sarah Ferguson said last night: ‘Oprah made the call this week. They spoke in person and, for Sarah, the offer is a ray of light at the end of a very dark tunnel. More on Oprah

See original here: 
Oprah Offers Sarah Ferguson OWN Show

“If you prick us do we not bleed?” The Merchant of Venice Last summer the image of a 23-year-old Iranian girl, named Neda, dominated the media and internet as the world witnessed on the television and internet screens her being shot and killed while participating in a protest against Iran’s rigged presidential elections. Over a year later, as we celebrated Neda’s life and mourned her death, another very different image caught the world’s attention: that of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, a 43-year-old mother of two. In 2006 Sakineh had been convicted of having “illicit relationships” with two men and sentenced to 99 lashes. During the flogging, and while suffering from intolerable pain, she had confessed to the “crime” which she later retracted, stating that she had confessed under duress. At a subsequent trial of a woman accused of murdering her husband, Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani was charged with “adultery while being married,” for which she was sentenced to death by stoning. Although she had to die in order to prove to the world that she and millions of women and girls like her existed, Neda’s image subverted the claims made by the Islamic regime and its apologists about Iranian women and youth almost overnight. Neda belonged to the generation that was called the children of the revolution, those whom the regime had hoped would carry the banner of the Islamic Republic, rebelling against their parents’ and their aspirations. Yet like so many young people of her age, the way she looked and acted, her interests in music, dance and philosophy, her aspirations and hopes for her future and the future of her country, even her favorite authors — Marques, Silone, Bronte, Hesse — were in themselves subversive and offensive to the Islamic regime, reminders of its failure to impose its rule over this generation of youth who rather than becoming its ardent supporters had turned out to be the regime’s most persistent critics. Like millions of others who participated in the protests, Neda’s form of disobedience was not just political but existential — she went into the streets to join the protests despite her parents’ anxieties and fears and her mother’s pleas, because she felt an injustice had been committed against the will and choice of the electorate and such injustice should not be tolerated. In all her acts of rebellion, Neda, like other young women in Iran looked for a model not just to the West but to the past of her own country, to that of her mother, grandmother and great grandmother, to women who had fought for their rights and for an open and democratic Iran since the mid-19th century, women who had helped usher in the Constitutional Revolution at the start of the 20th century, the first of its kind in Asia. The protests in the summer of 2009 and Neda’s tragic death suddenly brought to the world’s attention the real voices of Iran, those that for over thirty years had been mainly silenced and forced underground. For over three decades the Islamic Republic had imposed the most repressive laws upon its citizens; murder, torture and arbitrary arrests had been part and parcel of its rule, men and women had been stoned and hanged for sexual offences. Despite the fact that during all those years and from the outset Iranians had resisted the oppressive rules and laws — a resistance for which many paid with their lives — the main voices and images dominating the discourse on Iran in the rest of the world were those of the regime and its apologists. Iran’s name in the news was mainly identified with its rulers and lately in relation to Mr. Ahamdinejad’s homilies on the Holocaust, the nonexistence of gays in Iran, and the issue of nuclear proliferation. The same men who had denied the rights of Iranian citizen to free expression in their homeland had also managed to deny those rights abroad. But suddenly last year, in the summer of 2009 this situation was reversed. Those millions that poured out onto the streets of Tehran belied the stereotypical definitions of what Iranian society constituted. Most obviously it was the images of Iranian women, at the forefront of these protests that attracted attention. These women came from such diverse backgrounds, young and old, traditional and modern, secular and religious; yet they all presented a united front in the face of a tyrannical regime. It became clear that the laws governing the rights of women were in the interests of neither an orthodox religious woman, nor a secular modern one, that they had more in common in defending their rights than they had with the regime who implemented those laws. Women had once more become the canaries in the mine, the standard by which degrees of freedom in society could be measured. Hundreds of thousands across the world were heartbroken as they saw Neda die and die again and again on their screens. Suddenly this girl and others like her were not aliens, were not “them” but “us”, separate entities from the regime that ruled over them. The shock was not how different “they” were from “us”, but how alike, because difference cannot be genuinely celebrated and appreciated unless it is accompanied by what is shared, what is universal, our common humanity, rooted in the understanding that no matter where we come from, from what social, political and cultural background, religion, ethnicity, race or gender, we all do indeed bleed in the same manner. From that moment on, it was not politicians that chose the rules of the game but the people. Now, just over a year after Neda’s tragic death, the image of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani has taken over the hearts and minds of many individuals from different parts of the world. Sakineh is very different from Neda, she is from an older generation, and a more traditional background, she is neither a rebel nor a political activist, and the reason why she is condemned to death is entirely unconnected to the circumstances in which Neda was murdered. By all accounts her life and aspirations are very different from Neda’s, but they share a lot in common as victims of the same oppressive and regressive laws against women in the Islamic Republic. As a year ago Neda entered the homes and hearts of millions around the world, now Sakineh’s fate has become a matter of urgent concern to tens of thousands who only a month before had no idea of her existence. On one website alone — the one I work with ( FreeSakineh.org ) — over a hundred and fourteen thousand have signed the statement condemning her death, demanding her freedom. Looking over the list of signatories what is both amazing, as well as encouraging, is not just the names of so many well-known and prominent individuals, from presidents and politicians to writers, journalists and celebrities, but the fact that these names appear alongside of others mostly unknown and some anonymous, coming from so many diverse countries and backgrounds. They all have gathered in one space, regardless of their ideologies or political tendencies, to give voice to their outrage. They are united because in the kind of world they wish to live in, such acts of violence and extreme cruelty should not happen, because these acts, no matter where they occur or under what guise, are an assault on their sense of human dignity and decency. Silence in such a situation becomes a voice implicating the witnesses as well as the perpetrators. In the face of global campaigns and protests the Iranian regime has somewhat retreated, claiming that it will not carry out the sentence to death by stoning against Sakineh, but it has not ruled out killing her by other means. The question is, would it make anyone happier if Ms. Ashtiani were hanged instead of being stoned to death? The regime’s retreat is good news and should encourage us to persevere in our demand for Ahstiani’s immediate release. There is, however, the danger of charges being concocted against her in order to justify her sentence and to present her defense as a plot by the West against Iran and Islam. Already the chief of Iran’s judiciary in East Azarbiajan has claimed that “Western media propaganda” will not deter him from carrying out Sakineh’s execution. Mohammad Javad Larijani, the head of Iran’s High Council for Human Rights, while attacking the international campaign in defense of Sakineh Mohammedi Ashtiani, has defended stoning as part of Islamic Republic’s constitution, condemning what he calls West’s “fixation” on “death by stoning, the hejab, and Islamic inheritance laws.” He has claimed that in fact “any issue which hints of religious law is always opposed by them.” This is perhaps a good time to ask Mr. Larijani and the apologists for the Islamic regime in Iran, who is more against Islam, those that abhor such laws or those that define Islam in terms of polygamy, marriage of underage females, stoning to death, flogging women for ‘illicit relationships’ and disobeying the laws on the mandatory veil? Does condemning a woman to 99 lashes for what is claimed to be “illicit relationship” or flogging women up to 86 lashes for not wearing the proper mandatory veil represent what is Iranian and Islamic or suitably reflect the country’s ancient history and culture, its ethnic and religious diversity, its centuries of poetry, philosophy and the century old struggle of its progressive clerics, intellectuals, women, and other strata of Iranian society for a democratic and open society? When he and other officials of the regime call human rights a Western entity, do they think that the Iranian people are less desirous of choice and diversity, of freedom of expression than say the Americans or Europeans? America is a Christian majority country and Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin all claim to be Christians, but do we ask which is more Christian than the other? Who has ordained that Neda or Sakineh are less Muslim than the guardians of the Islamic Republic? And finally, is it not in fact a backhanded compliment to the very West they claim to revile and an insult against the Islam they claim to represent, to say that the right to choice, freedom of expression and religion, and equality of women, in short the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, is in fact a western phenomenon, determined by geography and so-called culture? Neda Agha Soltan and Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani offer alternative answers to these questions from those given by Mr. Larijani and other Iranian officials. In defending their rights we are also defending the rights of Iranian women, Muslim as well as none Muslim, traditional as well as modern. What Mr. Larijani seems not to understand about the overwhelming international support of for cases such as Sakineh’s is a universal and yet very simple concept: empathy. At that especial moment of universal epiphany when the images and voices of the Iranian people entered the homes of others around the world, it became intolerable for many to accept and justify the arbitrary laws imposed on Iranian citizens. This reaction arises out of a sense of deepest empathy, the realization that no matter how different we are, we as human beings share the best and the worst, that when we imagine Sakineh’s condition or hear the pleas of her courageous children, our heart breaks because at that moment we are not thinking of our political, national, religious or ethnic differences, we are becoming that other person and finding it intolerable to exist under the conditions that they are forced to tolerate. The question for those of us who object to such laws is not just political but also existential, as in the case of Darfur, South Africa, Bosnia and many other places in our recent history. To tolerate such brutal acts is to be diminished as human beings. In defending the rights of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani and countless others in Iranian jails we are also defending our own rights and security. A few years ago when, in response to the announcement that she was awarded the Noble Peace Prize, Shirin Ebadi stated that she was a Muslim and a believer in human rights, I wrote that to support human rights is not a philanthropic act but essentially a pragmatic one: to defend the rights of others to freedom and choice means to guarantee our own rights. I would like to reiterate that point now and ask: do not the courageous women in Iran today reaffirm the universal struggle of women over centuries for their rights? It is out of this sense of empathy, this desire to connect to others that today we defend Skaineh Ashtiani. And because of this sense of empathy, because now her cause is also ours, even if and when she is freed we must remember that as long as the repressive and regressive laws remain such brutality will continue. Already in Iran today 12 women and three men await death by stoning. There are many who have been tortured and executed and others are in danger of being executed on political grounds. The campaign will not be over until the repressive laws are repealed; for as long such laws exist there is always the possibility that they will be implemented against other victims. More on Iran

See more here: 
Azar Nafisi: Sakineh and Neda

Carly Fiorina doesn’t want all Californians to know how much she has courted and aligned herself with the Tea Party . Even before this video was released, the Fiorina Campaign was already on the defensive attack, trying to take the public’s attention away from her Tea Party/Palin support. They are distorting the truth, hiding from the facts and hoping people forgot about her pursuit of the Tea Party . Everyone in America has at this point seen and heard what the Tea Party is about. Our video uses carefully date-labeled footage of a Tea Party rally we had video for that occurred in March. We also use clearly date-labeled footage of an April Tea Party rally Fiorina spoke at, as well as a clip of her saying that she believes the Tea Party is “making a huge difference in the political dialogue in this country.” The fact of the matter is that Fiorina has sought to align herself with the Tea Party. She believes in what they stand for and what role they’ve played in the political dialogue. We believe she should denounce them. Why won’t Carly Fiorina denounce the Tea Party? Why is she actively trying to align herself with their style and messaging? Why is she trying to deceive the voters of California by changing the topic? California doesn’t need our own Tea-Party-loving, Sarah-Palin-endorsed Republican. But as long as Fiorina is trying to buy this election, we’ll continue to tell voters the truth about who she is. More on Sarah Palin

Read more from the original source:
Robert Greenwald: Carly Fiorina: Runs to the Tea Party, Away From the Truth

There wasn’t a doubt in my mind the race-baiting that occurred in the 2008 primaries wouldn’t stick to former Pres. Bill Clinton . It was utter nonsense. I also have no doubt that Barack Obama never believed it of either Clinton. You don’t tap a racist to be your secretary of state, including if you think her husband is a bigot. It was simply a useful political cudgel for Obama, Axelrod and company at a time candidate Obama needed a knock out punch. It was partisan warfare. His team was also sure the charge would be sucked up by traditional and new media, who were decidedly on Obama’s side. It’s all been forgotten, which presents us with a teachable moment on race. In America, we simply let it go. It will all blow over. So I’ve been waiting for Bill Clinton’s poll numbers to rise for some time. They don’t call him the Comeback Kid for nothing. Sixty-one percent of people questioned in a Gallup survey say they have a favorable opinion of Clinton. That’s nine points higher than the 52 percent who say they see Obama in a favorable light. The poll indicates that 45 percent say they have a favorable opinion of former President George W. Bush. Gallup says this is the first time in their polling that Clinton’s favorable rating has eclipsed that of Obama. Clinton’s numbers are up nine points from the summer of 2008, when he was branded by many people as playing a too partisan political role in helping his wife during her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination against Obama. If Mr. Clinton was actually a racist or if anyone really believed it, beyond the partisan Obamaphile hacks, former Pres. Bill Clinton would never have recovered. But he has and for good reason. His roots belie the race-baiting lies of a partisan fight, which goes back decades to Bill Clinton’s foundation. From the start, Clinton also had an uncanny ability to forge a bond with African American voters. Judge L.T. Simes II understood why this was so: Simes had grown up picking cotton in Helena, Arkansas, at a time when the Mississippi Delta of Arkansas was predominantly segregated and inhospitable toward African Americans. … Simes immediately took note that Clinton, unlike most of the stodgy “old-boy” professors, treated black students with the utmost fairness and respect in the classroom. After becoming governor, Clinton bucked the system by appointing highly qualified blacks to key positions in state government. Simes himself became the first African American to sere as chairman of the Arkansas Soil and Water Commission. Although Clinton paid dearly, in political terms, for eschewing the prevailing culture by appointing blacks, that didn’t slow him. During the governor’s 1980 reelection campaign, Clitnon brought Simes along to a country club in an elite section of eastern Arkansas where segregation was still firmly entrenched. …Clinton was defeated by Frank White that fall… “We’ll be back,” he said. “We’re not going to let the people down.” - Ken Gormley, “The Death of American Virtue” (pages 22-23) Bill Clinton’s outreach to African Americans has been a bedrock of his life. Reaching out and finding common ground goes to the life Shirley Sherrod has lived as well. There’s been a lot of talk about her father being shot by a white farmer over a “dispute over a few cows,” and how that informed her life. Talking about a teachable moment, Ms. Sherrod offers another one, especially for the Obama administration. Ms. Sherrod’s husband was Charles Sherrod , who was mentioned briefly on “Morning Joe” late last week as someone whose name should have been as familiar as “Jackson or Al Sharpton” to the NAACP. If we want to be honest, the teachable moment on race cascades outward to include Pres. Obama and his administration, who have missed the opportunity by design. It shouldn’t be surprising that this is the second time the Obama administration has tripped on race, the first being when Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates and Cambridge police Sgt. James Crowley collided and Pres. Obama weighed in. Ta-Nehisi Coate : The argument has been made that this isn’t Obama, just the people working under him. That theory elides the responsibility of leaders to set a tone. The tone that Obama has set, in regards to race, is to retreat with great velocity in the face of anything that can be defined as “racial.” Granted, this has been politically smart. Also granted, Obama has done it with nuance. But it can not be expected that the president’s subordinates will share that nuance. More disturbingly, this is what happens when you treat the arrest of a black man, in his home, as something that can be fixed over beers. [..] I do not expect Barack Obama to condemn the Tea Party’s racist elements, any more than I expect Ben Jealous to lead the war in Afghanistan. But I do not expect him, or his administration, to make the work of the NAACP harder, to contradict them for doing that which the administration can not. I do not expect them to minimize those elements, thus minimizing the NAACP’s fight, and then accede, to people who are pulling from the darkest, vilest reaches of the American psyche. The “beer summit” was supposed to be a teachable moment to move us beyond racial conflict, remember? When Andrew Breitbart, a known wingnut assassin who lynched Shirley Sherrod , is trusted over a woman who worked her whole life fighting the civil rights battles of the ’60s that have yet to be won, therein lies an ugly reality, however difficult to accept. Whatever teachable moment people crave on race, we live in the era of Pres. Obama who stated plainly a long time ago that he’s not interested in “the ideological battles that we fought during the ’90s that were really extensions of battles we fought since the ’60s.” While Barack Obama was rising, Shirley Sherrod quietly and steadfastly did the work that the NAACP and other civil rights leaders from the 1960s have been doing to make his presidency possible. So, here we are looking at Ms. Sherrod’s firing hoping yet again for another moment to make us all wiser on race. That’s a difficult leap when the person at the top hasn’t said one word on record and in public on what happened under his watch and by his administration, while Sect. Vilsack takes the heat. Now, it’s Mr. Vilsack’s fault the “harassed” Sherrod phone calls came, but also the firing occurred, though it’s inconceivable that this action wasn’t ordered from way on high. In fact, it’s not believable. So the teachable moment will have to wait. As for former Pres. Bill Clinton’s predictable, if gradual, rehabilitation we have all witnessed in 2010, not only has the Big Dog returned, but he’s doing things for Democrats Obama can’t come close to doing. Pres. Obama’s behind it now, which won’t do Dems any good in November. But as I keep saying, even with more Republicans, which won’t impede Pres. Obama’s continuing political push to the right, the President can make gains and recover before the 2012 slugfest begins. This reality is aided by the fact that the Republicans, including Sarah Palin’s Tea Party branch, have no new ideas. Newt Gingrich’s railing bigotry , coming after Sarah Palin’s Ground Zero anti-mosque Facebook post, is all simply a blast back to the Bush past. Republicans may buy it, but independents will not and neither will even disaffected Democrats. Though it’s a cinch Pres. Obama will have a much rougher fight on his hands in 2012 than he ever did against McCain-Palin. …and it’s very likely that former Pres. Bill Clinton and perhaps even Hillary will be one of Pres. Obama’s strongest advocates when the time comes. Teach that . Taylor Marsh is a political analyst and writer out of Washington, D.C. More on Bill Clinton

Continued here:
Taylor Marsh: Of Teachable Moments

John Bolton, the man who makes your garden variety neo-conservative look like Dennis Kucinich, is attempting a political comeback. As you’ll recall, Bolton is the guy who said it wouldn’t be a big deal if we lopped off ten stories of the U.N. Secretariat building in New York City. So, of course, President Bush nominated him to be U.N. Ambassador. His confirmation hearings didn’t go so well: In 2005 Time Magazine took a stab out of explaining who Bolton is and why Bush nominated him to represent our country in the UN. In the seven weeks since Bush named him, Bolton has been getting reacquainted with some of those people he offended during a 24-year career in the Federal Government. They are, among others, the two intelligence analysts who claim that as a senior State Department official during Bush’s first term, Bolton tried to have them fired or reassigned when they disagreed with him; the foreign-aid worker who says Bolton, then a private attorney, chased her down a Moscow hotel hallway in 1994 in an effort to intimidate her; and the former U.S. ambassador to South Korea who complained that Bolton had misled the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by suggesting that the ambassador had approved an incendiary speech Bolton made about North Korea in 2003. …Bolton’s pattern of intimidation, they claim, was also aimed at distorting vital intelligence. Government sources tell Time that during President Bush’s first term, Bolton frequently tried to push the CIA to produce information to conform to–and confirm– his views. So Bush nominated him as a recess appointment and he was forced to resign when that expired, unable to garner support even from many Republicans. But apparently, Bolton isn’t satisfied with appearing on Sean Hannity’s show and calling on the United State to bomb Iran . He wants to be a Republican power broker. He’s much too toxic, however, to be associated with almost any candidate for Congress– far more of a detriment than even Sarah Palin, although I won’t be surprised to see him campaigning for some of the real lunatic fringe candidates like Sharron Angle, Rand Paul, Ken Buck, maybe even an incumbent or two like Michele Bachmann or Paul Broun. But he’s starting small, hosting a fundraiser in DC on July 28th for Maryland State Delegate Ron George. George and Bolton appear to be ideological soul mates. George has co-sponsored a resolution stating that global warming is a conspiracy , called on the Attorney General of Maryland to be impeached for recognizing out-of-state same sex marriages , supports teaching intelligent design in public high schools . George is also running against Judd Legum, a strong progressive who founded ThinkProgress at the Center for American Progress. (Is it a coincidence that ThinkProgress has dogged Bolton for years?) Judd, a native of Maryland, is running a strong campaign and has a real shot at knocking off George. Last year he did a live blogging session with us about the race at Crooks and Liars , still worth taking a look at to learn more about Judd and more about this race. We need to send a message to Bolton and the Republicans that there are still far more Americans who believe that John Bolton is unacceptably outside of the mainstream than the right-wing nuts that Bolton can round up in DC. The contrast between Ron George and Judd Legum couldn’t be clearer. While George obsesses over his ugly and disturbing anti-gay mania, Judd’s agenda is all clean, clean, clean: Clean government: He’s not accepting money from Maryland lobbyists or corporate PACs. Clean Bay: The 25-year, multi-billion dollar effort to restore the Bay has been a failure. “If we don’t act quickly,” said Judd, “the Bay will soon pass the point of no return. This means standing up to powerful special interests such as agribusiness, which remains the number one source of pollution in the Bay. This is more than an environmental issue, it’s an economic issue. Much of Maryland’s economy is dependent upon the health of the Bay.” Clean Energy: Judd has been telling voters that the state faces an energy crisis. “Absent policy changes the state will face rolling blackouts starting in 2011. Marylanders have also seen their energy bills skyrocket. We need to move aggressively on three fronts: 1) energy efficiency programs, which can reduce the need for new generation and reduce costs for consumers,  2) investment in transmission which will allow more power to flow into the state at reduced costs. 3) new sources of clean energy including wind, solar and biofuels.” Please consider sending a donation to Judd Legum’s campaign: Judd Legum for Maryland .

View original post here:
Howie Klein: John Bolton Needs To Be Stopped (Again)!

If you couldn’t make it to Netroots Nation 2010, don’t despair! Here’s a guide to today’s live broadcasts. (And if you’re at the conference but want to see two panels at once time…don’t forget to use headphones!) All Times Pacific. Click on room name to view feed. ########### Saturday, July 24, 2010 9:00AM-10:15AM Pavilion : Speaker Nancy Pelosi keynote 10:15AM-11:30AM Brasilia 6 : Undoing Citizens United: A Comprehensive Plan to Prevent Corporations from Buying Elections Brasilia 2 : Common Values: Building Bridges with People of Faith to Win at the Ballot Box Miranda 3-4 : Crimmigration Under Obama: Pushing Back Against the “Enforcement-only” Immigration Regime Miranda 1-2 : It’s Science: How to boost your 2010 impact with data-driven best practices Brasilia 1 : The Obama Doctrine: Successes, Challenges and the Future Brasilia 4 : Turning the Inside Out: The Polis-Pingree Letter and Other Effective Partnerships Between the Hill and the Netroots 11:45AM-1:30PM Pavilion : Building a progressive economic vision 1:45PM-3:00PM Brasilia 6 : The Forgotten Foreclosure Crisis - Merkley/Sarah Perle Brasilia 2 : Pay More, Get Less: The Perils of Privatization Miranda 3-4 : Marijuana Policy and Politics - Jill Harris Miranda 1-2 : Close Gitmo and Use the Legal System Brasilia 1 : Air America - The Good, The Bad, The Ridiculous Brasilia 4 : The Tip of the Spear: Engaging with Progressives in Congress 3:15PM-3:50PM Pavilion : Majority Leader Harry Reid keynote 4:00PM-5:15PM Brasilia 6 : The Filibuster and Senate Reform Brasilia 2 : Political Persuasion: Strategies and Tactics for Victory Miranda 3-4 : Leveling the Playing Field: Improving How We Communicate about Inequality Miranda 1-2 : Mobilizing the ‘Forgotten Half’: Outreach Strategies with Non-College Youth Brasilia 1 : From Online to Offline: How OFA Leverages the Web and Social Media for Real-World Organizing Brasilia 4 : How immigration reform sustains a progressive majority 5:15PM-8:00PM Pavilion : Sen. Al Franken closing keynote

Go here to read the rest:
Netroots Nation 2010 livecast guide for Saturday, July 24

As an Arab American, I can empathize with Shirley Sherrod, In the midst of this crisis, I wrote a number of short pieces on a few websites charging that she had been “lynched” and was a victim of a hysterical mob spurred on by lies and cowards in authority who, out of fear or political calculation, had sacrificed her to a mob refusing her right to a fair hearing. I understood her plight because I, and many other Arab Americans and American Muslims, had endured similar treatment. Over the years a veritable industry has developed of anti-Arab groups and individuals whose job it has been to track our progress and to challenge our every advance with smear campaigns. Taking our quotes out of context, making patently false and sometimes bizarre claims that fabricate connections with terror groups and extremists, these characters and the websites and right-wing publications who use their work have directed their attacks against many prominent Arab and Muslim Americans and those in government or business who work with us. This is what happened to my son more than a decade ago, when he worked for a time at the Department of State. The same types of attacks have followed my every move for decades. When in 1993, Vice President Al Gore asked me to head up a project he was launching to support economic development in the West Bank and Gaza, one of the professional Arab bashers wrote a piece suggesting I had been supportive of terrorists. Using this material, a prominent liberal magazine editorialized that Gore should remove me from the post. To his credit, Gore defended me and arranged a meeting with the magazine’s editor. When the editor produced the quote I was alleged to have made and I shared with him the full text of what I had said, he recognized his error and apologized. But the attacks never stopped. When I was invited last year to deliver the closing remarks at a Department of Justice conference, a right wing researcher published an article describing me as “[Attorney General Eric] Holder’s Hizbollah Buddy” and when I addressed last year’s Pentagon Iftar dinner, another of these anti-Arab hatchet men wrote a piece in a conservative magazine noting that a “well known Wahhabi supporter” spoke at the Pentagon. Much the same has been experienced by others in my community. An Arab American state legislator in Michigan, and even the newly crowned Miss USA were falsely accused of Hizbollah ties. Young attorney Mazin Asbahi was forced to resign from the Obama campaign over similar fabricated charges. And even now a new storm is brewing. A new mosque is being planned in an area near Ground Zero, the site of the terrorist attack that killed 3,000 innocents on September 11, 2001. Some local groups have objected and have been supported by the likes of 2012 presidential aspirants Sarah Palin, who called the mosque a “stab to the heart”, and Newt Gingrich, who saw the mosque as part of a larger challenge arguing that “America is experiencing an Islamist cultural-political offensive designed to undermine and destroy our civilization”. A conservative magazine accelerated the assault with a personal attack on the mosque project’s leader, Imam Faisal Abdul Raouf - a truly honorable man with a long record of promoting peace and reconciliation. Using the now familiar tools of half quotes, fabricated connections (described by another writer as: “his wife has an uncle who used to be “a leader” of a mosque that now has a Web site that links to the Web site of an allegedly radical organization”), and innuendo, the article attempts to portray Imam Faisal as a suspicious and even dangerous threat. And now Congressman Peter King, the Republican ranking member of House Homeland Security Committee has called for an investigation into Faisal Abdul Raouf. And so I understand Shirley Sherrod. I know what she has endured and while I celebrate her vindication, I know we, as Americans, are not yet out of the woods. Something is fundamentally rotten in our political culture - where groups seeking political advantage can so easily make victims of innocents and cowards will let good people pay a price rather than defend their rights to a fair hearing. More on Sarah Palin

Read more: 
James Zogby: I Understand Shirley Sherrod

As an Arab American, I can empathize with Shirley Sherrod, In the midst of this crisis, I wrote a number of short pieces on a few websites charging that she had been “lynched” and was a victim of a hysterical mob spurred on by lies and cowards in authority who, out of fear or political calculation, had sacrificed her to a mob refusing her right to a fair hearing. I understood her plight because I, and many other Arab Americans and American Muslims, had endured similar treatment. Over the years a veritable industry has developed of anti-Arab groups and individuals whose job it has been to track our progress and to challenge our every advance with smear campaigns. Taking our quotes out of context, making patently false and sometimes bizarre claims that fabricate connections with terror groups and extremists, these characters and the websites and right-wing publications who use their work have directed their attacks against many prominent Arab and Muslim Americans and those in government or business who work with us. This is what happened to my son more than a decade ago, when he worked for a time at the Department of State. The same types of attacks have followed my every move for decades. When in 1993, Vice President Al Gore asked me to head up a project he was launching to support economic development in the West Bank and Gaza, one of the professional Arab bashers wrote a piece suggesting I had been supportive of terrorists. Using this material, a prominent liberal magazine editorialized that Gore should remove me from the post. To his credit, Gore defended me and arranged a meeting with the magazine’s editor. When the editor produced the quote I was alleged to have made and I shared with him the full text of what I had said, he recognized his error and apologized. But the attacks never stopped. When I was invited last year to deliver the closing remarks at a Department of Justice conference, a right wing researcher published an article describing me as “[Attorney General Eric] Holder’s Hizbollah Buddy” and when I addressed last year’s Pentagon Iftar dinner, another of these anti-Arab hatchet men wrote a piece in a conservative magazine noting that a “well known Wahhabi supporter” spoke at the Pentagon. Much the same has been experienced by others in my community. An Arab American state legislator in Michigan, and even the newly crowned Miss USA were falsely accused of Hizbollah ties. Young attorney Mazin Asbahi was forced to resign from the Obama campaign over similar fabricated charges. And even now a new storm is brewing. A new mosque is being planned in an area near Ground Zero, the site of the terrorist attack that killed 3,000 innocents on September 11, 2001. Some local groups have objected and have been supported by the likes of 2012 presidential aspirants Sarah Palin, who called the mosque a “stab to the heart”, and Newt Gingrich, who saw the mosque as part of a larger challenge arguing that “America is experiencing an Islamist cultural-political offensive designed to undermine and destroy our civilization”. A conservative magazine accelerated the assault with a personal attack on the mosque project’s leader, Imam Faisal Abdul Raouf - a truly honorable man with a long record of promoting peace and reconciliation. Using the now familiar tools of half quotes, fabricated connections (described by another writer as: “his wife has an uncle who used to be “a leader” of a mosque that now has a Web site that links to the Web site of an allegedly radical organization”), and innuendo, the article attempts to portray Imam Faisal as a suspicious and even dangerous threat. And now Congressman Peter King, the Republican ranking member of House Homeland Security Committee has called for an investigation into Faisal Abdul Raouf. And so I understand Shirley Sherrod. I know what she has endured and while I celebrate her vindication, I know we, as Americans, are not yet out of the woods. Something is fundamentally rotten in our political culture - where groups seeking political advantage can so easily make victims of innocents and cowards will let good people pay a price rather than defend their rights to a fair hearing. More on Sarah Palin

See the original post: 
James Zogby: I Understand Shirley Sherrod

By Peter Dreier and Christopher Martin Andrew Breitbart has a job to do and he does it well. Breitbart’s job is to lie and distort the truth in order to advance a right-wing agenda, embarrass liberals, and undermine the Obama administration. Breitbart is not a journalist, researcher, or pundit. He is a propagandist. He operates several websites (BigGovernment, BigJournalism, and BigHollywood), where he and other right-wing bloggers spew their political pornography. The articles that appear on these websites are contemporary versions of what historian Richard Hofstadter called, in a famous 1964 essay, the “paranoid style” of American politics practiced by extreme conservatives. Breitbart is part of the “paranoid style” conservative echo chamber that includes Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Mark Levin, and thousands of lesser-known activists who use a combination of talk radio, Fox News, dozens of conservative publications, and the new media (emails, blogs, youtube, facebook) to mobilize support for their right-wing crusade. Breitbart was a featured speaker at the Tea Party conference in Nashville in February and is a frequent guest on Fox News and right-wing TV and radio talk shows. His websites are propaganda vehicles for building a political movement. Unlike Fox News, he doesn’t even pretend to be “fair and balanced.” What much of America learned this week is that Andrew Breitbart is unfair and unbalanced. What’s distressing is not that Breitbart does his job, but that the mainstream media and mainstream politicians, including the Obama Administration, take him seriously. The recent dust-up over the firing of federal Department of Agriculture employee Shirley Sherrod, fueled by a doctored video on Breitbart’s website, is only the latest example of this. Since he began his website operation, Breitbart has sought to inject himself and his blogger network into the political debate. Sometimes he succeeds in getting wider attention, outside the right-wing silo, for the manufactured scandals he tries to provoke. Breitbart’s public visibility has peaked twice, according to an analysis of stories on the Lexis/Nexis database. His first brush with fame occurred in September 2009, after he sponsored two young right-wing video activists - Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe - who visited 10 ACORN offices with a hidden video camera, claiming they were a prostitute and her friend, and tried to entrap the group’s staff into giving them advice about buying a home to use for their prostitution ring. They recorded their stunt and selectively edited the tapes for release, later splicing in video footage of O’Keefe dressed up in an outlandish pimp costume (hat, sunglasses, fur coat, and walking stick) with racist overtones. In fact, O’Keefe actually wore a dress shirt and slacks and identified himself as a student or friend of the young woman who was trying to protect her. Although O’Keefe’s costume change was exposed months ago, the image has been imprinted in the media’s mind. On Thursday, for example, the Associated Press story about Breitbart referred to O’Keefe and Giles as “actors posing as a prostitute and her pimp.” Breitbart not only defended the duo’s actions but said that O’Keefe “is already well on his way to being one of the great journalists” and that he deserved a Pulitzer Prize. Breitbart has refused to release the original, unedited videos to any of the organizations investigating the ACORN controversy. By the second week of September 2009, the ACORN videos became a national story. The videos were posted on Breitbeck’s website, then quickly became the top story on the Glenn Beck Show, the rest of Fox News, conservative talk radio (including Rush Limbaugh and his local counterparts), and CNN’s Lou Dobbs Show. The controversy proved irresistible for the mainstream news media, which reported the story and broadcast clips of the videos many times. These video attacks compounded ACORN’s problems, having been the victim of another manufactured scandal before and during the 2008 presidential campaign, when Karl Rove, John McCain, Sarah Palin, and the Republican establishment falsely accused ACORN of “voter fraud.” The videos led many of ACORN’s supporters to abandon the community organizing group. Soon after the video scandal surfaced in the mainstream media, the U.S. House of Representatives (including many Democrats who had worked with ACORN in the past) voted to de-fund the organization. In reality, less than 10 percent of ACORN’s budget came from federal grants. But the symbolism of Congress’ action was more important than the money itself. Congress’ action provoked ACORN’s cautious foundation funders to drop the group like a hot potato. Within a few months, ACORN had been exonerated of wrongdoing by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the Brooklyn District Attorney’s office, the Attorney General of California, and a federal judge, who ruled that the law barring the group’s receipt of federal funds was unconstitutional. By then, however, it was too late. In April, ACORN laid off its entire staff and closed its offices in over 100 cities. (Meanwhile, last January O’Keefe was arrested for breaking into Sen. Mary Landrieu’s New Orleans office in another “gotcha” attempt,; he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to three years of probation, a fine of $1,500 and 100 hours of community service). (Full disclosure: We were a target of Breitbart’s smear tactics after we published a study last year revealing the distorted media coverage of the manufactured ACORN controversy. An updated and expanded version of that study will be published in a few weeks in the fall issue of Perspectives on Politics , a journal sponsored by the American Political Science Association). Now Breitbart is back in the news as a result of another manufactured controversy, this one regarding Shirley Sherrod. It has many of the same elements as the phony ACORN scandal that he cooked up last year. First, Breitbart posted a highly doctored video on his website that was intended to put its target (both African Americans - hardly a coincidence) in the worst possible light. Then the right-wing echo chamber - including Fox News and the conservative blogosphere — picked up Breitbart’s ball and ran with it. Next, the mainstream media - the daily newspapers and the TV networks - took the false accusations at face value and repeated them without bothering to verify and fact-check, acting more like stenographers than reporters. Finally, liberal groups like the NAACP and liberal politicians (in this case, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and the White House), wary of any controversy, jumped the gun and distanced themselves from the target of Breitbart’s attacks - by firing Sherrod before she even had an opportunity to explain or they bothered to investigate the accusations. Unlike the manufactured ACORN controversy, Breitbart’s deception in the Sherrod “scandal” was uncovered quickly. A few media outlets, including CNN, dug a bit deeper, interviewed Sherrod, talked to the white farmers that Sherrod helped, reviewed the entire videotape of her speech to the NAACP in Georgia, and disclosed what should have been apparent from the beginning - that what Sherrod actually said had no relationship to what Breitbart claimed she said. This led the White House, Vilsack, the NAACP and others to offer apologies and led Vilsack to offer Sherrod another job with the Department of Agriculture. There are thousands of right-wing websites and bloggers, but so far Breitbart is the most successful, having mastered - indeed, having helped create - the new rules of political combat made possible by the internet and cable TV. Breitbart has not only drawn attention to his manufactured scandals but also to himself. Time magazine, the New Yorker , Wired , Slate , and other publications have published profiles of Breitbart. These profiles could hardly be called fawning or even admiring. He comes across as an obnoxious, self-centered bully. But the profiles are nevertheless respectful, in the sense that they recognize his entrepreneurial skill and his take-no-prisoners attitude. Both the right-wing echo chamber and the mainstream media don’t quite know how to categorize Breibart and what he does. The Philadelphia Daily News called him a “rising conservative media figure.” The Washington Post called him a “conservative activist” and an “internet entrepreneur.” NPR described him as a “conservative online news entrepreneur.” The New York Times and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution called him a “blogger,” while Newsday and the New Republic called him a “conservative blogger.” The Las Vegas Review-Journal called him an “online muckraker and journalist.” Sean Hannity, the San Francisco Chronicle , and ABC’s “Good Morning America” labeled him a “publisher.” Regardless of what he’s called, the Sherrod story is a good example of Breitbart’s skill at what academics call “agenda-setting” and “framing”. A week ago, hardly anyone had ever heard of Shirley Sherrod. Now, she’s practically a household name. And many people who might not recognize her name at least know something of the story. In the past few days, almost every major news outlet has published or broadcast something about this story. That’s the art of agenda-setting. Americans not only know who Sherrod is, they already have an opinion about her, because they’ve been told that she’s a black federal employee who used her position to discriminate against whites. That’s the art of framing. Within a matter of hours, that frame burned through the media like prairie fire. This process is easily verified by an examination of Lexis-Nexis. Among daily newspapers, the conservative Washington Times has been the most likely to report Breitbart’s propaganda over the past few years, followed by the Wall Street Journal . Among magazines, the conservative National Review , followed by the right-wing American Spectator , have given Breitbart a megaphone. Among TV networks, Fox News has been Breitbart’s best customer, followed by CNN. Only after his smears are reported in the right-wing echo chamber do the mainstream media outlets pick it up, where it reaches a much wider audience. The mainstream media are mesmerized by the Tea Party and controversies that it and its political allies have stoked. In bending over backwards to cover the right wing, the reporters and editors have lost sight of the journalists’ responsibilities not only to fact-check and verify, but also to provide context. By now it is clear what Breitbart is selling. But the real question is why the mainstream media and Democratic politicians bought it. Breitbart is a con artist, but con artists succeed if consumers don’t know they are being conned - or don’t care. Given Breitbart’s track record, why does anyone - reporters and editors, foundations, advocacy groups, and elected officials - take him seriously? Or why not at least treat him like an arm of the Tea Party, as a political activist, and a propagandist, not as a source of credible information? Of course, Breitbart has offered no apology and is still trying to defend and justify his actions. Perhaps this most recent brouhaha will destroy Breitbart’s credibility with the mainstream media and even with his right-wing colleagues at Fox News and elsewhere, who were embarrassed by the Sherrod mishap. But it isn’t only the mainstream media that needs to do some soul-searching. It is also the Obama Administration and, more broadly, liberal Democrats and liberal advocacy groups and foundations, who were too quick to distance themselves from ACORN and now Sherrod. Clearly the Obama administration over-reacted, fearful, as a high-level official put it, of having the Sherrod story show up on Glenn Beck’s Fox News show. Why they are so intimidated by Beck and his ilk is a mystery. Their followers, and those who identify with the Tea Party, represent no more than 15 percent of all voters. Moreover, very few of Beck’s (or Limbaugh’s) devotees would even consider voting for a Democrat. After all, they think Obama is a Marxist, a Muslim, and a foreigner. This is not a constituency that Obama and the Democrats are going to win over by appearing to be bipartisan or middle-of-the-road. And if Obama and his inner circle are worried that Breitbart’s and Beck’s poison will spread from their base among right-wing zealots and start influencing “independent” and “swing” voters — and thus help sway close elections toward Republican candidates — then the best way to prevent that from happening is to fight back, and challenge their lies and distortions, not run away and hide, or capitulate, as they did by firing Van Jones, abandoning ACORN, and firing Shirley Sherrod. Breitbart’s credibility may or may not survive the Sherrod controversy. But what’s important is whether responsible journalists — as well as the Obama administration, the Democrats, and liberals and progressives — learn some lessons from this episode. Peter Dreier teaches politics at Occidental College. Christopher Martin teaches communications at the University of Northern Iowa. More on Bill O'Reilly

View original here:
Peter Dreier: Why Does Anyone Take Andrew Breitbart Seriously?

While Sarah Palin has swooped into other states, babbled about grizzly bears and lipstick, and helped influence some primary races, it turns out that the people who know her best don’t care what she has to say when it comes to primaries. But the outlook doesn’t seem as promising for another Palin favorite, Joe Miller, who is waging an uphill bid for U.S. Senate back in Palin’s home state. Palin endorsed the Fairbanks attorney in a June Facebook posting, calling him “a true Commonsense Constitutional Conservative.” A new survey, however, has Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski crushing Miller in Alaska’s Aug. 24 primary, 62% to 30%, and shows Murkowski to be considerably more popular than Palin. Maybe Queen Sarah can play kingmaker in Republican races in Nevada, California, and South Carolina, but Alaskans don’t seem to care who Sarah likes best. But then, given that in Alaska, her approval numbers are 47% negative and 41% positive, it seems Alaskans don’t seem to care for Sarah at all. Also.

Originally posted here:
Palin’s endorsement power has its limits — in Alaska

The Shirley Sherrod debacle shows that Barack Obama’s White House pays a great deal of attention to Fox News and the right wing blogosphere. They refer to it as ‘the atmosphere’, as thought the right wing were a force of nature that can only be dealt with by panic and immediate surrender. Many have suggested that President Obama ignore the right wing but we all know that telling someone not to think of a red elephant only makes them think of it right away. The human brain abhors a vacuum. We need to focus on something. The reason President Obama focuses on the Right is because he’s ignored The Left since day after the election and if he wants to save his Presidency, that needs to change. In fact, the only times that President Obama and his gang o’ hacks haven’t ignored the left is when they’ve blown off steam by actually attacking progressives. Who called MoveOn.org ‘fucking retarded’? Was it Andrew Breitbart? Glenn Beck? Mel Gibson? Of course not - it was Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Rahm’s outburst was right in line with the path the Obama administration has taken from the beginning — side with Big Business in the hopes of building the Democratic war chest through corporate donations. Every watered down, ginned up, company approved bit of major legislation that has oozed through Congress and on to the President’s desk has helped bail out corporate America at the expense of the middle class. Meanwhile, the base on the Left continues to talk about things like a fair economy, the environment and ending wars that we can’t win. The President has hidden behind his bully pulpit on these issues, unwilling to stand for anything that doesn’t fit the script Rahm Inc. has written for him. So we’re left with a President who has almost no choice but to focus on Fox News. When you abandon your friends, all you’re left with is enemies. Should the President cower at the likes of lightweights like Bill O’Reilly or Sarah Palin? Of course not but what we need is positive action. Barack Obama needs to do what we elected him to do — stand and fight with heroes like Shirley Sherrod, Elizabeth Warren and Daniel Choi. Consider the quiet bravery of just those three people; Sherrod, Warren and Choi. They have stood up for values that America has struggled with since its inception like justice, fair play and equality. Then ask yourself why President Obama isn’t in their corner. He could be, he should be and he is not. Think of that. There’s still time to change the course of President Obama’s squandered Presidency but it will take more than just ignoring Fox to do it. More on Barack Obama

More here: 
Lee Stranahan: President Obama Listens To The Right Because He Ignores The Left

Great news for the voters of Nevada: Sharron Angle is finally subjecting herself to the rigors of questioning from the media. The day after walking out of her own campaign event when reporters were offered an opportunity to ask questions, Nevada GOP Senate nominee Sharron Angle on Thursday responded to a question from a reporter Notice that there wasn’t a period at the end of that blockquote. The reason? Well, read the rest of the sentence: — to tell them she wasn’t answering the question. Apparently, Angle refused to answer the question because it wasn’t on the topic of her press conference. At the beginning of the press conference, Angle’s spokeswoman had told reporters that the candidate would take questions as long as those questions were related to the topic of Angle’s event, which was focused on reducing taxes on a estates of multimillionaires. When a reporter flouted the spokeswoman’s strictures, Angle refused to answer. “Today we’re concentrating on one thing,” she said. Given those policies, I tried to imagine what question Palin Angle might actually be willing to answer. The only one I could come up with was “What did you just say?”

See the original post here: 
NV-Sen: Angle finally allows questions, with a caveat

UPDATED Former Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman has been quietly gauging support for a potential run for chairman of the Republican National Committee. Coleman, who lost his re-election bid to Al Franken (D) by the slimmest of margins, has been meeting in private with “multiple high-level GOP officials” in the past month, Politico reports. Politico’s Jonathan Martin sought comment from Coleman about his potential interest in the job — now held by embattled RNC chief Michael Steele — but the Minnesota Republican declined to offer specifics. “My focus is on the 2010 elections,” Coleman wrote in an e-mail message . “We have a huge opportunity to stop the Democrats’ out-of-control spending and losing the opportunity would be devastating for the country.” Since the election, Coleman has led the American Action Network, a conservative political action committee. The group has targeted Florida Senate candidate Gov. Charlie Crist, releasing ads in the Tampa and panhandle areas against the Republican-turned-Independent contender. As for Coleman’s possible interest in the top spot at the RNC, the former senator may offer more clues about his intentions during his planned trip to the RNC’s summer meeting next month. Several potential contenders to replace the gaffe-prone Steele have already surfaced, including Jeb Bush, Tim Pawlenty and even Sarah Palin. More on Michael Steele

Read the original:
Norm Coleman Mulling Challenge To Michael Steele For RNC Chairmanship

A humble reminder, once more: if you are here with us in the the lovely (and toasty) metropolis of Las Vegas, you can catch me, Markos Moulitsas, Laura Clawson, Joan McCarter, and the entire Swing State Project crew tomorrow afternoon at 4:30 PM, as we lead a Q&A on the 2010 elections. For those on site, we will be getting after it in the Brasilia 6 meeting room. Having tossed out the obligatory plug, we can now press onward, to a pretty intriguing Thursday edition of the Wrap… THE U.S. SENATE AK-Sen: Public poll of contested primary shows an incumbent rout There is now nonpartisan polling out of Alaska on the much-hyped primary between incumbent Republican Lisa Murkowski and teabagger-and-Palin propelled candidate Joe Miller. The early indications are that this race is largely uncompetitive. Murkowski currently holds a 62-30 lead over Miller, according to the poll by locally-based pollster Ivan Moore Research. The two candidates will square off in their primary on August 24th. CO-Sen: Ken Buck–vote for me because “I don’t wear high heels” This might not be the “Macaca moment” that the campaign of establishment favorite Jane Norton hopes, but it is was nonetheless are pretty stupid unforced error . Apparently, Buck took umbrage to Norton’s commentary that Buck should be “man enough” to attack her directly, rather than through outside groups. His manhood having thusly called into question, he launched into a freewheeling response at a campaign event that bordered on being…well…dumb. When asked by a guest why they should vote for him, Buck’s flip response was “Because I do not wear high heels.” This was apparently in response to Norton’s occasional tendency to invoke her gender (particularly wearing high heels). He then, to further cement his manliness, used the word “bullshit” a few times before finishing off. Not surprisingly, it took Norton about forty-five seconds to craft an ad on Buck’s outburst. FL-Sen: Meek still leads Dem primary, but it is close Right now, according to the crack polling crew at PPP, Democratic Congressman Kendrick Meek has withstood the assault from wealthy late arrival to the race Jeff Greene. But the race is extremely close , and half the electorate is still on the fence. Meek holds, at present, a 28-25 lead over Greene, according to the PPP poll released today. LA-Sen: Dem internal poll moves Senate race to toss-up Apparently, the tussle over his disgraced staffer, once coupled to his other personal dramas, has moved the needle in his Senate re-election race against Democrat Charlie Melancon. At least that is the take from a new internal poll for Melancon, by Anzalone Liszt. The pollster has Vitter at 44%, with Melancon right on his heels at 43%. Furthermore, the A-L polling memo suggest that if Melancon can merely replicate what other Democrats have done with African-American voters, he likely moves into the lead over Vitter. NH-Sen: Give Senate candidate credit for the clever tie-in Given that much of the progressive political community has congregated in Las Vegas this week for Netroots Nation, you gotta give likely Democratic Senate nominee Paul Hodes credit for taking a timely approach to his race. His crew launched a site today, “Paul’s All In” (a poker reference, for the uninitiated) both makes an appeal to the netroots by the candidate, as well as taking shots at the coterie of right-wingers vying for the nomination on the other side. NC-Sen: Another Dem internal poll puts GOP incumbent behind Also emerging from the world of internal polling today was a real head-turner: according to a new poll for Democratic challenger Elaine Marshall, she has moved into the lead against freshman incumbent Republican Richard Burr. The poll, from Lake Research, has Marshall at 37%, Burr at 35%, and Libertarian candidate Mike Beitler at 5%. Burr has moved, according to the poll, from being unknown to unliked–his favorability spread was a fairly woeful 34/43. WA-Sen: Dino Rossi tries to needle Murray, jabs self with needle If this is the kind of high-quality campaign Patty Murray can expect from likely Republican rival Dino Rossi, then she has to be feeling awfully good about her chances. Rossi’s campaign decided to take a shot at Murray for a “flip-flop” on the UI extensions. Rossi claimed that Murray voted for a Tom Coburn-sponsored amendment demanding that any extension of unemployment benefits be offset by budget cuts, despite long proclaiming that she would never entertain such a notion. The only problem with Rossi’s broadside? It was nowhere near accurate . Murray had voted for an entirely different Coburn amendment, one dealing with budget transparency. Rossi’s campaign stuck to its guns on the charge for about a day before admitting their mistake. Here’s betting that the Rossi oppo research team won’t be seeing raises any time soon. WV-Sen: Raese leaps into the race…with ethnic humor?! Somewhere in the campaign guidebook, there must be a corollary about not invoking ethnic humor into a campaign, especially on the day you are entering said campaign. Apparently, wealthy GOP businessman John Raese missed that page in the guidebook. Raese jumped into the race by comparing the Democratic frontrunner, Joe Manchin, to Tony Soprano. Manchin, indeed, is of Italian ancestry. He also, to prove that his bad humor is not merely ethnic in nature, referred to newly appointed interim Senator Carte Goodwin as “Carte Blanche.” With that razor-like wit, expect Raese to make a big impact on the campaign circuit, if not in the Catskills. THE U.S. HOUSE KS-01: Local newspaper revokes GOP endorsement for birtherism One has to imagine that the local media in the uber-conservative Kansas 1st district is not exactly a reservoir of liberalism. Viewed through that lens, this is a extraordinary rebuke . The Hutchinson News has revoked its recent endorsement of Tracey Mann in the crowded GOP primary in the 1st, on the grounds that Mann is an espoused proponent of birtherism. In its retraction announcement, the editorial board said the following: Whether Mann truly doubts the president’s citizenship or is just saying so in another effort to appeal to the far-right extremists of his party and get elected we don’t know. Either way, it is unflattering and doesn’t demonstrate the kind of intellect we want representing us in Congress. The newspaper elected not to replace Mann with another candidate, meaning that they will make no formal endorsement for the August 3rd primary. VA-09: Boucher holds double-digit lead in new SUSA poll Given the reddish nature of the “Fighting Ninth” district in southern Virginia, the name of longtime Democratic Rep. Rick Boucher has made its way onto a few target lists among the pundit class. But a new poll by SurveyUSA has the Democrat solidly ahead of his Republican challenger, state legislator Morgan Griffith. According to SUSA, Boucher has a thirteen-point lead (52-39) over Griffith. RACE FOR THE HOUSE: DCCC lays out the cash, targets seventeen seats Anyone interested about the districts the DCCC are most interested in defending might have gotten a clue from where the campaign wing of House Democrats plunked down the cash for advance media buys. In total, the DCCC has bought nearly eight million dollars of air time in markets reaching seventeen vulnerable districts. Here is the complete list of districts: CO-04 (Markey), FL-02 (Boyd), ID-01 (Minnick), IN-02 (Donnelly), IA-03 (Boswell), NM-01 (Heinrich), NM-02 (Teague), NY-23 (Owens), NY-24 (Arcuri), NC-08 (Kissell), PA-03 (Dahlkemper), PA-12 (Critz), SC-05 (Spratt), SD-AL (Herseth-Sandlin), TX-23 (Rodriguez), VA-02 (Nye), VA-05 (Perriello) Remember, of course, that this is the first round of buys, so the ommission of certain districts one would expect to be targetted (all of the Philly-area districts being off the list caught my eye, for example). Also, one could expect that the DCCC will also play some offense in places like IL-10, DE-AL, and LA-02. THE GUBERNATORIAL RACES CO-Gov: Has the GOP bailed out of Colorado? The local website Colorado Pols thinks that the Republicans have bailed out of the Colorado Governors race in the wake of the twin implosions of Scott McInnis and Dan Maes. The Republican Governor’s Association denied it, but the Colorado Pols site thinks there is mounting evidence to suggest otherwise. FL-Gov: Scott has laid McCollum out, according to PPP poll Super-rich health care magnate Rick Scott’s free-spending entrance into the Florida Governor’s race has clearly turned it on its head, for sure. One thing has become clear, though: he is now the decisive frontrunner for the GOP nomination. This is confirmed by today’s new poll from PPP, which has Scott staked to a double-digit lead (43-29) over the former frontrunner in the race, state Attorney General Bill McCollum. Interestingly, neither candidate is beloved even within their own party, with Scott more “liked” at a mediocre 35/32 spread among Republicans. MI-Gov: Dillon snags another major endorsement in Dem primary Over the past couple of weeks, Democratic contenders Andy Dillon and Virg Bernero have been playing tit-for-tat with regard to big-time Democratic endorsements. Dillon just smashed the ball back into Bernero’s court today, having nailed down the endorsement of the newly elected mayor of Detroit, Dave Bing. OH-Gov: News flash–John Kasich is not a nice man This is pretty damned funny, all in all: alternative Columbus media outlet The Other Paper chronicles one of those poorly-kept secrets in American politics: Ohio GOP gubernatorial nominee John Kasich has something of a short temper . My personal favorite: Kasich pulling a “do you know who I am” rant on a teenaged grocery store clerk when the clerk demanded two forms of ID for Kasich’s DC-based out-of-state check. THE RAS-A-POLL-OOZA Shock of shocks: team Ras becomes one of the first pollsters in recent memory to keep Republican Marco Rubio out in front of the Senate race in Florida. They also give the GOP the narrow edge in Georgia, in advance of next month’s gubernatorial runoff. However, even the House of Ras can’t propel the GOP into the lead in either Arkansas (although they join Talk Business in giving incumbent Governor Mike Beebe a somewhat narrow edge) or New York. AR-Gov: Gov. Mike Beebe (D) 50%, Jim Keet (R) 40% FL-Sen: Marco Rubio (R) 35%, Charlie Crist (I) 33%, Kendrick Meek (D) 20% FL-Sen: Charlie Crist (I) 36%, Marco Rubio (R) 34%, Jeff Greene (D) 19% GA-Gov: Nathan Deal (R) 49%, Roy Barnes (D) 43% GA-Gov: Karen Handel (R) 45%, Roy Barnes (D) 44% NY-Gov: Andrew Cuomo (D) 58%, Carl Paladino (R) 29% NY-Gov: Andrew Cuomo (D) 58%, Rick Lazio (R) 27%

Continued here: 
Polling and Political Wrap, 7/22/10

Just how much is a Sarah Palin endorsement worth in Alaska? At least as far as the state’s U.S. Senate GOP primary is concerned, not very much it seems. Incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowki is leading challenger Joe Miller 62 percent to 30 percent, according to a Ivan Moore Research poll. (More than half of the Alaskans polled said that they had no impression of Miller.) Miller not only has Palin’s backing but also the support of the Tea Party Express heading into the Aug. 28 primary. The National Journal reports that “Palin initially said she would back Murkowski and cut the senator’s campaign a check. But this spring, Palin decided to back Miller after her husband, Todd Palin, hosted a Miller fundraiser in Wasilla.” Another recent survey points out Palin’s dwindling popularity in her home state. Palin, who was once extremely popular as governor, is now viewed unfavorable by 47 percent of Alaskans compared to 41 percent who view her favorably. The Ivan Moore Research survey was conducted July 7-11 and polled 647 registered voters, including 303 Republican voters in Alaska. More on 2010 Elections

More: 
Sarah Palin-Endorsed Alaska Senate Candidate Trailing Lisa Murkowski By Wide Margin

From my fourth-floor room at the Rio, I can see beautiful people frolicking in the glorious pool area in sparkling sunshine (albeit sunshine that is generating 109 degree heat). Me? I am ensconced in an easy chair. Typing a bunch of political news on a laptop. Never let it be said that I don’t love you people. With that bit of gratuitous whining out of the way, please enjoy the Wednesday edition of the Wrap, live from Las Vegas! THE U.S. SENATE CT-Sen: Simmons makes (halting) comeback to Senate race Last week, former GOP Congressman Rob Simmons made a much publicized flirtation with leaping back into the U.S. Senate race in the Nutmeg State. That became all but official today, as Simmons returned to the airwaves with an ad encouraging voters to “vote with your heart and your head.” It closes with an extremely telling tagline: “I’m Rob Simmons, I’m still on the ballot, and I approved this message.” The campaign of GOP frontrunner Linda McMahon was swift and unsparing with their response, accusing Simmons of breaking his word to Connecticut Republicans, as he promised to honor the results of the May nominating convention. FL-Sen: Did newcomer Greene buy a Senate endorsement? The timing, of course, could entirely be a coincidence. But something about this move has a certain unpleasant odor . Billionaire upstart Jeff Greene, who jumped into the Democratic Senate primary late and has spent lavishly, might have spent a little cash buying some credibility. At issue was an endorsement of DNC member Jon Ausman. It came, quite curiously, not long after Greene had paid Ausman $4000 for what was described as “political consultation and strategy.” Greene is going heads-up with Democratic Congressman Kendrick Meek in the primary scheduled for next month. LA-Sen: What is it about those Louisiana Republicans?! Two weeks ago, former state Supreme Court justice Chet Traylor made waves with an 11th hour primary challenge to incumbent GOP Senator David Vitter. Now, it looks like Vitter and Traylor might have even more in common than previously thought. With Traylor now a big statewide player, some folks are coming forward to claim that Traylor has had illicit affairs with a pair of married women, and that he might have been the catalyst for a divorce between a Democratic state representative and his wife (who later became Traylor’s wife). Remember, folks, that Traylor was recruited to run because Republicans were scared that Vitter’s personal foibles were rendering him unelectable. WV-Sen: Capito decides to forgo Senate bid, dashing GOP hopes Color me considerably surprised by this move. When state GOPers insisted on the ability for special election candidates to be able to run in two races simultaneously, it seemed to be that they were greasing the skids for Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito to make a bid. Today, Capito dashed those hopes by announcing that she will not be a candidate in the special election to be held in November. This leaves John Raese, who ran against the late Senator Robert Byrd in 2006 and was easily defeated, as the most likely Republican to make the leap. Democrats are likely to coalesce quickly around Governor Joe Manchin, who announced his Senate bid yesterday . Today, incidentally, Manchin drew a (ahem) unique primary challenger: former Democratic Congressman and Secretary of State Ken Hechler. Politico writer Shira Toeplitz dubs Hechler a “veteran Dem”. Um…that’s an understatement : Hechler, at the tender age of 95 , was first elected to Congress back in 1958. THE U.S. HOUSE GA-04/GA-09/GA-12: Primary day post-mortem One incumbent did get forced into a runoff last night in Georgia, while two prominent Democrats withstood serious primary threats. The incumbent forced into a runoff isn’t a big shock–it was newly minted Rep. Tom Graves, who was just elected to the seat one month ago in the wake of Nathan Deal’s resignation to run for Governor. Graves came just shy in his conservative district (GA-09) of clearing 50%, coming to rest at 49.5%. The man he defeated in a special election a few weeks back, state legislator Lee Hawkins, made the runoff at 27% of the vote. Graves will be an overwhelming favorite in the runoff next month. Meanwhile, two potentially perilous Democratic primaries were held, and the incumbents managed to make it to November without needing runoffs. In Atlanta’s 4th district, Hank Johnson (55% of the vote) repelled the twin challenges of former DeKalb County CEO Vernon Jones and county commissioner Connie Stokes. Downstate, John Barrow did a little bit better, defeating Regina Thomas in their rematch of the 2008 Democratic primary by sixteen points (58-42). Two other mild surprises were the failure of wealthy state legislator Clay Cox to make it into a runoff in GA-07, and the slightly disappointing showing for state legislator Austin Scott in GA-08, where the highly-touted GOP contender barely avoided a runoff. HI-01: Hanabusa makes point while making peace with national Dems Now that she has a clean shot at newly-elected Republican incumbent Rep. Charles Djou in Hawaii, Colleen Hanabusa’s relationship with the DCCC and national Democrats has begun to thaw. That said, she wants to make it clear to them that they erred badly in trying to nudge her out of the race in favor of former Democratic Congressman Ed Case. Hanabusa dinged the national Dems for not trusting the fact that, as a longtime veteran of local politics, she did not have a better read on the situation than they did: “I’m president of the Senate. I’m not a neophyte when it comes to understanding political alignments and misalignments.” IA-02: Miller-Meeks internal poll claims much closer race than ‘08 Crisitunity’s must read Daily Digest over at Swing State Project offers up yet another intriguing internal poll from a GOP campaign. This one comes from Iowa GOPer Marianette Miller-Meeks, who lost to Democratic incumbent Dave Loebsack quite easily (57-39) in 2008. This time around, Miller-Meeks’ polling from Susquehanna Research is singing a very different tune. She claims that her polling shows her down by just five points (46-41) to the sophomore Democrat. MI-08: Candidate wages write-in bid to replace departed Dem Democrats were left holding the bag in the Spring, when shortly after the filing deadline, Democrat Kande Ngalamulume dropped his bid to face Mike Rogers in the 8th district. With no other Democrats on the ballot, it looked like Rogers might get a free ride for 2010. There is a Democrat, however, fielding a write-in bid to win the nomination. His name is Lance Enderle, he has great taste in neckwear (click the link–it’s worth it), and he has run for office in the past. Enderle, a teacher and coach who was one of many educators to lose his job in the state budget crunch, would need to meet a baseline number of votes, even if he manages to earn more votes than Ngalamulume in the Democratic primary. VA-05: SUSA poll claims massive GOP lead in Dem-held seat This is probably the most pessimistic poll for a Democratic candidate in this cycle not named Blanche Lincoln. A new poll out late last night from SurveyUSA claims a lead of twenty-three points for Republican state legislator Rob Hurt over Democratic freshman Rep. Tom Perriello. Some critics have pointed out that the partisan breakdown of the poll was vastly different than SUSA’s 2008 polls here. However, SUSA, mindful of that criticism, points out that Perriello would still trail, even with the previous turnout model intact. THE GUBERNATORIAL RACES FL-Gov: Fractious GOP propels Sink into November lead, says PPP Yesterday, PPP teased potentially explosive results in their gubernatorial poll in the Sunshine State. Clearly, the results of that poll show that the teaser from yesterday was not hyperbole. The new poll has Alex Sink with a legitimate advantage over either Republican in the field. Against newcomer Rick Scott, Sink enjoys a six point edge (36-30), with 13% for Dem-turned-Indie Bud Chiles. When paired with veteran state Attorney General Bill McCollum, the lead stretches to double digits (37-23), with Chiles back at 14%. The key is the incredible disregard with which Scott or McCollum backers hold the other Republican in the field. Given that, the former Dem Chiles might actually be helping Sink, by offering an option for those taking sides in this GOP blood feud. GA-Gov: Handel gets another 2012 aspirant into her corner for runoff About a week after Sarah Palin cast her lot with Georgia GOP gubernatorial candidate Karen Handel, Handel got love from another major player in the 2012 GOP carousel of candidates. Today, it was Mitt Romney, who offered his vocal support, as well as the support we have come to know and love from Mitt–cold, hard cash. Romney tossed a $1000 check in Handel’s direction. Handel led the field of GOP candidates in last night’s primary, earning 34% of the vote. Congressman Nathan Deal, who earned 23% of the vote last night, enters the runoff with the endorsement of yet another ‘12 player: former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. NV-Gov: Sandoval with solid lead in general election, according to PPP While the numbers aren’t quite as bad as Rasmussen has continued to insist, yet another poll hands Nevada Republican Brian Sandoval a double digit advantage over Democrat Rory Reid in the battle to replace Jim Gibbons as the state’s governor. The new poll out today from PPP gives Sandoval a fourteen-point (52-38) advantage over Reid, a Clark County Commissioner and the son of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. RI-Gov: Rhode Island teachers union spurns Democrat, goes Indie Today, Rhode Island Democrats probably felt the first negative side effect of the exit of more liberal Democratic candidate Patrick Lynch from the gubernatorial race in Rhode Island. The Rhode Island Federation of Teachers and Health Professionals has offered their endorsement to Republican-turned-Independent Lincoln Chafee, the former U.S. Senator. Most intriguing in the story: union officials said that the Democratic frontrunner (state treasurer Frank Caprio) chose not to be interviewed for the endorsement. THE RAS-A-POLL-OOZA As I noted during the midday open thread, even the Ras-sies couldn’t find enough lipstick for Minnesota GOP nominee Tom Emmer, who has dropped precipitously since the last time the House of Ras headed to the state. We also get new data from Idaho, Ohio, and Kentucky. While Idaho is a little bit of a surprise (GOP Governor Butch Otter is not exactly destroying Democrat Keith Allred), Ohio and Kentucky are utterly predictable. ID-Gov: Gov. Butch Otter (R) 53%, Keith Allred (D) 36% KY-Sen: Rand Paul (R) 49%, Jack Conway (D) 41% MN-Gov: Margaret Anderson-Kelliher (D) 40%, Tom Emmer (R) 35%, Tom Horner (I) 11% MN-Gov: Mark Dayton (D) 40%, Tom Emmer (R) 36%, Tom Horner (I) 10% MN-Gov: Matt Entenza (D) 37%, Tom Emmer (R) 36%, Tom Horner (I) 12% OH-Gov: John Kasich (R) 48%, Gov. Ted Strickland (D) 43%

Read the original here: 
Polling and Political Wrap, 7/21/10

My date was charming, chivalrous, and unfortunately, somewhat of a chauvinist. What I wore: Calvin Klein black sandal stilettos, J Brand black jeans that at this point are so worn out I shouldn’t wear them out in public, a Tucker patterned blouse, and a Kukla (woo Argentine designers) denim vest. Where we went: La Tasca. Great atmospherics, now an even more hoppin’ locale due to Spain’s glorious triumph in the World Cup . Vale. http://www.latascausa.com/site/locations/washington-dc/ Although I am technically from the South (DC is below the Mason-Dixon line), I consider myself to be a pretty big Yankee. I was a Yanqui in Buenos Aires too, but that’s just any American at all. My date was an adorable Southern gentleman. He had a drawl, he was wearing loafers (is this Southern? Maybe I just like loafers. Boys always look cute in loafers.) He held every door, pulled out my chair, stood up when I walked in (! I was like uh what is this The King and I?). We didn’t have a ton in common, but I was enjoying myself until we got into a conversation that we a) probably shouldn’t have been having on a first date, and even is included in the list I wrote of topics that you should not discuss until you would maybe pick your nose in front of the other person and b) turned me off so much that I almost broke out the Tilapia. Somehow the topic of working mothers came up. My date told me that he would never want his wife to work, because he thinks that it’s really important for a mother to stay at home and raise kids. Womp. I understand some people want to be stay at home mothers, I have no problem with that. But it’s entirely the woman’s choice. I care about having a career (maybe even one beyond sitting in my jammies, waxing poetic about J Date while trying to remember if I changed my socks, and eating cheetos in even numbers, I know its a thing). I also love babies, their hands are so little and their cheeks are so squishy. Not to mention, they just get to be carried and wheeled around all day. But it’s not impossible to do both. I’m not sure I could put my professional aspirations on the back-burner for kids. Granted, I don’t have any children, and my priorities are mostly about myself and the state of my cuticles. But still. I would say the date turned South from there, but he was Southern, so I guess it turned North. I focused a lot on mashing the lime in my vodka soda and lime and thinking about what I was going to wear the next day. I felt bad, because how can you judge someone over one statement? Then again, had I said something equally as offensive like “I really don’t think short people should exist,” or ” Sarah Palin is doing great things for the American Woman,” I probably would hate me too. It was then that I rolled over the stroller, placed Tripp in my date’s arms and said, “I wouldn’t let US Weekly pay me $100,000 to pretend I was getting married to you. Good luck as an electrician. Would you mind taking over the breast feeding?” More on Judaism

View post:
Meredith Fineman: Fifty First (J)Dates: 11 - The Chauvinist

“A pair of shoes can change your life. Just ask Cinderella” - Unknown I wasn’t always, what my husband lovingly refers to as, a shoe whore. I can’t even remember when shoes became important to me. I never really thought about them in college; I was tall, so I rarely wore high heels. I was much more concerned with shoes that would allow me to dance into the wee hours of the morning. I lived in my Soffe shorts and cotton jerseys with all forms of U of F, Florida, Gators emblazoned upon them. “Three inch stilettos are not for the drunk.” - Sarah Ivens I do remember, sometime after college, building an outfit around a pair of buttery Nine West pumps and casually mentioning to a friend, “Many times my outfit starts with my shoes.” However, it wasn’t until I began making a little more money that I discovered that magical dizziness called the Shoe High. “I still have my feet on the ground, I just wear better shoes.” - Oprah Winfrey I even have a chapter in my new book called “When Is a Shoe Not a Shoe: You Are What You Stand On”. When I’m speaking at an event, many times women will notice my shoes and ask “How do you walk in those all day?”. Here are three of my best tips for wearing fabulous “Hot Mogul” (a.k.a. Kick-ass) shoes without killing your feet. 1. Stilettos, Wedges and Platforms, oh my! Selection for occasion, is important. Consider: if you will be on your feet all day, you’ll definitely want wedges or platforms. Anything else: I call these my limousine shoes, because you should only wear them when you are getting in and out of a limo and posing or perching, not dancing and definitely not walking very far. 2. Size does matter. Buy at least 1/2 size up. This gives you room for Tip # 3 (see below) and always go shoe shopping at the end of the day, after you’ve been upright, on your feet and walking around for hours, this is when your feet are the most swollen. If you must purchase a pair of shoes in the morning, make sure to try them on before bed and do a few laps on your area rugs, before tackling the outside world You may find that your feet have grown and you will still be able to take them back and get a better size. 3. Gellin Like Magellan. Two words. Gel Inserts. Get you some. In fact, get you some in lots of different shapes and sizes, because it’s not so much that the gel inserts are magical, although after many hours in these: Gellin’ just might make you feel all tingly. It’s the change in pressure points. Taking gel inserts in and out over the course of a long day, hence changing the pressure points on your feet will bring relief and many more hours of Hot Mogul-licious shoe-wearing time. I just looked up the official (urban dictionary) definition of “gellin” In addition to the accurate and humorous examples of how to use this word in a sentence, definition # 2 has a long list of great rhyming words for rapping about gellin, like this little ditty I just made up on the fly. Yo, check it: “Whether you’re an author that’s best sellin’ Or you used to be a felon Take my advice, cuz I be foretellin’ Ignore my tips and you just might be resellin’ Your Choos & your Louboutins, excuse my misspellin’ Get yo aching dogs to the store and pick you up some Dr. Scholl’s and we be gellin’ yeiah Together, y’all yeiah yeiah Everybody’s gellin’ yeiah Happy Feet = World Peace, y’all ” It’s way past my bedtime, can you tell? So, what about you? What are your favorite shoes? Post a picture! What are your best tips for comfy toes? Send me your rap song about shoes. Peace Out.

Read the original post:
Sandy Grason: 3 Tips for Buying and Wearing Fabulous "Hot Mogul" Shoes

Jimmy Kimmel took on Sarah Palin’s habit of playing make-em-ups last night, mocking the former Alaska governor for the use of the word “refudiate” in both a tweet and an appearance on Fox News. Comparing her a man who also had a tendency to ignore the dictionary, Kimmel joked, “She’s like the eskimo Don King. She makes up words.” If only she had his haircut. WATCH: More on Jimmy Kimmel

Originally posted here: 
Kimmel: Palin’s "Like The Eskimo Don King" (VIDEO)

ATLANTA — Two Georgia Republicans who wielded dueling endorsements from Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich will face a showdown in a GOP runoff for governor, while a Democrat who served a single term as governor won his party’s nomination for a comeback bid. Former Secretary of State Karen Handel will face former U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal in an Aug. 10 runoff for the Republican nomination. With 83 percent of precincts reporting from Tuesday’s primary, unofficial returns showed Handel had 33 percent of the vote to Deal’s 24 percent. Palin’s nod helped Handel surge to the top of the polls in recent days, while Deal had an endorsement from Gingrich. In Georgia, a runoff is required if none of the candidates wins more than 50 percent of the vote. On the Democratic side, former Gov. Roy Barnes won his party’s nomination for governor, avoiding a runoff by trouncing six opponents in the first electoral test of his comeback bid. With 83 percent of precincts reporting, unofficial returns showed him with 65 percent of the vote. Attorney General Thurbert Baker, who was seeking to become Georgia’s first black governor, was a distant second with 22 percent. The other five Democrats in the race were far behind in the single digits. Barnes was ousted in 2002 by Republican Sonny Perdue, his defeat fueled by teachers angry with his education reforms and others upset over his successful push to remove the Confederate battle symbol from the state’s flag. He ran a folksy but focused primary campaign attacking ruling Republicans in the state for neglecting big problems, like education and transportation, amid the crippling recession. Palin’s endorsement of Handel – the lone woman in the race who could become the state’s first female governor – swiftly transformed the dynamic in the GOP primary. Handel had been attacked throughout the campaign as too liberal. Palin’s backing – she called the former secretary of state a “pro-life, pro-Constitutionalist with a can-do attitude” – was seen as a conservative seal of approval. Handel had the lead in a new poll released Sunday. Handel is just one of several candidates around the country recently endorsed by Palin, John McCain’s running mate during the 2008 presidential campaign. Palin is largely credited with helping South Carolina Rep. Nikki Haley, once little-known in her state, surge to popularity and ultimately a runoff win for the GOP nomination for governor. The day after Palin posted her Handel endorsement on Facebook and Twitter, Gingrich threw his support behind Deal. Seven Democrats and seven Republicans were vying for the open seat. Perdue is prevented by term limits from running again after two terms. Meanwhile, Georgia Democratic primary voters selected Labor Commissioner Michael Thurmond to run against Republican U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson, who had no GOP opponent in his bid for a second term and has $5 million on hand for his campaign. In north Georgia, Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Graves faces yet another runoff after winning a special election runoff in June for the seat once held by Deal. Deal left Congress to run for governor, and now Graves is seeking a full two-year term. His runoff opponent will be former state Sen. Lee Hawkins, whom he defeated in June’s runoff. Unofficial returns from 99 percent of the precincts showed Graves with 49 percent of the vote and Hawkins with 27 percent. There were five Republicans in the race. Three Democratic congressmen who faced opposition in the primary – U.S. Reps. Hank Johnson, David Scott and John Barrow – won their races Tuesday. In a runoff race to replace Republican Rep. John Linder, who is retiring after nine terms, Linder’s former chief of staff, Rob Woodall, will face Jody Hice, a minister from Bethlehem. More on Sarah Palin

Read the original post:
Georgia Governor Election 2010: Roy Barnes Wins Dem Nomination, Karen Handel And Nathan Deal Likely Head To GOP Runoff

ATLANTA — Dueling endorsements from Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich could help decide a crowded Republican primary for Georgia governor Tuesday. Palin’s nod to former Secretary of State Karen Handel has helped her surge to the top of the polls in recent days, while ex-congressman Nathan Deal could benefit from the backing of Gingrich. The two served together in the U.S. House. On the Democratic side, one-term former Gov. Roy Barnes is facing the first electoral test in his comeback bid. Barnes was ousted in 2002 by Republican Sonny Perdue, his defeat fueled by teachers angry with his education reforms and others upset over his successful push to remove the Confederate battle symbol from the state’s flag. Seven Democrats and seven Republicans are vying for the open seat. Perdue is prevented by term limits from running again after two terms. Palin’s endorsement of Handel – the lone woman in the race who could become the state’s first female governor – swiftly helped change the dynamic. Handel had been attacked throughout the campaign as too liberal. Palin’s backing – she called the former secretary of state a “pro-life, pro-Constitutionalist with a can-do attitude” – was seen as a conservative seal of approval. Handel had the lead in a new poll released Sunday. Handel is just one of several candidates around the country recently endorsed by Palin, John McCain’s running mate during the 2008 presidential campaign. Palin is largely credited with helping South Carolina Rep. Nikki Haley, once little-known in her state, surge to popularity and ultimately a runoff win for the GOP nomination for governor. The day after Palin posted her Handel endorsement on Facebook and Twitter, Gingrich threw his support behind Deal. State Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine is also in the running for the GOP nod and has been the Republican money leader throughout the campaign. The Republican race is widely expected to head to an Aug. 10 runoff, which would be required if none of the candidates wins more than 50 percent of the vote. Barnes is the front-runner in the Democratic contest. His most formidable challenger is Attorney General Thurbert Baker, who has the backing of former President Bill Clinton and is seeking to become Georgia’s first black governor. Barnes announced last spring that he would make another bid for the governor’s mansion. He ran a folksy but focused primary campaign attacking ruling Republicans in the state for neglecting big problems, like education and transportation, amid the crippling recession. Georgia voters will also select a Democrat to run against Republican U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson, who doesn’t have a GOP opponent in his bid for a second term and has $5 million on hand for his campaign. In north Georgia, Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Graves could face yet another runoff after winning a special election runoff in June for the seat once held by Deal. Deal left Congress to run for governor, and now Graves is seeking a full two-year term. His leading opponent is former state Sen. Lee Hawkins, whom he defeated in June’s runoff. There are five Republicans in the race, which could make a runoff necessary. Elsewhere, three Democratic congressmen are facing opposition in the primary – U.S. Reps. Hank Johnson, David Scott and John Barrow. Eight GOP contenders are vying to replace Republican Rep. John Linder, who is retiring after nine terms. More on 2010 Elections

See the original post: 
Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich Endorsements Could Help Determine Outcome Of Georgia Governor’s Race

It’s like Palin, only better , because she’s on the ballot…and apparently, going on “offence” (her spelling): Finally, it’s clear what Angle meant when she said “we’re going to war with this communications problem that we have.” She didn’t mean she was going to war AGAINST the communications problem. She meant she was going to war WITH it. Like, she’s taking it into to battle. That’s a decision Democrats can wholeheartedly embrace. But the question still remains: whatever happened to the GOP’s English-only plank?

Read the original: 
NV-Sen: Angle refudiates English language

Democrats have taken a significant lead over Republicans in the latest congressional Gallup Poll : Democrats pulled ahead of Republicans, 49% to 43%, in voters’ generic ballot preferences for the 2010 congressional elections. The Democrats’ six-point advantage in Gallup Daily interviewing from July 12-18 represents the first statistically significant lead for that party’s candidates since Gallup began weekly tracking of this measure in March. It’s just one poll, but it’s a big jump and it makes sense in light of last week’s events. In a strong economy, conservative scapegoating of the millions of Americans laid-off might work. But with record, long term unemployment, most voters know someone whose job prospects and finances are desperate to grim. In that environment, protecting the Bush’s tax cuts for the super-wealthy and obstructing critical unemployment benefits for the desperate just might be coming home to roost for the GOP. Not to mention, conservatives lecturing the nation about debt is like Bristol Palin lecturing nuns about birth control. More discussion in deaniac83’s diary.

The rest is here: 
Dems jump ahead in new poll

Need proof that the Secretary of State is an A+ mom? Check out her daughter Chelsea who DIDN’T get pregnant at 17 or announce her engagement on the cover of a magazine and who isn’t shopping a reality show like Bristol Palin. Isn’t it ironic that uber-working mom Hillary who took heat as First Lady because she didn’t take her cookie recipes seriously, should be the mom of a Stanford and Oxford University grad, who is getting married on July 31, at the age of 30. She’s NOT pregnant! She has a great job at Avenue Capital Group, a hedge fund, and her husband-to-be is a 32-year-old investment banker — Marc Mezvinsky — who has NEVER stripped naked for Playgirl or any other form of media. Sarah’s future son-in-law,20, on the other hand, after his adventures as a nude model and D Lister Kathy Griffin’s date, is currently unemployed but is planning to get his GED and be an electrician. Furthermore, Chelsea’s wedding, in which 400 guests are expected, is a personal and PRIVATE affair — in other words, the photos and story are NOT being sold for the cover of Us Weekly , unlike Bristol Palin and her baby daddy Levi Johnston ’s. “My lips are sealed,” Hillary told NBC’s Andrea Mitchell in an interview July 18, “I am under very strict orders not to talk about it.” But, at least she knows about it … every detail. “It’s the most important activity going on in my life right now, I have to confess,” Hillary told China’s Central Television. “Probably just a tiny bit of a motherly overstatement.” Click to read why else Sarah’s relationship with Bristol is in desperate need for repair More from HollywoodLife.com: Jen Aniston Leaves Town Before Angelina Jolie’s ‘Salt’ Premiere! She Just Couldn’t Stand The Heat! Who’s the Biggest Fame Hog in Hollywood? Spencer Pratt? Vienna? Kim K? Snooki? Vote! Fans Go Wild For Brad Pitt & Angelina Jolie At ‘Salt’ World Premiere! Whoa! Rachel Uchitel Admits She Did Drugs With Tiger Woods — And Says They Were Possibly Addicted! More on Sarah Palin

Original post:
Bonnie Fuller: Why Sarah Palin Needs To Take Parenting Lessons From Hillary Clinton!

I don’t purport to suggest that Shahram Amiri or the Iranian intelligence services read my July 13 Op Ed , in which I posed ten questions following Amiri’s public surfacing in the U.S., and then rushed to respond. That said, Amiri’s appearance on the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting public television on July 15 offered some answers, while simultaneously giving rise to daunting new questions. First, a recap: On July 13 I wrote, “Shahram Amiri, an Iranian nuclear scientist, went missing in May 2009 during a pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia. Other than the fact that Amiri subsequently resurfaced in the U.S., almost everything else in the espionage-thriller style case is disputed publicly. The barrage of information offered during the past 5 weeks makes it difficult to distinguish between genuine information, disinformation and spins. “On June 8, 2010, in a video clip broadcast on Iranian state media, a man claiming to be Amiri said he had been kidnapped by CIA agents during a pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia in 2009. ‘They took me to a house located somewhere that I didn’t know. They gave me an anesthetic injection,’ he said in the video. He then said that he was living in Tucson, Arizona, and had been subjected to eight months of ‘the most severe tortures and psychological pressures.’ “On the same day, a different video clip was posted on YouTube, appearing to have been recorded by the same person, completely contradicting the version offered in the previous video. In the second video, the person claimed to be in the United States voluntarily to continue his education, ‘I am free here and I assure everyone that I am safe.’ “In a third video broadcast on Iran state TV on June 29, 2010, a man appearing to be Dr. Amiri said, ‘I, Shahram Amiri, am a national of the Islamic Republic of Iran and a few minutes ago I succeeded in escaping U.S. security agents in Virginia. Presently, I am producing this video in a safe place. I could be re-arrested at any time.’” Then on July 13 at 6:30pm, Amiri walked into the Pakistani Embassy in Washington, which hosts the Iran interests section, since Iran has no diplomatic ties with the U.S., and asked to return to Iran. Shortly thereafter, he flew back unhindered to Tehran. The following are some of my original questions and relevant statements by Amiri, as quoted by the NY Times and by Iranian Press TV, followed by new intriguing questions that his statements raise. 2. If the person is indeed Dr. Amiri, how did he manage to escape? Wasn’t he being held in a safe, escape-proof environment guarded by U.S. intelligence community agents? Did he have outside or inside help? Amiri said in his most recent interview that CIA and FBI agents had stormed his house in Tucson, Arizona, after he posted his first video message on the Internet. He also said that he was moved to that house, which had more comfortable residential surroundings than his military place of custody. Amiri’s statement is a strong admission that recently, he lived freely in the U.S. This supports the U.S. position and undermines Amiri’s claim that he was in custody when he allegedly managed to escape. His new account on Iranian TV sounds more like a tale taken directly from A Thousand and One Nights , the roots of which are in ancient Arabic and Persian folklore. Why did he offer such an implausible explanation? Did he invent it or was the script written for him by the Iranian security services? 3. How did Dr. Amiri know to contact and identify his supporters? How did they know to contact and identify him? Was there a pre-arranged procedure of contact, which may support the sham defection theory? This question remains mostly unanswered. However, in his Iranian TV interview, Amiri said, “In reality, our country’s intelligence services were able to contact me and they provided me with the necessary facilities to make my first film.” 6. In the third video he said that he had escaped a few minutes earlier. If his claim is true, then it means that Dr. Amiri was moved to an Iranian “safe house” in Virginia not far from the location where he was being held by U.S. agents. Who prepared and maintained that “safe house?” According to the most recent version of the story, perhaps the Iranian agents he alleges helped him moved him to a safe house. Does Amiri think that the CIA and FBI agents involved would have ever let him return to Iran before they discovered and arrested any such Iranian agents? And since Amiri was allowed to board a plane back to Iran without interruption, perhaps his story about Iranian intelligence services helping him in the U.S. is yet another tale? 8. Who filmed/made the videos in which Dr. Amiri claimed to have been kidnapped? Amiri said in the interview that after further contact with Iranian agents, he was able to hold a brief video conversation with his wife, which gave him “complete confidence” in the Iranian authorities and the well-being of his family. Amiri did not disclose from what location he was able to hold the video conference call with his wife, however he seems to suggest that he was concerned about how the Iranian security service would treat him if he returned. Why should he worry? He claimed that he was abducted, and managed to escape. Wouldn’t that guarantee him a hero’s welcome? Or maybe Amiri correctly feared that his tale would be met with suspicion back home? Apparently, when he decided to return, he didn’t realize that trouble would come so soon. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said in a press conference in Tehran on Thursday that the “details of his abduction will be clarified after an investigation.” These words should put the fear of God in Amiri. Because if the U.S. account is true, then Amiri should start counting his days to a fateful meeting with an Iranian executioner. Two final notes and one suggestion: When Amiri disappeared, Iranian media described him as a nuclear scientist. However when he returned to Iran, he was referred to by Iran as an “academic” or “researcher.” Is this a concerted effort to belittle Amiri’s status and his access to confidential information on Iran’s nuclear plans? Seems so: “Shahram Amiri is not a nuclear scientist and we reject it,” Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Hassan Qashqavi told reporters at Imam Khomeini Airport, adding that he is a researcher in one of the universities in Iran. Amiri said that the U.S. had offered a swap with the three Americans Joshua Fattal, Shane Bauer and Sarah Shourd, who were arrested in the western Iranian city of Marivan for illegal entry into the country in July 2009. Iranian Press TV said that officials in Iran had earlier dismissed the proposed swap of Iranian scholar for the three U.S. detainees. This sounds like another Iranian attempt to show that Amiri was a captive, not an asylum seeker. Amiri said that the United States arranged for him to attend a university in Virginia and supplied him with a driver’s license and a Social Security number, although, he said, he had not requested either document. Perhaps the U.S. should release copies of Amiri’s various applications with his signature on them. If these are available it would be interesting to hear Amiri’s explanation, if he will be available for comment. More on Iran

Originally posted here: 
Haggai Carmon: Iranian Scientist Shahram Amiri Answers Some Questions, Raising Others

Note to Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig: I really don’t get it. Robin Roberts, the Philadelphia Phillies pitcher who died in May, was elected to baseball’s Hall of Fame after winning 286 games (and losing 245) for the Phillies and three other clubs over 19 seasons while posting a career earned run average of 3.41. Yet Tommy John, who won 288 games (and lost 231) for the Cleveland Indians and five other teams over a 26-year major league career while posting an ERA of 3.34, and gave his name to the arm surgery that changed baseball forever, not only isn’t in the Hall of Fame, but can’t even find a job coaching in the Major Leagues. In fact, John won more games than 39 of the 59 pitchers enshrined in Cooperstown, including such greats as Bob Feller, Sandy Koufax, Whitey Ford, Bob Gibson, Catfish Hunter, Fergie Jenkins, Juan Marichal, Jim Palmer, Jim Bunning and Don Drysdale. He appeared in more games than all but five of the Hall of Fame pitchers with 700 starts and 60 relief appearances, and won 174 games after his 1974 surgery, only one fewer than Koufax won in his entire career. To add insult to injury, syndicated columnist and inveterate Chicago Cubs fan George Will wrongfully accused him of cheating. In an April 4 column, Will wrote that John, who is ranked seventh all-time in victories among lefthanders and has the most wins by any pitcher not in the Hall of Fame, was guilty of violating baseball’s unwritten code of disrespecting opponents and the game. “Cheating by pitchers often operates under a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ code,” Will wrote. “When George Steinbrenner demanded during a game that Yankees manager Lou Piniella protest that Don Sutton of the Angels was scuffing the ball, Piniella said, ‘The guy [Tommy John] who taught Don Sutton everything he knows about cheating is the guy pitching for us tonight.’” I sent the column to John, who was my teammate in the Cleveland Indians’ farm team in Charleston, W.Va., in 1962 - Luis Tiant and Sonny Siebert were also teammates. John, 67, now works for a sports promotion company in Arlington, Texas, after stepping down last July as manager of the Bridgeport (Conn.) Bluefish in the independent Atlantic League, where he had a less-than-stellar record of 159-176 over two years. At the time, he said it was “strictly a monetary decision” as his salary had been cut by 40 percent. Personal aside: I saw the Bluefish beat the York (Pa.) Revolution 4-1 in Bridgeport on July 10 while visiting my daughter and son-in-law. Both teams are managed by players who faced John many times - Bridgeport’s Willie Upshaw while playing for Toronto and Cleveland, and York’s Andy Etcheberran while playing for the Baltimore Orioles and Los Angeles Angels. (How’s this for baseball trivia? Etcheberran was the last batter to face Koufax, when he hit into a double play in the second game of the 1966 World Series.) Anyway, John sent the following email to Will, noting that Will’s favorite team, the Chicago Cubs, were also his favorite team while growing up in Terre Haute, Ind.: “My former teammate in the Cleveland Indians minor leagues, Al Eisele, sent me an article about me that you wrote sometime ago. It was about ’scuffing’ the baseball. To set the story straight, The Boss did call down to the dugout to complain that Sutton had a piece of tape on his hand and was ‘doctoring’ the baseball… Lou Piniella came to me and told me he was going to go to the umpires to tell them of the Boss’s fears. “My response was that Sutton was just doing that to have fun on TV. He needed a post-baseball career. As the story evolved, Lou came up with his humorous thoughts, but at the time the humor wasn’t there. As time went on and as all old timers try to recall the events of the day, things get fuzzy and distorted. IT JUST NEVER HAPPENED THE WAY PINIELLA SAID. But makes for a good laugh.” John added, “As someone who voted for Sarah Palin, how could I do what Piniella said I did!!!!! … I really enjoy reading your columns but only if I have my Roget’s with me. Keep up the good work and hopefully, our paths will cross in the future.” Ironically, John played with Sutton, who is in the Hall of Fame, on two teams, the Dodgers and Angels. John was the oldest player in the Major Leagues when he retired in 1989 after his second stint with the Yankees. He said he decided it was time to hang up his spikes when Mark McGuire, the son of his dentist, got two hits off him. “When your dentist’s kid starts hitting you, it’s time to retire,” he said. John failed to get enough votes from the baseball writers for induction into the Hall of Fame on his 15th appearance on the ballot in 2009 with only 31.7 percent of the required 75 percent. It was his last year of eligibility, but he could still be selected when the Veterans Committee, composed of Hall of Fame members, votes this fall. Apparently, the knock against John was that he fell short of the magic number of 300 wins and never played on a world championship team - he was with the Dodgers when they lost to the Yankees in the 1977 and 1978 Series and with the Yankees when they lost to the Dodgers in 1981. But he made four appearances in the All Star Game and pitched 4,710 innings and struck out 2,245, more than those of baseball immortals Grover Alexander, Dizzy Dean, Lefty Gomez and Hal Newhouser. Ironically, he was pitching for the Dodgers in 1974, and had a 13-3 record when he ruptured the ulnar collateral ligament in his pitching arm. Shortly afterwards, Dr. Frank Jobe performed the revolutionary surgery that replaced the damaged ligament with a tendon from his right forearm, and after sitting out the 1975 season, he won ten games for the Dodgers in 1976 and was named National League Comeback Player of the Year. Since then, more than a hundred pitchers who’ve appeared in the big leagues have salvaged their careers by having the surgery that bears John’s name, including Chicago Cubs fireballer Kerry Wood, who said he threw harder after the surgery than before. Take that, George Will. If Tommy John doesn’t belong in the Hall of Fame, I don’t know who does.

Read more from the original source: 
Al Eisele: Tommy John: The man with the golden (reconstructed) arm

Sarah Palin’s used “refudiate” in a recent tweet, evidently melding “repudiate” and “refute.” (Recall she attended five colleges before getting a degree.) But she quickly re-tweeted, “English is a living language. Shakespeare liked to coin new words.” Quite right is Ms. Palin, alas, for once. It’s hard to say how many words Shakespeare coined, but it runs into the thousands. More impressive is his massive vocabulary. To give just a few statistics: Since his father was a tanner, who made gloves (but rose to become something like an alderman), he was raised in the lower middle class. Someone of that class would have had a normal vocabulary of 800 to 900 words. A graduate of Oxford or Cambridge would then, in the 16th Century, have a normal vocabulary of 2,000 to 3,000 words. John Milton, the greatest English poet one generation after Shakespeare, had a total vocabulary of 7,400 words - ironically the same number as the King James’ version of the Bible written in that era. William Shakespeare has a total vocabulary of - get this! - 29,000 words. And it’s not just the number of words but the way he put them together which gives us the English language we speak today. In the clever compilation by that clever essayist and author, now deceased, Bernard Levin, you are quoting Shakespeare. Here’s Levin at his wittiest: If you cannot understand my argument and declare, ‘It’s all Greek to me,’ you are quoting Shakespeare. If you claim to be more sinned against than sinning, you are quoting Shakespeare. If you recall your salad days, you are quoting Shakespeare. If you act more in sorrow than in anger, if your wish is father to the thought, if your lost property has vanished into thin air, you are quoting Shakespeare. If you have ever refused to budge an inch, or suffered from green-eyed jealousy; if you have played fast and loose, if you have been tongue-tied, a tower of strength, hoodwinked, or in a pickle, If you have knitted your brow, made a virtue of necessity, insisted on fair play, slept not one wink, or laughed yourself into stitches, If you have had short shrift, cold comfort, or too much of a good thing; if you have ever seen better days or lived in a fool’s paradise — you are (as good luck would have it) quoting Shakespeare. If you clear out bag and baggage; if you think it is high time; and that it is the long and short of it. If you believe the game is up and the truth will out, even if it involves your own flesh and blood. If you lie low until the crack of dawn because you suspect foul play, If you have your teeth set on edge (at one fell swoop) without rhyme or reason, then — to give the devil his due — if the truth were known (for surely you have a tongue in your head) you are quoting Shakespeare. Even if you bid me good riddance and send me packing; if you wish I was dead as a doornail; if you think I am an eyesore, a laughing stock, the devil incarnate, a stony-hearted villain, bloody-minded, or a blinking idiot, Then — by jove! O all one to me, YOU ARE QUOTING SHAKESPEARE!! More on Sarah Palin

Continued here:
Ken Adelman: Bard Blog: Strange WordFellows — Sarah Palin & William Shakespeare

It feels strange weighing in on a house of worship thousands of miles away, well, at least for me. A proposed mosque two blocks from Ground Zero has Palin tweeting on a Sunday afternoon. According to Politico : Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s City Hall hit back at Palin, first tweeting “@SarahPalinUSA mind your business.” The aide, policy hand Andrea Batista Schlesinger, followed that up with: “@SarahPalinUSA whose hearts? Racist hearts?” Bloomberg has defended the plan for the mosque, arguing that blocking it would impinge on religious freedom This is a local issue for New Yorkers. I’m weighing in on Sarah Palin. She’s local for Alaskans. 9/11 for NYC, was a day many Alaskans couldn’t fathom. I’d never been there. My father didn’t know about the terrorist attack for weeks because he was on the Koyukuk River hunting moose. Another hunter was informed after a military escort surrounded his small aircraft on his return to town. Last year I visited New York City and wept when I realized how terrifying it must have been. I had no context until I stood in the canyons of buildings. Do you want to guess how many mosques are in Wasilla? The “stab through the heart” of 9/11 was felt by many, including Muslims. This article tells of some victims that day: Imagine being the family of Salman Hamdani. The 23-year-old New York City police cadet was a part-time ambulance driver, incoming medical student, and devout Muslim. When he disappeared on September 11, law enforcement officials came to his family, seeking him for questioning in relation to the terrorist attacks. They allegedly believed he was somehow involved. His whereabouts were undetermined for over six months, until his remains were finally identified. He was found near the North Tower, with his EMT medical bag beside him, presumably doing everything he could to help those in need. His family could finally rest, knowing that he died the hero they always knew him to be. Imagine being Baraheen Ashrafi, nine months pregnant with her second child. Her husband, Mohammad Chowdhury, was a waiter at Windows of the World restaurant, on the top floors of Tower One. The morning of September 11, they prayed salaat-l-fajr (the pre-dawn prayer) together, and he went off to work. She never saw him again. Their son, Farqad, was born 48 hours after the attacks — one of the first 9/11 orphans to be born. I wonder why Palin can’t think bigger than 140 characters. She makes up words. ” Refudiate “. What about the thousands of Muslims who serve in our military? Does that yellow magnet on your car say “Support the Christian Troops”? Maybe Sarah Palin’s soon to be released, little book of “Clever Sayings That Rock!” will include George Santayana’s “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”. Almost 110,000 Japanese Americans were interned in 26 different camps after the Pearl Harbor attacks. 33,000 Japanese Americans served in the US Military during the same time. I trust New Yorkers. If we become a country willing to discriminate against people of faith, we will have become the extremism we fight. More on Sarah Palin

The rest is here:
Shannyn Moore: "Refudiating" Palin’s Racist Tweet

T-minus two days and counting before the Singiser family truckster heads up Interstate 15 and makes a beeline for Vegas, baby! If you aren’t going to Netroots Nation 2010 , why the hell aren’t you? While you mull over your decision to go (which, really, should only take you around 10-12 seconds), you can occupy yourself with a pretty super-sized edition of the Monday Wrap. Lots of data, especially in the one high-profile race that goes to the polls tomorrow, and one vanquished Democrat is really working hard to be the biggest a-hole of the campaign cycle. All that (and more!) on the Monday edition of the Wrap…. THE U.S. SENATE AR-Sen: Boozman has huge lead in Talk Business Poll A new poll out today from Talk Business , conducted by the pollsters at Zata3, seems to imply that Blanche Lincoln has virtually no shot at keeping her seat in November. The poll has Republican Congressman John Boozman leading Lincoln by twenty-five points (57-32). Lincoln, obviously feeling some heat from publication of this poll, countered by sending around one of their own internal polls from late last month. That internal poll, for what it’s worth, had Lincoln trailing by nine points (45-36) to Boozman. NH-Sen: Is it bad when your opponent praises your endorsements? This is a fun one: Sarah Palin took to Facebook yet again to offer her latest in a string of endorsements. This time, her recipient was none other than New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Ayotte. This will undoubtedly tick off candidates like Ovide Lamontagne, who has tried to corner the teabagger market, but it actually earned praise from a surprising source–the campaign of Democrat Paul Hodes: Each broke her promise to the people of her state and resigned to advance her political ambitions…They’re both more interested in catering to the far-right special interests than standing up for New Hampshire. So do we hope Sarah Palin comes to campaign for Kelly Ayotte? You betcha. PA-Sen: Toomey questions Obama patriotism before veterans So much for that whole idea that Pennsylvania GOP Senate nominee Patrick Toomey was endeavoring to reinvent himself as a moderate in advance of the November elections. Late last week in Harrisburg, Patrick Toomey told The American Legion that “there are some in Washington who don’t really believe in American exceptional-ism.” In case anyone missed his nuance-filled comment there, he later confirmed that he was referring to President Obama. THE U.S. HOUSE ID-01: Lone teabagger-endorsed Dem repudiates endorsement Interesting: conservative Democratic freshman Rep. Walt Minnick, who represents devoutly GOP territory in western Idaho, has rejected the endorsement of the Tea Party Express. Minnick, one of the five Democrats most likely to buck the party, cited the behavior of TPE leader Mark Williams as the reason for his decision to decline the group’s endorsement. MI-13: Another incumbent in serious primary peril? Polls are starting to converge around a central theme in the Detroit area–longtime Democratic incumbent Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick is in serious trouble . A new poll taken for the Detroit News and WDIV-TV shows the incumbent trailing the leading Democratic primary challenger Hansen Clarke 38-30. This comes on the heels of an EPIC-MRA poll that showed Clarke up by an even slightly larger margin. Cheeks-Kilpatrick has clearly been wounded by the legal travails of her son, the former mayor of Detroit. NV-03: When a toss-up is actually decent news for a Democrat Democratic freshman Dina Titus has one hell of a race in her hands in the Vegas suburbs, as attested by a new poll out today from Mason Dixon. The poll has Titus leading Republican challenger Joe Heck by two points (42-40). This actually has to be considered reasonably good news for the incumbent, however. The last time M-D polled there, in April, Heck actually enjoyed a five-point lead. M-D did offer a few new options, including a Nevada-centric option known as “none of the above” (yes, it’s actually on the ballot there). OH-13: DCCC levels aim at self-funding GOP candidate You can alternately read this as something to cheer or something to be concerned about. The DCCC blasted Ohio Republican candidate Tom Ganley, accusing the former car dealer of trying to buy his way into the United States Congress. The merits of the case are pretty unimpeachable: Ganley has self-funded his campaign to the tune of $6.5 million. And it is always welcome to see the Democrats get after a Republican rival. But one has to wonder if it is a bit unnerving to see the Democrats targeting a seat where Barack Obama easily carried the district, and incumbent Betty Sutton has scored two easy wins since 2006. WI-07: Was Obey pushed into retirement by bad polling? The details of this story are certainly curious, and certainly more than a little difficult to easily explain away. The site Wispolitics is reporting that newly retired Congressman David Obey’s FEC reports show that he paid for polling less than two weeks prior to his retirement announcement in early May. Did Obey decide to leave on his own terms, rather than being ushered out of office in a rough election cycle? It is hard to envision a scenario by which Obey polled, got great polling news, and then elected to retire, anyway. While that is possible, of course, it doesn’t feel quite as plausible. THE GUBERNATORIAL RACES AL-Gov: About that Artur Davis endorsement… When state Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks soundly defeated Congressman Artur Davis in their Democratic primary for Governor in June, Davis told his supporters to unite behind the nominee. He might do well to adhere to his own advice . In the wake of Robert Bentley’s claiming of the Republican nomination last week, Davis is opening his yap, offering fulsome praise for Bentley and burping up some right-wing talking points on Sparks, including that he was the candidate of “activist, liberal Democratic voters.” AR-Gov: Is Beebe only up single digits? One pollster says “yes” The same Talk Business Poll that showed a huge gulf between Boozman and Lincoln in the Senate race also had a gubernatorial result that might put a little tinge of skepticism into the whole survey . The poll has Democratic Governor Mike Beebe leading Republican Jim Keet, as all other pollsters have done. This poll, however, had the race in single digits (49-40). Even Rasmussen, by comparison, had the race as a 24-point Beebe lead as recently as last month. GA-Gov: Trio of polls show Handel as clear leader, Oxendine fading On the eve of the Republican Primary in the Peach State, three separate independent polls all have common themes: Secretary of State Karen Handel has established herself as a clear frontrunner, while longtime frontrunner John Oxendine’s numbers are fading noticeably. Mason Dixon has not been in the state in a while, but they have Handel leading with 29% of the vote, well ahead of Oxendine (22%), Congressman Nathan Deal (20%), and former state legislator Eric Johnson (13%). Worse news for Oxendine can be found in the new polls by Magellan Strategies and Insider Advantage , both of whom have him in fourth place. Both polls have Handel with double-digit leads over Deal. The top two candidates will continue onward to a runoff in early August, unless Handel can somehow can manage to make it to a majority. MI-Gov: GOP primary poll shows coin flip with two weeks to go With thirteen days until primary day, there are still a trio of Republican candidates with a legitimate shot at the nomination, according to a new poll taken for the Detroit News . Both Attorney General Mike Cox and Congressman Peter Hoekstra run up front, with 26% of the vote. Businessman Rick Snyder is now clearly in third, notching 20% of the vote. Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard is running a distant fourth with 12% of the vote. In other Michigan gubernatorial news, Rick Snyder’s campaign to target moderates in his own party got a boost from an endorsement of one of the leading moderate voices in the Michigan GOP: former Republican Congressman Joe Schwarz. NE-Gov: Dems find candidate to claim ballot line in gov’s race I suppose this qualifies as good news for the Democrats in Nebraska: they were able to find a candidate willing to take the Democratic nomination for Governor. Mike Meister, an attorney who has run statewide previously, has agreed to take the nomination. He faces incumbent Republican Dave Heineman, who will be overwhelmingly favored to earn re-election in November. THE RAS-A-POLL-OOZA After having some results that were actually in line with other pollsters, the House of Ras starts this week by being Ras, again. Republicans cleaning house, literally from Alaska to Maine. Can’t keep Ras from being Ras, can you? AK-Gov: Gov. Sean Parnell (R) 53%, Ethan Berkowitz (D) 34% AK-Gov: Gov. Sean Parnell (R) 57%, Hollis French (D) 29% AK-Gov: Ralph Samuels (R) 48%, Ethan Berkowitz (D) 36% AK-Gov: Ralph Samuels (R) 49%, Hollis French (D) 30% AK-Gov: Bill Walker (R) 46%, Ethan Berkowitz (D) 38% AK-Gov: Bill Walker (R) 50%, Ethan Berkowitz (D) 32% ME-Gov: Paul LePage (R) 39%, Libby Mitchell (D) 31%, Elliot Cutler (I) 15% PA-Sen: Patrick Toomey (R) 45%, Joe Sestak (D) 38%

See the original post here:
Polling and Political Wrap, 7/19/10

At one point, Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel was seen as the moderate/reasonable alternative in the competitive multi-candidate Republican primary to succeed Sonny Perdue as the governor of Georgia. Then she received the Twitter anointment of a certain former half-term governor from Alaska, and everything changed . But not necessarily because of Palin (although that is how it will likely get played), but because of the fallout of said endorsement. One of her chief rivals, archconservative Congressman Nathan Deal (himself the recipient of a pretty mean endorsement in his own right–that of former House Speaker and Georgian Newt Gingrich), was somewhat infuriated . It’s disappointing that Sarah Palin has chosen to back the most liberal Republican in this race. In past races, Karen Handel endorsed taxpayer-funded domestic partner benefits and gay adoption — and she’s been caught lying about it. Deal should not have worried, of course. Having exposed a potential soft underbelly of the Handel campaign, and in a high-profile setting (everyone was writing about the Palin endorsement, so Deal’s smackdown got big play), Handel was going to backpedal. Furiously. But even jaundiced eyes to politics had to be somewhat startled to see the speed and the ferocity with which Handel sprinted from her past. Consider the interview she gave less than 48 hours after getting the nod from Palin. In it, she backpedalled furiously on the gay rights’ thing, ever mindful that she would have to face Georgia primary voters before she could endeavor to be the state’s next Governor: This week, Georgia GOP gubernatorial candidate and former congressman Nathan Deal slammed his opponent, former secretary of state Karen Handel, for her past support of “taxpayer-funded domestic partner benefits and gay adoption” and membership in the Log Cabin Republicans. Concerned about shoring up support for next week’s primary, Handel has been denying and backtracking on those positions. But in 2003, the Georgia Log Cabin Republicans said it supported Handel’s candidacy for county commission chair because she “demonstrated in her last run that she was supportive of domestic partner benefits” and “supported same-sex adoptions on the basis of the best interest of the child.” Handel is now calling the quote inaccurate, even though “she never asked Southern Voice for a correction or retraction.” In an interview yesterday, Handel made her new-found feelings clear. Speaking with Doug Richards of Georgia’s 11 Alive, she uncomfortably tried to define her new opposition to gay rights and became exasperated when Richards pushed her to explain herself. The exasperation is worth clicking the link–especially her testy response when asked why she now believes that gays cannot be suitable parents (”because I don’t”). Former President Harry Truman, back in the day, made the famous observation that the Republican Party either corrupts their liberals or expels them. Moderates have now joined liberals in that regard. Handel’s metamorphosis on gay rights, therefore, was wholly and entirely predictable. And, sadly, it was also effective. Once in a pack of GOP contenders, Handel holds a seven point lead over former frontrunner John Oxendine, according to a Mason Dixon poll released today. Most media reports of this poll are laying it at the doorstep of Palin, predictably. But when Handel sails into the runoff tomorrow, probably in the lead, it will be her repudiation of one of the few moderate positions in her issue profile that likely shoved her across the line. That, in itself, is quite telling.

View original here: 
GA-Gov: Handel’s metamorphosis and modern Republican politics

Step one: NAACP calls on tea partiers to get their act together and repudiate racist elements within the tea party movmeent. Step two: Sarah Palin mocks the NAACP on Twitter for suggesting that “liberty-loving, equality-respecting patriots” are racists. Step three: Fox gets outraged that NAACP would suggest that there any racists in the tea party to repudiate; links NAACP to made-up New Black Panther Fauxtrage. Step four: The National Tea Party Federation kicks tea party leader Mark Williams out of the tea party…for racism. So here’s the question: If there weren’t any racist leaders in the tea party, then why did the National Tea Party Federation expel Mark Williams? And will the rest of the tea party “movement” join the National Tea Party Federation? And what about Sean Hannity, who had like others on Fox, had a special affection for Williams?

Go here to see the original: 
Mark Williams and the tea party’s racism paradox

Echoing the bigoted and right-wing contortions of the National Republican Trust PAC and disgraced Tea Party leader Mark Williams , Sarah Palin has sent the world of Twitter on fire this afternoon, with a series of Tweets about the proposed Islamic cultural center and mosque two blocks from the site of the World Trade Center She pulled down one of them after concocting the word “refudiate” and then used the word “refute” incorrectly. Ground Zero Mosque supporters: doesn’t it stab you in the heart, as it does ours throughout the heartland? Peaceful Muslims, pls refudiate Peaceful New Yorkers, pls refute the Ground Zero mosque plan if you believe catastrophic pain caused @ Twin Towers site is too raw, too real. She then pulled the second attempt down and took a third swipe at it. Peace-seeking Muslims pls understand. Ground Zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts. Pls reject it in interest of healing “Peaceful,” “peace-seeking”? Why the qualifier? How about “peaceful Christians “? And as if Sarah Palin knows anything about “healing.” Perhaps that’s the biggest joke of all. Well, not quite. She then compared herself to none other than the Great Bard himself. ‘Refudiate,’ ‘misunderestimate,’ ‘wee-wee’d up.’ English is a living language. Shakespeare liked to coin new words too. Got to celebrate it!’ (Thanks to palingates for the screen saves.) Award-winning writer and filmmaker Geoffrey Dunn’s book The Lies of Sarah Palin: The Untold Story Behind Her Relentless Quest for Power will be published by St. Martin’s Press. More on Sarah Palin

See the original post:
Geoffrey Dunn: Palin’s Bigoted Twitter Calls on Muslims to "Refudiate"

This is an excellent exchange between the NAACP’s Bejamin Jealous and African-American tea party leader David Webb. I apologize for not having the transcript, but there are the main points: Jealous makes a good point about the New National Black Panther Party at 2:46. It is an excellent comparison between the NNPPA and the NAACP as opposed to the racist elements in the tea party movement. But a better point is made before than by Webb at 1:22. He says that Mark Williams (the author of “the Abraham Lincoln Letter” ) and his group Tea Party Express have been expelled from the National Tea Party Federation specifically because of “the Abraham Lincoln Letter.” But wouldn’t that be an admittance of racist elements in the tea party movement? And I thought Sarah Palin, Michael Steele, AND Fox News said that there were no racist elements in the tea party movement. So much for truth in politics. More on Barack Obama

Go here to see the original: 
Alvin McEwen: So much for NO tea party racism: Mark Williams expelled from National Tea Party Federation

It must have been a slow weekend for much of the media. In one fell swope Sarah Palin was promoted from one line sound bite, photo-op tinsel queen to the front runner for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012. In a wild flight of fancy and print stage management Time magazine emblazoned the headline, “Sarah Palin in 12? Why she’s for real.” The Palin presidential infatuation is fueled by more than a media titillation, and desperation to sell papers, magazines and boost tube ratings. Obama has plunged in the polls, independents have defected from him in droves, and if the GOP captures the House, or even makes an appreciable dent in the Democrat’s majority in the House, the GOP will say a deafening No to Obama’s agenda and endlessly bottle up legislation. A big, warlike, politically energized, and financially well-oiled GOP, with just the right fresh face candidate who can appease social and fiscal conservatives would pose a major reelection challenge for Obama. Palin is not that candidate. She is the most polarizing Republican since Lincoln. If the GOP were dumb enough, scared enough, or crazy enough to nominate Palin, the 2012 presidential election would make the FDR-Hoover 1932, and Johnson-Goldwater 1964 landslides, look positively benign. But this won’t happen. The GOP pragmatists that control the money, media spin and party apparatus, will maneuver and massage the primaries and convention to insure that the noise and mischief outsider Palin makes will eventually die, and she’ll toe the party line. In the meantime, Palin is a still a powerful asset, powerful that is for Obama. She’s the perfect distraction, foil, and ultimately, perverse reelection trump card for him. The mere mention of her as a possible candidate would terrorize liberals, and progressives out of their Obama inertia. They would turn his reelection into the same type of Holy Crusade they turned his 2008 presidential campaign into. Many would come out to vote against her as to vote for him. She would single handedly reverse the stampede of independents from Obama, and drive them back to him. Then there’s America’s fast changing political demographic. Latino and African-American voters make up nearly one-third of the voting numbers. But it’s not just the numbers it’s where their numbers are concentrated. Latinos voted in bigger numbers and in a higher percentage for Obama than for Democratic presidential loser John Kerry in 2004. Their vote helped seal the win for him in Florida, New Mexico and Colorado. Bush won Colorado and Florida in 2000 and all three states in 2004. But the electoral math shows that even if Obama had lost both states he still would have beaten Republican rival John McCain. Pennsylvania, Ohio, and arguably North Carolina were the must-win states for Obama in 2008. They will be must win states for him again in 2012. Bush won two of the three states in 2000 and 2004 and cinched the White House. In 2008 Obama won all three. If he had lost Pennsylvania or Ohio, the outcome might have been far different. Blacks make up 20 to 30 percent of the vote in these three states. They gave Obama the crucial edge there. The more than 15 million black voters made up more than 20 percent of the overall Democratic vote in 2008. They gave Obama 96 percent of their vote. This was an all-time percentage high for a Democratic presidential candidate. Palin’s base is rural, Deep South and heartland America, and she doesn’t make any pretense it’s anything else. That base is narrow and shrinking, and that shrink is reflected in the straw polls that give strong hint how dismally she’d fare in a real presidential contest. Even more deliciously tantalizing for Obama, Palin would confuse, rile up, and split Republicans. Her support in the party could translate out into millions of disgruntled, frustrated voters who would be sorely tempted to push, prod and hector the GOP to give Palin her due. Many would be just as sorely tempted to vote for Palin as a maverick candidate, or if her name is not on any ballot, stay at home. This is tantamount to a vote for Obama. Palin’s strength is to play on and to stoke popular rage and frustration with tin ear politicians who’ve turned voters into invisible men and women. But things could change in the next two years. A sharp upturn in the economy, the disappearance of the much loathed — by Palin’s cheerleaders — Obama health care reform law as the thorn in the side issue it was for months during the congressional war for its passage, the fade in public fury over Wall Street’s free booting wheeling and dealing, a wind down in the Iraq War, and the semblance of stability in Afghanistan, would vastly strengthen Obama’s political playing hand. Palin’s presence and the chaos she creates is the trump card that strengthens his playing hand even more. Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. He hosts a nationally broadcast political affairs radio talk show on Pacifica and KTYM Radio Los Angeles. Follow Earl Ofari Hutchinson on Twitter: http://twitter.com/earlhutchinson More on GOP

View original here: 
Earl Ofari Hutchinson: Palin is Obama’s Reelection Trump Card

After the NAACP passed a resolution refudiating [sic] the racist elements of the Tea Party , leading teabagger Mark Williams defended the party by showing everyone what racism really is . And for that, he was rewarded with two appearances on CNN . Meanwhile, Fox News Channel’s Megyn Kelly kept her eyes on the prize .

Go here to read the rest:
Sunday Talk - Racing to the Bottom

If the tea party movement isn’t racist, then at the very least, it’s not necessarily bright. And nothing displays the movement’s stupidity more than its ongoing dust up with the NAACP over the civil rights group’s resolution asking that the organization condemn racism in its midst. Now rather than admitting that there are racist elements in the tea party movement and agreeing that there is no place for that sort of thing - which tea partiers have done in the past - the movement got loud and defensive, hoping that screaming charges of “reverse racism” and pulling out assorted big names like Sarah Palin and Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, and yanking the few assorted black tea party members to knock down the charges would make people forget the nasty anti-black and anti-Obama images and words they have seen and heard over the past year. Guys, people are not stupid. There are racist elements to the tea party movement and many of them are in leadership positions. So please stop with the phony whine about how “America is sick of phony racial accusations.” Sarah Palin can’t help you, Michael Steele can’t help you. Not even Fox News can help you. But if you want to help yourself in proving that there are no racist elements in tea party movement, please justify the “Abraham Lincoln letter” written by the leader of the Tea Party Express, Mark Williams.  A letter which no one in your movement has denounced: Dear Mr. Lincoln: We Coloreds have taken a vote and decided that we don’t cotton to that whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much to ask of us Colored People and we demand that it stop! In fact we held a big meeting and took a vote in Kansas City this week. We voted to condemn a political revival of that old abolitionist spirit called the ‘tea party movement’. The tea party position to “end the bailouts” for example is just silly. Bailouts are just big money welfare and isn’t that what we want all Coloreds to strive for? What kind of racist would want to end big money welfare? What they need to do is start handing the bail outs directly to us coloreds! Of course, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is the only responsible party that should be granted the right to disperse the funds. And the ridiculous idea of “reduce[ing] the size and intrusiveness of government.” What kind of massa would ever not want to control my life? As Coloreds we must have somebody care for us otherwise we would be on our own, have to think for ourselves and make decisions! The racist tea parties also demand that the government “stop the out of control spending.” Again, they directly target coloreds. That means we Coloreds would have to compete for jobs like everybody else and that is just not right. Perhaps the most racist point of all in the tea parties is their demand that government “stop raising our taxes.” That is outrageous! How will we coloreds ever get a wide screen TV in every room if non-coloreds get to keep what they earn? Totally racist! The tea party expects coloreds to be productive members of society? Mr. Lincoln, you were the greatest racist ever. We had a great gig. Three squares, room and board, all our decisions made by the massa in the house. Please repeal the 13th and 14th Amendments and let us get back to where we belong. Sincerely Precious Ben Jealous, Tom’s Nephew NAACP Head Colored Person But here is the interesting thing - I doubt anyone in the tea party movement will denounce Williams. They can’t because it would prove that the NAACP was right. “Catch 22s” are always fun to watch when the right people are trapped in them. More on Barack Obama

Read more:
Alvin McEwen: If there are no racists in the Tea Party movement, then please explain the ‘Abraham Lincoln letter’

Anyone wondering what oligarch-style politics would look like in America need only check out Meg Whitman’s machinations. The billionaire Republican wannabe governor of California’s technique was in sharp display over the past week. Its focus? Using very big money to bend people to her will, individually and collectively, and taking advantage of what she clearly sees as the emerging post-press era to engage in the most blatant rewriting of her own history, including her most recent history. In a New York Times article on Whitman this past Monday, the paper noted that the billionaire ex-eBay CEO and national co-chair of the McCain/Palin campaign, who has had no other involvement with Hollywood, gave consultant/lobbyist Mike Murphy a million dollars for his Hollywood production company. Billionaire Meg Whitman attacks the California Working Families independent expenditure group in this new TV ad. For its ad pointing up the fact that her attack ad on Brown has been judged to be false by non-partisan analysts. Now here’s the interesting thing about what the paper calls Whitman’s $1 million investment. Murphy announced to the Los Angeles Times back in 2004 that he was leaving politics for a full-time career in Hollywood. I remember it well, because at the time I was on location in San Diego co-producing a cable movie about Arnold Schwarzenegger in which Murphy was an important character. But in the six years since then, Murphy’s Hollywood career has never actually happened. Aside from being a consulting producer on Dennis Miller’s cable TV chat show — Murphy produced the show’s first guest, his then client Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger — he has no Hollywood credits. As someone who’s dabbled in show biz, and is decidedly not a Hollywood person but has a lot more than one credit, it occurs to me that that is not easy to pull off. In any event, the year after the “investment” Murphy went to work formally for Whitman, and is making at least $90,000 a month. He may be making more than that through media deals, but I haven’t looked into it. All that is on top of the “investment” he got from Whitman to be a Hollywood producer even though he’s really her chief political strategist. Consultant/lobbyist Mike Murphy, whose only Hollywood credit came for working on Dennis Miller’s political talk show, received over a million dollars from Whitman for his credit-less Hollywood production company right after he pulled out of rival Steve Poizner’s campaign. But that million dollars, as the Times would have it, is actually more. Whitman refuses to release her taxes, instead using only California’s much more vague financial statement. The Murphy investment is described as more than a million dollars. How much more? We don’t know, and Murphy has nothing to say about any of this. Some of the coverage in California of the New York Times story has clearly been in the rewriting history category. One might describe it as Orwellian. There is an article in a daily newspaper and a prominent blog posting suggesting that there was nothing wrong with this. That even though Murphy soon emerged as Whitman’s chief political strategist, and has only one Hollywood credit to his name in the six years since he announced that he was getting out of politics — which he never did — to work full-time in show biz, the million dollar-plus payment to him is not an unreported Whitman campaign expense. The newspaper article, by San Francisco Chronicle reporter Carla Marinucci, who is very consultant-driven in her coverage, can be viewed here. The California Working Families group rips billionaire Meg Whitman for her TV attack ad against Jerry Brown, which has been judged to be thoroughly false by the highly-regarded factcheck.org and other journalistic outlets. In it, Marinucci seriously distorts what Murphy has done, to wit: But Murphy, who drove Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s disastrous special election efforts in 2005, the governor’s successful re-election campaign in 2006 and advised Arizona Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign in 2008, “was always ‘retiring from politics’ and then he’s back in,” the consultant added. In reality, Murphy did not “drive” Schwarzenegger’s re-election campaign, nor did he advise the McCain campaign in 2008. The irony is that Marinucci herself reported the hiring of Steve Schmidt as Schwarzenegger’s campaign manager in January 2006, right after I did. Murphy was already out. In fact, here is Marinucci’s own report. And here is my report, breaking the story. And as she must know, Murphy tried to get into the McCain campaign but was very publicly unsuccessful. Perhaps she just forgot. The other pro-Murphy pushback on behalf of his million dollar pay-off from Whitman to quit the Poizner campaign came in the form of this posting on the Fox and Hounds site by its founder, conservative business lobbyist Joel Fox. This sort of distortion is more to be expected, since Fox is a Whitman backer who worked with Murphy in Arnold Inc. back in the day. Whitman’s anti-Brown attack ad, replete with fake headlines and appropriated imagery. Still, it goes far beyond garden variety deceptive spin to be simply, flat-out false. I happen to know Murphy is serious about making a go in the movie business. He talked about it with Arnold-the-actor right before he was sworn in as Arnold-the- governor back in 2003 and soon after Murphy declared he was staying in California, taking a break from politics and setting up shop in Hollywood. Murphy is not the first person to come back to his roots while trying a new venture. As Fox undoubtedly knows better, since he worked with him, Murphy did not “take a break from politics” after the 2003 recall campaign to work in Hollywood. What he actually did is set up his lobbying/consulting firm in Sacramento and become Schwarzenegger’s chief political strategist. Murphy blatantly solicited all kinds of corporate business as well, embarrassing the governor in the process, then ran the losing “Year of Reform” special election initiative campaigns in 2005. He was then replaced as Schwarzenegger’s chief political strategist when the governor ran for re-election in 2006. Also rather Orwellian is Whitman’s attempts to rewrite her own even more recent political history, through blatant flip-flopping and insistence that there is no consistency. On Thursday, she told a Bakersfield radio station that she doesn’t favor furloughs of state workers during the state budget crisis. But last month, while she hammered Steve Poizner repeatedly in the Republican primary for failing to furlough “a single worker” as state insurance commissioner, she was for it. But the biggest and most blatant examples of the past week have been on illegal immigration. Remember way back in the spring, when when Whitman was spending a record-shattering $90 million to win the Republican gubernatorial nomination in the lowest turnout primary election in California history? Sure you do. Poizner threw a big scare into the billionaire for quite a while, so much so that she dropped her carefully concocted pose of brushing aside her record of not hiring Latino executives and portraying herself as friend to the Latino vote, er, community. She had been for comprehensive immigration reform. Now she was against it. She had said she was against denying basic services for illegal immigrants as in the draconian Prop 187 championed by her campaign chairman, ex-Governor Pete Wilson. Then she said she was for denying services. But a few days ago, she claimed in an op-ed piece published under her name in some East LA newspapers that she and Jerry Brown have the same views on illegal immigration. Oh, really? Brown is for comprehensive immigration, which Whitman said she was against in the primary. That’s not the only difference, just the most obvious. Then Whitman said she’s against having state officials inspect workplaces for evidence of employing illegal immigrants. But she was for that in the primary. Just add it to the long list of Whitman flip flops, from offshore oil drilling, greenhouse gases, the Obama economic stimulus, etc. Whitman tried positive advertising coming out of the primary, but it fell flat. Whitman is a candidate who, let’s be frank, can’t get her story straight. Worse than that, she insists that her story is straight, against all evidence, clearly believing that she can buy her way through paid advertising. Meanwhile, as Whitman continues her record-shattering spending, her opponents aren’t just sitting around. Brown is not in full campaign mode yet, holding fire on his carefully husbanded warchest, but he’s out doing TV and radio interviews. While some anxious folks, and few envious ones, fret about Brown in his current rope-a-dope mode, he has made three times as many public appearances since the primary as Whitman has. And Brown allies are very active. While Whitman, as always, outspends her opposition, the California Working Families independent expenditure committee is continuing to run TV ads in much of the state. The group, a coalition of 17 labor unions and some other interested organizations and individuals has raised some $18 million in cash and commitments. Which is not the same as having $18.5 million in the bank. The money comes in when it’s time to air another flight of ads. So far, it looks like they’ll be able to make it at least to Labor Day, countering Whitman’s effort. And despite all of Whitman’s spending, Brown still has a slight edge. I can tell you that the plan for the Whitman folks was to have rolled up a 10 to 15-point lead over Brown to make it hard for him to come back in the fall. That plan has been confounded. Indeed, at the beginning of the year, former Governor Gray Davis told me that he expected Whitman to take a lead over Brown before falling back sharply in the end. Not enough “there” there, in his view. In addition to California Working Families’ efforts, the Working Californians group is spending over a million dollars on radio ads promoting Brown’s record around the state. There were many meetings on the Democratic side over the past week, especially among labor folks, on the governor’s race. The California Labor Federation is gearing up a big voter mobilization campaign. Other major unions have additional plans. In her primary campaign, Whitman vowed to crack down on illegal immigrants. Now she’s trying to play it very differently to get Latino votes. Then there is the California Nurses Association. Whitman, dogged by the “Queen Meg” theatrical troupe at her infrequent public appearances, and mad about it, has had her campaign attack the nurses union in a variety of ways. So the nurses upped the ante further on Thursday, mobilizing more than a thousand nurses to rally outside Whitman’s leafy Atherton estate. Along with the “Queen Meg” troupe. Whitman wasn’t there, of course, as she was at a flashlight company touting her reworked jobs agenda. You know, create jobs by eliminating the capital gains tax, cut taxes for wealthy investors and corporations, and roll back regulations. As I said, it’s reworked, thinly. What do you think got more attention? Actually, it might be best for Brown if Whitman’s ballyhooed agenda got a lot more attention. Because it really does not add up. And what does the California political environment look like? The Field Poll tells us that President Barack Obama is still quite popular in California. And the opinion dynamics are mostly favorable to Brown, who retains a narrow edge. Obama has a 54% job approval rating in this poll, a tad lower than in other polls I’ve seen. Much of the Field survey was conducted over the long 4th of July national holiday weekend. 39% disapprove of Obama’s performance as president. In 2008, Obama carried California over John McCain, 61% to 38%. So the opposition to Obama here is no greater than it was when he was first elected president. But support, at least in terms of job approval, is down some since the election, having gone to undecided rather than opposition. However, since the last poll in March, Obama’s job approval has ticked up two points. In national polling, Obama’s job approval is generally a little higher than his disapproval, so these have to be viewed as continued good numbers for him. Democrats and Republicans are about equally polarized in their views of Obama, while independents view him in much the same favorable light as the overall numbers. President Barack Obama, who previewed his likely fall campaign message earlier this month at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas, is still quite popular in California. Obama’s job approval in California goes up sharply with higher education, with 63% of those with post-grad work approving of his presidency. He’s also still very popular with younger voters — he has at least plurality support in all age groups — and with people of color. With whites, it’s a 47-47 split. The poll also studied desirable and undesirable candidate attributes. The attributes viewed most positively were, in rank order, experience working with legislative leaders, experience in the business world, progressive views on the issues, moderate views on the issues, pro-choice on abortion, and many years experience in politics. Those attributes ranged from plus-32 to plus-10. The attributes viewed most negatively were, in rank order, hasn’t voted in many elections, does not have experience working with legislative leaders, is over age 70, is an incumbent running for re-election, has never held political office before, is wealthy, opposes President Obama and his policies, and is a Republican. Those attributes ranged from negative-50 to negative-10. As you can figure out for yourself, while some of those positive and negative attributes benefit the Republican candidates for governor and U.S. Senate, Whitman and ex-Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, most clearly do not. For example, 72-year old Jerry Brown will have to demonstrate his vitality and energy, but Whitman can never change the fact that she hasn’t voted and has no experience working with legislative leaders. And Fiorina, in addition to Whitman’s problems, has a serious problem with her staunch opposition to abortion. The initiatives are shaping up as anticipated, with the oil company/conservative coalition seeking to overturn California’s landmark climate change program facing a steep uphill climb, proponents of legalized marijuana starting out even or a little worse, and the move to change the state budget to a majority vote proposition beginning with a big edge. The reality is that a very controversial initiative should have a strong majority starting out. Brown, of course, like Arnold Schwarzenegger, who signed the state’s climate change program into law, is a staunch and early backer of efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions and promote renewable energy. In fact, Brown was the principal political pioneer of renewable energy during his first stint as governor of California. Whitman is a staunch opponent of the climate change program. She started off saying she wanted a one-year suspension. Later, during her heated Republican primary duel with Poizner, she said that the program should be done away with altogether. But she hasn’t endorsed this initiative, though she clearly supports the policy in it and went so far as to question the scientific legitimacy of climate change during the primary. Not that her lack of a formal endorsement will help her in the campaign. You can check things during the day on my site, New West Notes … www.newwestnotes.com. More on John McCain

See original here:
William Bradley: The Machinations of Meg Whitman: Murphy’s Million (Plus) and More

Weekly Mulch: Kicking Our Addiction to AC–Why DC Needs to Step Up by Sarah Laskow, Media Consortium blogger This summer, Americans are cranking up their air conditioning. At the same time, Senators are letting climate legislation cool its heels in Washington. Ultimately, both of these summer trends are contributing to climate change. Air conditioning dumps greenhouse gases into the environment, and without climate legislation that caps the country’s carbon emissions, America’s share of global carbon levels will only continue to grow. But if it’s hard for individuals to give up air conditioning on some of the hottest days in decades, it’s even harder for the country to give up fossil fuels altogether. Just yesterday, BP finally capped the well that has been spewing oil into the Gulf–it took the company almost three months. Yet even in Louisiana, the state hardest hit by the BP oil spill, workers are supporting the oil industry and pushing back against the Obama administration’s temporary moratorium on deepwater drilling. How can the country give up the controlled climate it has become accustomed to? We depend on fossil fuels to keep us cool and to keep our economy pumping. In both cases, the answer is not to go cold turkey, but to come up with an innovative solution. Brrr, it’s cold in here! Americans are as addicted to A/C as they are to oil. “Just since the mid-1990s, as the U.S. population was growing by less than 15 percent, consumption of electricity to cool the residential, retail and automotive sectors doubled,” writes Stan Cox at AlterNet . That cool breeze creates greenhouse gas pollution–the equivalent of 400 million tons of carbon dioxide each year. Cox talks to several admirable people who live without air conditioning. They offer advice like consuming pitchers of ice water, opening your windows at strategic times, and canny use of fans. At Care2, however, GinaMarie Cheeseman rebels . “My response to the…premise that we just have to learn to live without air conditioning is a definite, ‘Hell, no!’” she writes. Her solution? Not to give up a modern technology that improves many days, but to turn to an atmosphere-friendly product–a new-fangled A/C unit called DEVap, which is “50 to 90 percent more energy efficient than traditional air conditions,” she reports. Highway to ‘Hell, no!’ Across the country, the response to an offshore drilling moratorium has echoed Cheeseman: “Hell, no!” After a federal judge (with a financial interest in the oil industry, of course) shut down the initial ban, the administration came back this week with a new version that “is based more on specific safety concerns and less on the simple depth of the well,” as Public News Service reports . In The Nation , Mark Hertsgaard talked to Louisianans who disapproved of the ban altogether. “When a airplane crashes, do you ground every plane in the country? No. You find out what caused the problem and fix it. You don’t punish the entire industry,” one fisherman told him. Hertsgaard came away with a surprising conclusion: “It may be shocking to read in The Nation , but a blanket moratorium on new deepwater drilling may not be the best policy to pursue in the wake of the BP disaster. No state in the union is more addicted to oil than Louisiana; the oil and gas industry is responsible for roughly 25 percent of the state’s economic activity. If you abruptly cut off a hardened heroin addict, you can kill him; there is a reason physicians prescribe methadone rather than cold turkey.” At GritTV , Hertsgaard and I discussed the problem of how to move forward, if a ban on oil drilling won’t fly. The country needs to adopt new solutions–like Cheeseman’s A/C unit–before throwing out the old. Hertsgaard learned, for instance, that Louisiana has the strongest program for solar energy in the country. “Louisiana has by far the strongest solar tax credit–50% off of your solar installation,” Hertsgaard said. “And if you add onto that the 30% credit that Obama administration passed earlier in his presidency, Louisiana homeowners can go solar for 80% off.” PACE-ing ourselves Why doesn’t every state have such a strong solar program, though? Even a disaster like the BP oil spill could not budge federal leaders to move the country towards a safer, cleaner energy future via strong policies. The version of energy legislation that now looks most likely to come to a vote in the Senate drops a carbon cap altogether. It could require renewable electricity standards which mandate that a certain amount of electricity production comes from renewable energy sources, but many states already have similar, if not better standards. One way to reduce the country’s dependence on fossil fuels is to improve the energy efficiency of homes and businesses. There are huge gains to be made here. Better efficiency across the economy could reduce the country’s greenhouse gas emissions 30 percent by 2030, according to the Center for American Progress. The Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) loans encouraged homeowners to build houses that met federal efficiency standards. But a decision last week by the Federal Housing Finance Agency essentially killed this type of assistance. “Cities can continue to offer PACE, but then Fannie and Freddie must impose stricter lending standards on all local borrowers–even those who never intend to take out PACE loans,” Alyssa Katz explains at The American Prospect . “In effect, the new guidelines force mayors and city councils to choose between promoting energy efficiency and improving the health of their already battered real-estate markets.” Two cities that were using the loans–San Francisco and Boulder–have stopped issuing them, Katz reports. Yesterday, Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA) did introduced the PACE Assessment Protection Act of 2010, which requires the FHFA to support PACE, but there’s no guarantee that legislation will pass through Congress, Grist reports . Policy trumps innovation That chilling effect is exactly the opposite of the sort of policies the country needs from Washington. As Christian Parenti writes in The Nation , fancy devices (like Cheeseman’s DEVap) cannot fix the climate crisis on their own: “An overemphasis on breakthrough inventions can obscure the fact that most of the energy technologies we need already exist. You know what they are: wind farms, concentrated solar power plants, geothermal and tidal power, all feeding an efficient smart grid that, in turn, powers electric vehicles and radically more energy-efficient buildings.” “According to clean-tech experts, innovation is now less important than rapid large-scale implementation,” Parenti explains. “In other words, developing a clean-energy economy is not about new gadgets but rather about new policies.” It would be nice if those new policies pushed the country to decrease energy use, instead of mimicking programs states already have in place, or worse, undoing good work that’s going forward on the local level. 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. More on Climate Bill

Read the original here: 
The Media Consortium: Weekly Mulch: Kicking Our Addiction to AC–Why DC Needs to Step Up

Republican governor candidate Scott McInnis isn’t going to let a little thing like being a serial plagiarist hold him back. No, he took to his Facebook page today, a la Sarah Palin, to declare that is “in it to win it.” He also says that now he has decided to return the $300,000 he received in payment for stealing someone else’s work, that “brings this matter to a close.” Yeah, somehow I don’t think so. The case just gets uglier for McInnis. At Talk Left, Jeralyn has the story of the researcher McInnis has tried to foist this off on, Rolly Fischer. Fischer granted an interview to the local ABC affiliate in which he confirmed that McInnis was lying about the scandal, and that he wasn’t aware that McInnis was going to use the materials he provided for the articles McInnis was being paid to write. The 82-year old Fischer said, “I never knew about the foundation or any foundation Scott was associated with.” “Did you know how he was using these?” Ferrugia asked. “No. I had this sophomoric assumption that he wanted them for his own inventory,” said Fischer. Check out the letter the McInnis campaign tried to get Fischer to sign: Dear Scott: I am writing to express my sincere apology for failing to provide appropriate attribution for the research I provided for the water articles we collaborated on. While my mistake was not intentional, it is nonetheless clear that this material needed footnotes. This mistake was solely my own and I recognize that my work fell short of the expectations you had when you included me in this project. Again, please accept my deep apology. Sincerely, Rolly Fischer Asking an 82 year-old water expert to take the fall for you takes about as much chutzpah as compelling the guy you shot in the face to apologize for getting in the way of your aim, but McInnis is no Dick Cheney, and Fischer won’t sign. All of which just makes McInnis look even more like a heel, leading to rumors that the Republican Governors Association “is essentially abandoning McInnis and pulling funds out of the Colorado governor’s race - a claim the RGA firmly denies.” Although they also say that they are committed to the Colorado race and to defeating Hickenlooper, and note that McInnis hasn’t won the primary. That’s a strong endorsement, huh? But the situation is a mess for Republicans. Internally, Colorado Republicans are still considering their options - none of which are particularly appealing. Replacing McInnis on the primary ballot before Aug. 10 would face a certain legal challenge from Democrats, and would be tricky to accomplish from a public relations standpoint. But establishment Republicans–which have essentially given up on McInnis–are concerned that if insurgent candidate Dan Maes wins the primary and is at the top of the November ticket, the trickle-down effect will be damaging for other GOP candidates in terms of voter turnout and support. Tom Tancredo says McInnis has to go: “This is a huge disaster for the Republican party unless we can get a candidate in there to make this all work.” Tancredo noted that if the state GOP fails to put up a conservative candidate, the right wing in the state is likely to revolt. As for the other Republican on the ballot, conservative businessman Dan Maes, who has some support from wings of the Tea Party, Tancredo said he regarded a Maes win as an even greater longshot. “The [Denver] Post has more on Maes than they’ve ever had on McInnis… [Maes] is bad news,” Tancredo said. (The Post broke the plagiarism story.) Tancredo said he himself would be happy to step up and run as a write-in and has received some encouragement to do so–but added that he’s well aware that the party elite would not want him to step forward. Hahahahah! Tancredo to the rescue. Scarily enough, Republicans in Colorado seem to want Tancredo , Mr. Obama is the greatest threat ever to this nation to step in. Ouch.

Read the original:
CO-Gov: McInnis vows to stay in race, Colorado GOP despairs

Go here to see the original:
Paul Szep: The Daily Szep- Sarah Palin-Grizzley mom

John Boehner has a lot of bad ideas (like opposing health care, privatizing Social Security and, supporting Palin for VP). But today’s idea may top them all . His latest federal policy “proposal” is that there shouldn’t be any. No rules. No nothing. Schools out! The timing of his call for a moratorium on new federal regulations is impeccable. He waited until the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico reached such catastrophic proportions that even people who hate regulations now crave them. He waited until the day after the Senate passed the hugely popular sweeping reform to regulate the fat cats on Wall Street . In fact, he even waited until regulations got popular with the public. He even waited until health care started becoming popular again - with a clear majority against repeal. It may be that the Minority Leader is tired of being one-upped by Mitch McConnell and is jealous he doesn’t have a filibuster of his own . The Republicans in the Senate have elevated saying “no” to an art form. The Republicans in the Senate said no to unemployment benefits, no to aid to the states, no to creating jobs, no to standing up to Wall Street. They have been talking a lot recently about extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich - no matter how much that increases the deficit - but they won’t extend unemployment benefits because that will increase the deficit. Today Boehner said “having a moratorium is a good idea” because it will give the “private sector some breathing room.” Sure. Just like unemployment gives people free time. And oil spills give enviros something to do. Joking aside, a moratorium on regulations is not going to create jobs and jump-start the economy and that’s what we need. A real recovery package will. All the Republicans want to do is return to the policies of the George W. Bush and let the greedy corporations run the show. Boehner’s big idea today is so silly it’s almost comical. So let’s chuckle for a moment and stay focused on November. Cross Posted at the NOW!Blog

Original post: 
Ethan Rome: Boehner’s Big "Idea"

The internet has recently been weighing in on the literary merits of Harper Lee’s novel To Kill A Mockingbird , published fifty years ago last week. Kathleen Parker defended Harper Lee in response to Malcolm Gladwell’s negative 2009 article in the New Yorker (although why anyone would take anything Malcolm Gladwell says about fiction seriously is beyond me); Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie wrote a beautiful paean to the novel in the Guardian; Huffington Post’s Jesse Kornbluth made the rather startling claim that the novel is being criticized by men because Atticus Finch is “a feminized man”; Allen Barra , writing in the Wall Street Journal, refers to Atticus as “a repository of cracker-barrel epigrams” and asserts that TKAM ’s “bloodless liberal humanism is sadly dated;” and at Racialicious, blogger Macon D. wrote an articulate indictment of the ways in which the novel “encourages today’s well-meaning white people to think that ‘America is a very different place’ than it was when Lee wrote her novel, and thus to think that widespread and deeply entrenched racism died a long time ago.” The fact that so many people have so much to say about the book is an indicator of the massive impact it’s had on American culture. Harper Lee herself noted in 1964, somewhat poignantly, that she “never expected any sort of success with ‘Mockingbird.’… I was hoping for a quick and merciful death at the hands of the reviewers but, at the same time, I sort of hoped someone would like it enough to give me encouragement. Public encouragement. I hoped for a little, as I said, but I got rather a whole lot, and in some ways this was just about as frightening as the quick, merciful death I’d expected.” To Kill A Mockingbird has sold more than thirty million copies by some estimates, and according to a 1988 report, was required reading in three-fourths of American high schools. It’s a book that has, inarguably, entered our national consciousness, and I’d bet money that it’s the only book about race many white Americans have ever read. But what’s so particular about the book is not its story, its style, or its characters, but the extraordinary baggage attached to it: the way it’s come to stand in for a period of American history. One can hardly imagine that Lee intended for her semi-autobiographical work to become the final word on race for most white Americans; and yet, somehow, it has. Is the novel problematic? Of course, although I think, like any well-written work of fiction, it resists the over-simple reading of “dated; racist.” But the apparatus we’ve constructed around it certainly allows white people — as Macon D. points out — to soothe themselves with the thought that racism is something that happened in one part of the country, long ago; and, thanks to the heroic activities of noble men like Atticus, all of that is over now. Because Lee spoke out, we don’t have to. Thus we engage in the collective self-delusion that reading To Kill A Mockingbird somehow absolves us of our own responsibility to work toward ending racism in the present day: We thought about it, it was sad, and thank goodness that’s all over now. The question is not whether TKAM is flawed (I defy you to find a book that isn’t) but why for the last fifty years we’ve allowed a coming-of-age novel by a white southern author about a white southern child to represent the whole narrative of the segregated South. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that publishing remains effectively closed to writers of color ; publishers routinely erase faces of color from their covers ; American schools move toward diversifying their reading lists with glacial slowness or write the history of people of color out of their curriculums altogether (here’s looking at you, Texas); and most white Americans are still utterly incapable of having honest, open, and accountable conversations about racism. When we as a culture cannot agree that, say, randomly arresting brown people on the streets of Arizona is a problem, we’re in trouble. And when we, as a culture, are content to read a story about a little white girl growing up and pretend it’s somehow representative of the lived experience of people of color in this country, it’s no wonder we’re unable to move forward. Perhaps To Kill A Mockingbird is so obscured by the politics writ large across it that the novel’s text has become illegible; but if that’s true, the fault lies not with the book but with its readers. The answer is not to strike it from the record, but to open our classrooms to other voices and other stories. To do that, we have to demand more: of publishers, of school administrators, of teachers, of students, of ourselves. We have to demand that what we read reflects the faces of the people around us, not just the person in the mirror. There’s no one book on this earth capable of doing that work on its own. And that, I think, is something Harper Lee would agree with.

Go here to see the original:
Sarah McCarry: To Kill a Mockingbird, Fifty Years Later

Supporters of Joe Miller–the U.S. Senate candidate supported by Sarah Palin in Alaska–carried assault rifles and wore open side arms during a festive community parade this week, while young children marched alongside them. Miller is running in the GOP primary against incumbent Republican US Senator Lisa Murkowski , a far more popular figure in Alaska these days than Palin, who quit her position as governor a year ago amidst a series of ethics scandals and an impending override of her federal stimulus veto . Footage of the event, located on Youtube and at the website of noted Alaska blogger Andrew Halcro, shows a handful of potbellied Miller supporters behind a black Humvee openly brandishing weapons at the Bear Paw Festival, a popular community celebration held annually in Eagle River and Chugiak (located north of Anchorage along the Old Glenn Highway on the way to the Palins’ home town of Wasilla). The f ive-day festival includes a “Teddy Bear Picnic,” barbecues, music and a historical fair. Miller, who received the Alaska Tea Party endorsement and whose politics are well to the right of Atilla the Hun, served as an assistant attorney for the Fairbanks North Star Borough from 2002-2009. He left amidst controversy last year and failed to include this position anywhere in his official campaign bio or web site. Palin’s political action committee SarahPAC recently dished out a $5,000 contribution to Miller’s campaign. Award-winning writer and filmmaker Geoffrey Dunn’s book The Lies of Sarah Palin: The Untold Story Behind Her Relentless Quest for Power will be published by St. Martin’s Press. More on Sarah Palin

Original post: 
Geoffrey Dunn: Supporters of Sarah Palin’s Senate Candidate Carry Assault Rifles in Parade

On this quite busy Thursday, there is much to be learned on the ol’ Wrap. For example: Confronting an angry group that was the victims of your biggest campaign gaffe can often lead to absolutely priceless video. (Just ask Minnesota GOP gubernatorial nominee Tom Emmer) One ethically challenged GOP incumbent Senator is falling to pieces (and even the punditocracy is starting to take notice) All of a sudden, every pollster seems to care about next week’s competitive GOP gubernatorial primary in Georgia (and your guess at who’s leading is as good as theirs) All this (and more!) in the Thursday edition of the Wrap… THE U.S. SENATE KS-Sen: Moran claims huge lead in primary internal poll The showdown between Congressmen Jerry Moran and Todd Tiahrt to claim the GOP Senate nomination in Kansas may not be such a showdown at all, if a new internal poll for Moran is to be believed. The poll, conducted this week for Moran by Public Opinion Strategies, shows the western Kansas Congressman ahead of the Wichita-based Tiahrt by a 56-24 margin. Tiahrt got a high-profile booster this week, though, as Kansas City Chiefs Offensive Coordinator (and former Notre Dame HC) Charlie Weis will appear on his behalf. LA-Sen: Is Vitter’s star waning? Cook thinks so Charlie Cook has been so bearish on Democratic chances this year that this actually merits inclusion in the Wrap: the electoral pundit has downgraded the chances of GOP incumbent David Vitter. What was once a race that was “Likely Republican” in the eyes of the Cooker is down to “Leans Republican”. The next rung on the ladder, for the uninitiated, would be “Toss Up.” The Melancon campaign themselves has taken note of the change, throwing together a pretty solid video which lays out how Vitter’s decline has been largely self-inflicted. NV-Sen: Is Chamber headed to the sidelines again? Having already likely lost the support of the NRA, Republican nominee Sharron Angle might also not be able to count on the support of another nominal Republican ally in her battle with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The Chamber of Commerce is weighing whether or not they want to get involved in the Nevada Senate race. As with the NRA, the CoC is wondering aloud if getting Angle in is worth ushering in the Durbin era or the Schumer era in the United States Senate. WV-Sen: Appointment to come tomorrow; GOP picture not clear The appointment by Governor Joe Manchin to replace the late Robert Byrd is scheduled to take place tomorrow, with a swearing-in ceremony next week. Speculation continues to swirl about the identity of the appointee, but a new name surfaced overnight: Gaston Caperton . Caperton, who served as Governor during the 1990s, is currently the head of the College Board (scourge of high school juniors everywhere). It was long believed that he wasn’t interested in the appointment, but he made clear in an interview with WV journalist Jill Lawrence that he would give it “serious consideration” were he to be asked. Meanwhile, the GOP picture might not be as clear as previously thought, even if Shelley Moore Capito does decide to take the plunge. A two-time statewide candidate, wealthy businessman John Raese, sounds like he is raring to go . In discussing the race, he seemed to make it awfully clear that Capito’s interest in the race wasn’t a factor for him, as he thinks he can beat her by attacking her from the right. WI-Sen: Feingold finds an opening–hammers Johnson on oil Candidates can often wait an entire campaign waiting for an opening to get after their opponent. Republican Ron Johnson seems to have gift-wrapped an opening for Senator Russ Feingold a little early. Feingold has crafted an ad based on Johnson’s dodgy-but-affirmative answer about drilling for oil anywhere in the continental US, even in the Great Lakes. You can see the ad here . The Wisconsin Democratic Party is also flinging punches, pulling together an online petition asking Johnson to divest himself of the quarter-million plus he owns in BP stock, and donate it to a victim’s compensation fund. A clever gambit, indeed. THE U.S. HOUSE AZ-08: Challenger’s internal poll says pickup in desert is possible Democrat Gabrielle Giffords has won both of his races in the swing 8th Congressional district in Arizona by double digits. However, if a new poll conducted for the campaign of Republican rival Jonathan Paton is to be believed, she is in a real coin flip this time around. The poll, conducted by the Tarrance Group, shows Paton with a lead of a single point over Giffords (45-44). Paton is going to have to expend resources in a late primary, however, so he could find himself badly bruised before he even faces Giffords. KS-04: Potential shocker as leading Dem recruit trails in primary This poll has to be a pretty chilling one for the DCCC: one of their best-funded and most impressive recruits, state legislator Raj Goyle, trails by four points (40-36) in a SUSA poll of the August primary. His opponent is a relatively unknown retiree named Robert Tillman. Goyle, wisely, has taken to the air early, in an effort to avoid becoming the next Vic Rawl of the 2010 cycle. On the GOP side, the race is (as it has always been) a two-candidate sprint, with Mike Pompeo leading Wink Hartman by a single point (32-31). State Senator Jean Schodorf is a distant third at 16% of the vote. THE GUBERNATORIAL RACES AZ-Gov: Telling profile of last challenger standing in GOP Gov race If anyone wondered why I anointed Governor Jan Brewer as the GOP nominee in Arizona last night (after the news that businessman Buz Mills chose to shutter his campaign), this interesting profile will help explain it. It is a profile of one Matthew Jette, the thirty-something businessman who is the sole Republican challenger remaining to incumbent Jan Brewer in next month’s Arizona primaries. Jette hits all the GOP hot spots, except one huge one–he is running as an opponent of SB 1070. Best line of the story–one attendee at a Jette speech, upon his explanation for his opposition to the controversial immigration bill, quipped: “And he was doing so well, too.” CT-Gov: Dems look strong for November pickup in Nutmeg State Republicans have held the governorship of Connecticut for eons, it seems, but that streak looks likely to stop at the end of this year, according to a new Quinnipiac poll in the state. Ned Lamont has big leads over either ambassador Thomas Foley (45-33) or Lt. Governor Michael Fedele (49-27). Former Stamford mayor Dan Malloy also holds double-digit leads over both Foley (44-33) and Fedele (49-26). GOP businessman Oz Griebel lies even further behind Lamont and Malloy, according to the poll. The Q poll also explored the primaries, as well. The Democratic primary is actually reasonably competitive: Lamont leads Malloy by a nine-point margin (46-37). Meanwhile, the GOP primary is a blowout: Foley leads with 48%, while Fedele (13%) and Griebel (7%) are way behind. GA-Gov: Who’s leading for the GOP? Depends on who you ask In a sign of how volatile the Republican primary in the Peach State truly is, consider how incredibly disparate the results are from a pair of new polls that were released today. Insider Advantage followed up their poll from last week with new numbers , which continue to show Secretary of State Karen Handel out front with 24% of the vote. Congressman Nathan Deal (16%) and Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine (15%) are locked in a tight battle for the second spot in the likely runoff, while Eric Johnson is not far behind (13%), either. Meanwhile, the crew at Mason Dixon goes in an entirely different direction. They have Oxendine with a modest lead, beating Handel by a 31 margin. They have Deal running in the third spot at 18% of the vote, with Johnson well behind at 6% of the vote. While I-A seemed to stay out of the Democratic primary, Mason Dixon takes it head-on. They have former Governor Roy Barnes lapping the field with 54% of the vote. Attorney General Thurbert Baker is a distant second, scoring 20% of the vote. MD-Gov: Ehrlich won’t get Palin. That’s OK–he doesn’t want Palin This is pretty darned telling: likely GOP nominee Robert Ehrlich says that you should not expect to see luminaries like Sarah Palin stumping on his behalf. And, in fact, that is just the way he wants it . Ehrlich says he prefers smaller, more intimate gatherings, and posits that rallies featuring party megastars are underwhelming because “You can’t hear. People get bored and they leave.” MN-Gov: Emmer gets a tip from irate service workers Something tells me a campaign plan didn’t quite come together for Minnesota Republican gubernatorial nominee Tom Emmer. You might recall that the conservative Emmer found himself in hot water for advocating a “tip credit” which would allow employers in service-based jobs to deduct tip income from wages, allowing said employers to pay below minimum wage. In an act of damage control, Emmer attempted this week to do a town hall meeting with waiters and other service employees. It was there where Emmer got quite the tip , in the form of several hundred pennies hurled at him from a jar, which came to a crash right in front of the shocked politico’s face. It is worth clicking the link to see the video, trust me. TX-Gov: White beats incumbent in fundraising race He is close in the polls, and it looks like Democratic nominee and former Houston Mayor Bill White is holding his own against Republican incumbent Rick Perry in another key category–the money chase . Figures made available today showed that White raised $7.4 million in the latest reporting period, leading Perry (who lagged just behind with $7.1 million). White, at $9 million, also leads Perry in cash-on-hand ($5.8 million), the by-product of Perry’s bruising primary against Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. THE RAS-A-POLL-OOZA The House of Ras surprises for the second or third time this week. This time, it is their surprising shift in the open-seat Senate race in Delaware, long thought to be a lock for Republican Congressman Mike Castle. Not so fast–even the House of Ras sees that a lead that was once twenty-five points has been cut more than half. The Ras-sies also join Mason Dixon and I-A in looking at the Georgia gubernatorial primary (a rarity, by the way–Rasmussen polling a race that is right around the corner), and they also cast an eye at a trio of races that are on everyone’s radar screen: California Governor, Texas Governor, and Wisconsin Senate. CA-Gov: Meg Whitman (R) 47%, Jerry Brown (D) 46% DE-Sen: Mike Castle (R) 47%, Chris Coons (D) 36% GA-Gov (R): Nathan Deal 25%, Karen Handel 25%, John Oxendine 20%, Eric Johnson 13% TX-Gov: Gov. Rick Perry (R) 50%, Bill White (D) 41% WI-Sen: Ron Johnson (R) 47%, Sen. Russ Feingold (D) 46% WI-Sen: Sen. Russ Feingold (D) 51%, Dave Westlake (R) 37%

More here:
Polling and Political Wrap, 7/15/10

As flagged by Greg Sargent , Politico founders John Harris and Jim VandeHei haven’t got a clue: The liberal blogosphere grew in response to Bush. But it is still a movement marked by immaturity and impetuousness — unaccustomed to its own side holding power and the responsibilities and choices that come with that. “Immaturity and impetuousness”? Yeah, that describes us to a T, unlike mature and patient (and very, very serious) folks like Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin who somehow find their every utterance transcribed in Vandehei’s publication. So many liberals seem shocked and dismayed that Obama is governing as a self-protective politician first and a liberal second, even though that is also how he campaigned. Wait, I thought VandeHarris wanted to attack liberal bloggers. So why are they characterizing President Obama as a political hack who is governing out of expediency instead of conviction? That’s really an absurd description. President Obama didn’t campaign on being a political hack. He campaign on achieving a set of policy goals that would transform this country and eighteen months into his administration he’s been pretty damn successful in achieving those goals. The liberal blogs cheer the fact that Stan McCrystal’s scalp has been replaced with David Petreaus’s, even though both men are equally hawkish on Afghanistan, but barely clapped for the passage of health care. What planet have VandeHarris been on? Seriously, what planet? Most people in the netroots were thrilled that health care reform passed, as were most Democrats. Sure, it was a knock-down, drag-out fight to get to the finish line, but once we got to the finish line, we were determined to cross it. To get a sense of what I’m talking about, maybe Vandehei ought to rewatch the video Markos threatening Dennis Kucinich with a primary if he opposed final passage (assuming he ever saw it in the first place). They treat the firing of a blogger from the Washington Post as an event of historic significance, while largely averting their gaze from the fact that major losses for Democrats in the fall elections would virtually kill hopes for progressive legislation over the next couple years. Oh. Come. On. If VandeHarris can find a single progressive blog with more posts about Dave Weigel and the WaPo than about the 2010 elections, I’d be stunned. But even if they could pick that cherry, it wouldn’t change this fact: we sure as hell understand the importance of the midterms. Unlike with teabaggers, you haven’t seen any real desire among netroots activists for purity tests. The closest example you could come up with would be Bill Halter, but he would have been a stronger general election candidate than Blanche Lincoln. The same holds true for Joe Sestak. And Markos has pushed for Charlie Crist to run as a Democrat for more than a year. That’s the opposite of a purity test. That’s a big tent. In contrast, teabaggers have cost the GOP dearly, not just in NY-23, but in Senate races across the country, nominating fringe candidates like Sharron Angle and Rand Paul and Marco Rubio. Angle has cost the GOP what looked to be an easy victory in Nevada and Paul has made Kentucky competitive. Rubio is a telegenic guy, but in pushing Crist out of the GOP, he’s threatened their hold on that seat. As Sargent concludes : All VandeHarris are revealing is that they don’t regularly read liberal blogs — and that they know they can count on the fact that the Beltway insiders who will snicker knowingly about this article don’t read liberal blogs either. And that’s fine: Don’t read them! But please don’t make stuff up about them and call it journalism.

Originally posted here:
People say the dumbest things sometimes

And so it has come to passeth on this day that Sharron Angle, Republican candidate for U.S. Senate from Nevada, has been endorsed by the Lord Almighty himself. In political circles, this is known as a “good get.” “I believe that God has been in this from the beginning,” she told Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition, who himself has been touched by God, except for his failed political run for office, “and because of that, when He has a plan and a purpose for your life and you fit into that, what He calls you to He always always equipped you for.” It should be noted that Ms. Angle is the one Republican “Tea Party” candidate who almost makes Rand Paul seem sensible. Indeed, she has invoked the Lord’s support for her candidate platform before, stating that abortion even in the case of rape and incest should be illegal because “God has a plan.” Whether God told Ms. Angle of this plan for full-term pregnancy when a woman has been raped as a condition of His campaign support, or she heard it at a campaign brunch and solicited His support is unknown. Mind you, if in fact, the Lord supports Sharron Angle’s candidacy — and has “from the beginning” — then it holds that God also supports Ms. Angle’s positions beyond just the whole rape/incest/abortion thing. That God, too, supports eliminating the Department of Education; phasing out Social Security for the protection of the elderly; and believing that if a man has a job, it is the wife’s place to stay at home with the kids. Also, making alcohol illegal. (It is a good thing she has God’s support on this one, because it will likely be an uphill fight to convince the residents of Las Vegas in Ms. Angle’s home state on this one.) Further, Ms. Angle’s statements suggest that God stands wrongly by the disproven contention that abortion causes breast cancer. Of course, since God is infallible, perhaps this is just one of the points on which He and Ms. Angle “agree to disagree.” To be clear, none of this is to diminish nor demean Sharron Angle’s personal religious faith — or anyone’s. But personal belief and using God as a shameless, self-righteous, petty, political campaign stunt is a selfish insult to the many hundreds of millions of people worldwide who believe in the very same God but may have different political positions. Or different religious interpretations. It is also an insult to God, by suggesting that He has nothing better to do than stump the campaign trail with Sharron Angle. Or stump with any political candidate who invokes God’s support and plan on their behalf, as Sarah Palin and so many others do. It suggests that the Lord has decided not to get involved with ending the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, or stopping the Gulf oil spill, or fixing the U.S. economy, or getting jobs for the unemployed — or curing cancer or juvenile diabetes or Alzheimer’s…but He wants to get Sharron Angle elected to the U.S. Senate. Then again, in fairness, maybe Sharron Angle is right, maybe this is all God’s plan. Maybe He has been involved “from the beginning.” It’s just that maybe it’s not in the way she thinks. Maybe God wants Harry Reid to win. After all, consider: by all accounts and polls, Harry Reid was positioned to lose his Senate race to Sue Lowden. Then, inexplicably, Ms. Lowden imploded by offering her bizarre, chicken-based healthcare plan. And even more inexplicably kept defending it — until she lost the Republican primary. And Sharron Angle (the only candidate Harry Reid could likely beat) won and became Sen. Reid’s opponent. Indeed, if you need more proof, Harry Reid has apparently raised $25 million for the race, while Sharron Angle only has a paltry $1.2 million. Even more to the point, Republican strategist Dick Morris has just sent out a fundraising letter on behalf of Ms. Angles, stating that her finances are “in a desperate situation.” Does this sound like God’s plan is for Sharron Angle to win — or to get Harry Reid re-elected? Where Reid can return to the Senate as Majority Leader and help direct President Barack Obama’s agenda through the Senate with Nancy Pelosi’s leadership in the House, so that the United States can finally recover from eight crushing years of the George Bush era and once again be the shining beacon to the world it was before! (Just as it might have been the Lord’s plan for Sarah Palin to quit as governor to get her out of elected office where she wouldn’t represent anyone anymore and couldn’t do any damage.) Hey, maybe. God bless America, indeed!

Read the original:
Robert J. Elisberg: A New Angle on God’s Plan

By Sarah Audelo and Gregory Cendana We were surprised to learn from Gary Bauer (” Obama’s Anti-Youth Agenda ,” Politico, July 9) that Obama’s agenda has thus far failed young people in America. We were more surprised that Mr. Bauer, at age 63, considers himself a viable spokesperson for the millennial generation. Obama’s record on youth issues certainly worthy of examination, but it’s hardly the disaster portrayed by Mr. Bauer, who seems intent on cramming every conceivable right wing talking point into his critique. So, as millennial voters who actually cast ballots for President Obama, we would like to offer a different perspective on the topics Mr. Bauer put forth: jobs, health care, abortion and youthful (though he would likely say naïve) idealism. Jobs We don’t know anyone who isn’t concerned about the economy and what that means for prospective employment. But we also understand that this recession started long before President Obama took office. Last year’s stimulus bill directly funded tens of thousands of summer jobs for youth in 2009 and, if passed by the Senate, another bill would do the same this year. Unfortunately, the focus continues to be on creating summer jobs, rather than opportunities for year-round employment. With summer already halfway over, it’s too little too late. We needed the President to get involved long before now, and we needed him to push for much more intervention. Even more importantly, President Obama oversaw the passage of the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act. One of the signature pieces of Obama’s agenda that directly addresses the needs of young people in America, this new law will allow millions of young people to attend college and graduate without crippling financial debt. The law expands access to college education with more than $60 billion to fund for federal Pell grants and community colleges, keep interest rates low on federally subsidized student loans, and strengthen loan forgiveness for graduates pursuing a public service career. Can Obama do more? Certainly, and we hope he will. But to see a truly anti-youth jobs agenda, look to Arizona: The state legislature recently proposed paying anyone younger than age 22 only 75% of the state’s minimum wage. That’s $5.44 an hour. At least the Obama Administration is taking steps forward, not backward. Health Care Given rising youth unemployment, the importance of the health care reform benefit allowing young people to stay on their parents’ health care plan through age 25 cannot be overstated, especially since young people are the second highest uninsured demographic. Health Care Reform also expanded Medicaid to include roughly 9 million currently uninsured young adults and, thanks to the Senate, provides $75 million a year for comprehensive sex education programs. Beyond health care reform, the President’s Teen Pregnancy Prevention Initiative is an historic breakthrough for young people’s health and well-being. All the news wasn’t good, however, on the health care reform front. The Obama administration and Democrats in the House kept a Republican amendment in the bill authorizing $250 million for failed abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. These programs prohibit information about condoms and birth control for the prevention of pregnancy and disease. It’s troubling when a Democratic administration and its congressional allies stand on the sidelines while ideology trumps science, public health, and the rights of young people to accurate information about their sexual health. But, back to Mr. Bauer and his assertion that, because of Obama’s health care reform policies, “young people will bear a heavier burden of the medical costs of older Americans.” Please, we all know that Medicare and Social Security embrace the same cost-sharing principles - and they continue to be wildly popular, as they have been since the New Deal. The last time conservatives pitched our generation on abandoning these principles, President Bush was trying to privatize social security. How did that one work out? Abortion If President Obama has “advanced the abortion rights cause more than any president in history,” it’s surely news to the pro-choice movement. With a Democrat in the White House and strong Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, we could have finally pushed for public funding by ending the Hyde Amendment. We might not have succeeded, but President Obama and the Democrats didn’t even try. By defending the status quo rather than progressive principles, Obama ceded so much ground that he was forced to sign an executive order reaffirming the ban on federal funding for abortion care. As a result, women - young women and low-income women in particular - continue to find their right to safe, affordable and confidential medical care under attack. Early on, President Obama declared “this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill.” With all due respect, Mr. President, abortion care is health care. Idealism Mr. Bauer intentionally misreads Obama’s pledge that he was doing this “for the next generation” as a direct promise to millennials. He implies that the 66% of young people who voted for Obama did so because of idealistic slogans and fancy campaign swag. But millennial voters are not just concerned about ourselves. We’re doing this for the next generation too - for our younger siblings, for our children, and for generations yet to come. Civic engagement isn’t motivated solely by self-interest, but by a belief in the American ideal. Obama’s campaign resonated with so many millions of young people not because he promised us immediate solutions to our own intractable problems, but because he promised an approach to government that embraced our responsibility to one another and to the society in which we live. Obama’s agenda was predicated on the idea that we are all in this together and that politics that divide by age, race, gender, sexuality, and religion are the politics of the past. Mr. Bauer seems to embrace, if not relish, these divisions. President Obama wants to consign them to the dustbin of history. So do we. But that doesn’t mean the president has done enough. On two of the great human rights issues facing our country - immigration and LGBT equality - Obama needs to show that his leadership extends beyond the delivery of a single speech. On both issues, young voters trend progressive by wide margins. We are looking for leadership, not rhetoric. Millennial voters have a responsibility to hold President Obama accountable for his promises, for his actions thus far, and for the opportunities he failed to embraced. But we have an equally important responsibility to be a part of the solution to the problems facing this nation. The Obama administration has already accomplished much to improve the lives of young people in America, but the real work - for all of us - still lies ahead. Sarah Audelo is the Senior Manager of Domestic Policy for Advocates for Youth. Gregory Cendana is the president of the United States Student Association. More on Health Care

More: 
Gregory Cendana: Anti-youth agenda? Try again.

Tea Party Express spokesman Mark Williams fired an unexpected response to a challenge from CNN contributor Roland Martin. Asked to tell racists “you’re not welcome” in the tea party, Williams replied, “Racists have their own movement. It’s called the NAACP.” The exchange came on Wednesday’s edition of CNN’s “The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer.” A day earlier, the NAACP passed a resolution condemning the tea party for tolerating racism. Williams wasn’t alone in defending the tea party, as Sarah Palin took to the airwaves on Fox News to discuss the situation with Sean Hannity . While Palin is often a polarizing figure, Williams managed to outflank her in nine words. WATCH: FULL TRANSCRIPT: MARTIN: Mark, here — here’s where I come from. The people who are on the stage, the folks who organize it, they are assuming a leadership position. The reality is this, Wolf — and here’s why I think, Wolf, the Tea Party people are making a mistake. There are examples where other Tea Party leaders — Mark wants to deny it — where they have said you’re not going to sit here and pollute our situation with your racism. What the Tea Party folks should be saying in response to the NAACP is that we have actually done that. And in the future, if they’re are going to ne people who bring racism, they are not welcome at our rallies. BLITZER: All right, Mark, I’ll be… (CROSSTALK) MARTIN: That’s what should be saying. (CROSSTALK) WILLIAMS: — Amy Kremer of the Tea Party Express did exactly what you’re suggesting. We did that at the very beginning. I’m not going to preface every sentence I say for the rest of my life, by the way, we’re not racists. By the way, I don’t beat my wife. We are what we are and when these vile people show up, they find out that we’re — we’re not a happy home. But as long as… MARTIN: I’m glad you’ve matured in that… (CROSSTALK) WILLIAMS: they keep turning on the tv and listening to people like you, Roland, saying that that’s where they’ll find a happy.. MARTIN: No. That… WILLIAMS: — they’ll keep showing up. MARTIN: You’re not going to lie on CNN. I never said that. And I have said that… WILLIAMS: Look what you’re saying… (CROSSTALK) MARTIN: Well, no, no, no… (CROSSTALK) MARTIN: Allow me to finish. I have said consistently, the Tea Party people have an absolute right to assemble, to protest. But what I have said, there is no room … WILLIAMS: That’s gracious of you. MARTIN: — in that movement for racists. And what I’ve said is, you should come out and say you’re not welcome here. WILLIAMS: Racists have their own movement. It’s called the NAACP. MARTIN: Oh, that’s nonsense. WILLIAMS: Look, they’ve done more… BLITZER: All right… (CROSSTALK) WILLIAMS: ,,,a bunch of old fossils looking to make a buck off skin color. More on CNN

See the original post here: 
Mark Williams, Tea Party Express Spokesman: NAACP Is Racist (VIDEO) (TRANSCRIPT)

Crossposted from the HechingerEd blog Ignoring tests could be a great way to improve test scores, or so suggested a story in the Wall Street Journal over the weekend. In response to pressure to raise achievement, administrators at a struggling New Jersey school planted a garden. They also added a peer-mediation program and invited “scholars to teach art, dance and music.” Over a decade, test scores rose dramatically. Children from a D.C. elementary school help with the White House garden (photo courtesy of Joyce N. Boghosian) Howard Gardner , the Harvard professor who developed the idea of multiple intelligences, was the inspiration for the unconventional approach taken at the school, Seth Boyden Elementary. He has been critical of the increasing reliance on standardized testing in public education; at a recent talk sponsored by the Spencer Foundation , Gardner said he worried “a great deal about the implicit or explicit messages in having such a focus on tests, data, failing kids, failing schools, rankings, rankings, and rankings.” Yet the story of the New Jersey school reminds us that it may not be that tests are necessarily bad — some are, some aren’t — but how they’re used and how they affect the learning environment in schools. Opposite Gardner at the Spencer talk was Richard Murnane , also a Harvard professor who co-edited the book Data Wise: A Step-by-Step Guide to Using Assessment Results to Improve Teaching And Learning . Murnane argued that reliance on tests and other data to measure performance need not necessarily come at the expense of children’s growth in other areas, such as critical thinking and social-emotional development, but that tests and data are key to increasing equity in the public school system. It seems like the experience in New Jersey could support either side of this argument: Eschewing test prep at Seth Boyden appears ultimately to have helped student performance on tests. That’s not the whole story, however. After embracing its broader approach to education, the school became more racially diverse. At the same time, New Jersey Department of Education data show that the percentage of poor children at the school dropped. Research has shown that a higher percentage of higher-income students at a school has a positive effective on achievement , which means there could be a more complex explanation of what happened at Seth Boyden: the adoption of a more progressive approach to teaching and discipline might have led students to do better on tests even as more affluent children — who tend to have a positive influence on the achievement of their less advantaged peers — were drawn to the school. This not a happy ending yet. Students at the school still lag behind others in the state on test scores. But the school is worthy of a closer look by educators and policymakers as they decide what the next round of school reforms should look like. – Sarah Garland

Originally posted here:
Sarah Garland: To Raise Test Scores, Plant a Garden

Sarah Palin lashed out on Tuesday at the NAACP for the group’s allegations of racism within the Tea Party movement, saying that the charges were unjust and undeserved. “I am saddened by the NAACP’s claim that patriotic Americans who stand up for the United States of America’s Constitutional rights are somehow ‘racists,’” Palin wrote in a Facebook note. “I know how Tea Party Americans feel to be falsely accused,” she said. Palin pointed to a charge of racism levied against her in a “frivolous lawsuit” which was later dismissed. “To be unjustly accused of association with what Reagan so aptly called that “legacy of evil” is a traumatizing experience, and one of which the honest, freedom-loving patriots of the Tea Party movement are truly undeserving.” Palin added: I just spent a few beautiful Alaskan days with some beautiful Americans in my husband’s birthplace - they are Todd’s family and they are Yupik Eskimo. In the decades that our families have blended, I have never heard one proud, patriotic member judge another member based on skin color. Both Todd and I were raised to measure a person according to their capacity and willingness to love, work, forgive, contribute, and show good character. We’re joined by the vast majority of Americans in this belief whereby we measure a man by his character, not his color. Because of amazing efforts and accomplishments by those who came before my generation, it is foreign to us to consider condemning or condoning anyone’s actions based on race or gender. Being with our diverse family in a melting pot that is a Native village just days ago reminded me of that. On Tuesday, the NAACP passed a resolution denouncing what it sees as racism coming from tea party members. More on Tax Day Tea Parties

Originally posted here:
Sarah Palin Defends Tea Party Against NAACP’s Racism Charges

Wednesday morning’s big news, broken on the cover of Us Weekly, is the engagement of Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston. But that’s bad news for People magazine, which claims on its cover a false “EXCLUSIVE” on the news that Bristol and Levi are back together, and misses the engagement story. “EXCLUSIVE: BRISTOL PALIN She’s Taking Levi Back,” the People cover proclaims on the right rail. The main cover feature is on Carrie Underwood’s wedding. See the two covers below:

The rest is here:
People’s Bristol Palin ‘Exclusive’ Burned By Us Weekly Cover (PHOTOS)

Whoops, did I say “grizzly mammas?” Well, there’s nothing plural about this show. It’s “Momma Grizzly.” If Sarah Palin’s new web video is about a stampede of new conservative female candidates, try to find one in the piece. If the video is about female empowerment, there’s little doubt as to who’s on the power trip (or the Momma Bear). As Digby writes: She is not a serious politician. She is a political celebrity/entrepreneur, collecting money from her fans to fund herself and sell her brand. To the extent that she is working for anyone but herself, she’s working for The Republican Party, bringing together some of the disparate strands of the conservative movement, striking the pose of the “outsider.” But that is the extent of her serious commitment to politics. Palin is a “reality” entertainer. Look on the covers of the celebrity magazines and you’ll see lots of them. There’s a lot of money to be made by someone like her in merchandising alone, much less personal appearances, books etc. I’m guessing she’ll find herself on the personal growth/religious circuit too, along with her reality show on TV. She is a creature of the new political media, maybe the first pure version of her kind. As soon as people grok that, her fund raising and touring will begin to make more sense. If the hallmark of a narcissist is that, when she look at others, she see herself, it’s not surprising how much this video, ostensibly about every other “she” out there, mirrors Palin at every turn — either literally, or via stills of women inserted for the primary reason that they represent living clones of various Palin personas. For example, the woman above is the “savagely” angry, Sara-like hotty thrilled to annoy. (The fact the t-shirt traces back to Michael Savage fans only amplifies Palin’s skill at indirectly tapping into deep anger, racism and homophobia.) This image is simply fabulous for the way it echoes and brands the now iconic photos of Palin at the Republican Convention as the mommy glued to baby (it’s Trig all over again) as a validation of her patriotism. And then, shades of Savage, this frame is interesting for the way it can activate some subliminal misandry, or hatred of men. On the manifest level, of course, it’s just pure, straight-ahead tea party slogan taking on big government. At another level, though, especially in the ‘women-only and “don’t be fucking with with us”‘ context of the video, it can also be read as an attack on men and courtship — i.e. Opposed to Man dates. And then, of course, you have the pictures of Sara that, dispensing with symbolism completely, literally mirror her, as if you can’t get enough of her (the way she can’t get enough of herself) so (and, more than once in the video) let’s have two! Of course, filling in the edges are otherwise standard campaign shots (in a non-campaign and a non campaign-video, mind you) of cell phone and point-and-shoot idolatry. …Before they took down the photo link from Palin’s Facebook page, it was flooded with “citizen paparazzi” pics like these. click for full size Still though, given Sarah’s fascination with legends, as well as her honestly impressive instincts when it comes to siphoning credibility by visually and rhetorically mirroring top top dogs, I like this frame the best — just don’t tread on the lapel button far right! Watch the Mamma Grizzly video here . ———- For a breakdown of the latest visual spin plus the best in photojournalism, visit the completely redesigned and relaunched BAGnews . More on Sarah Palin

Excerpt from:
Michael Shaw: Reading the Pictures: Palin’s Grizzly Mammas (Or: But Enough About You, What About Me?)

There’s a charming new musical opening off-Broadway this week that expertly injects new life into the oldest story: The Garden of Eden. Falling For Eve depicts a re-imagining of the story of creation, interplay between Adam and Eve, and how God dealt with it all, emotionally. Although this retelling is more a caricature than an attempt to educate, there’s nonetheless plenty to take away from the play. Beyond the interesting and innovate take on the story, the cast delivers a well-rounded performance led by Jose Llana in the role of Adam. While all the cast members have the proper training in voice and dance, Llana demonstrates incredible comedic timing and body control that provide the most raucous laughs in the 90-minute show. He’s also perfectly cast, perfectly suited to play the first man on earth. Krystal Joy Brown stars as Adam’s soul mate, Eve, and shows off her outstanding vocals in the show stopping mid-performance “Where Will I Sleep Tonight?” Between Llana and Brown, the musical has two stars carrying the weight of the world on their shoulders. Like in many musicals, it’s the music that remains the most memorable after the show. Two-time Tony winner Joe DiPietro’s book boasts an array of styles of music that convey both the tension and the love story that infuse the first story of Genesis. DiPietro makes the Bible come alive, especially with his natural imagery inside the song “Eve.” What makes these songs so compelling is their ability to weave modern references - “Good Things Are A Comin’” takes it to another level - into the old tale. With any off-Broadway show, especially one that hasn’t yet debuted, there are going to be issues that need to be resolved. In this show, the problems arise inside the relationship between God’s two main angels, Michael and Sarah. They serve as a confusing mix of comic relief and secondary love match. As Michael and Sarah grow closer to one another as the story grows on, you can’t help but long for their earlier appearances built around humor and comfort. If director Larry Raben wished to bring those two together, he could have done so at the end, even if it appeared to be all too convenient and out of left field. It would follow the tradition of Shakespearean comedies where, toward the end of the play when love is in the air, uncommon and unexpected couples form. That sort of treatment would have worked better in this case, rather than thrusting another pair on us when our wonder and concern remain fixed on Adam and Eve. Those who believe this topic and relationship are too taboo for the theater will quickly alter their view at the top of the show. The play is not so much about God and His species, as much as it is a glimpse into the sentiment behind the story. You begin to buy into, in a way you’ve probably never considered before, the fact that the first couple may have from similar setbacks and difficulties that we face today in the pursuit of purity and ecstasy. So while theatergoers will obviously recognize the overarching story and most of the twists and turns (though admittedly some are surprising), the show still manages to keep you guessing how the most famous duo in history’s story really ends.

Read more: 
Danny Groner: Falling For Eve Is a Divine Creation

The NAACP pulled its punch and did not flatly condemn the tea party as racist. The resolution it proposed at its national convention condemned what it called “racist elements” in the party. This was both a tactful and crucial distinction that the NAACP was right to make. Tea party leaders though incensed at the NAACP for calling the party out on racism admitted that some of those who have turned up at tea party events have spouted racist slurs. The leaders also say that they have denounced them. That’s an arguable point, but the bigger issue is still is the tea party racist? And what kind of a threat does it represent? The NAACP is only the latest to weigh in on that debate, but it’s still the racism issue that sticks in the craw and fuels the widespread public perception that the tea party is chock full of unreconstructed bigots. And that their members have been whipped into a fury by the mere thought of a black man in the White House. The Obama Joker posters, crude racist scrawls on signs, and banners, Confederate flags, Texas Lone Star flags and tea party backed Kentucky GOP Senatorial candidate Rand Paul’s kind of sort of put down of the 1964 civil Rights Act didn’t do much to dispel the notion that the tea party is a captive of if not a wholesale creation of racists. And if so, the party represents a mortal danger to civil rights and justice concerns. That’s far too simplistic, and worse, it put a hopeless barrier up to try and understand why the tea party roared on the scene and has had some staying power. In April, a Winston survey shocked many when it found that four out of ten tea party adherents are not Republicans, but independents and Democrats. A follow-up New York Times survey revealed that tea party backers were not ill educated, low income, blue collar whites, mostly in the South and Heartland. But the majority was middle class, and many are wealthy, and highly educated. The single overriding thing that drove them no matter their politics or party was the feeling that the country was going in the wrong direction. This is not merely a case of respondents saying the politically correct thing to survey takers so as not to not appear to be racist. Nearly two decades ago, the GOP found that the volatile mix of big government and economics could whip frustrated, rebellious, angry whites into a frenzy far better than crude race baiting. Many middle class and working class white males genuinely viewed government as big, insensitive, and a hopeless captive of special interests. Many more actually believed that they were losing ground to minorities and women in the workplace, schools, and in society. This was more perception than reality. Yet it was a real belief. The target of their anger was big government that tilted unfairly in spending priorities toward social programs that benefited minorities at the expense of hard-working whites. That translated to even more fear, rage and distrust of big government and shouts to fight back against the erosion of personal freedoms. Tea party activists pound on Obama, the Democrats, big government, the elites, and Wall Street. Yet, they also grouse about abortion, family values, gay rights, and tax cuts and not race. Rightwing populism, with its mix of xenophobia, loath of government as too liberal, too tax-and-spend, and too permissive, and a killer of personal freedom was the engine that powered Reagan and George W. Bush’s White House wins. Scores of GOP governors, senators and members of congress have used wedge issues to win office and maintain political dominance. The GOP grassroots brand of populism has stirred millions operating outside the confines of the mainstream Republican Party. In 2008, many of these voters stayed home. Even Sarah Palin wasn’t enough to budge them. Their defection was more a personal and visceral reaction to the bumbles of George W. Bush than a radical and permanent sea change in overall white voter sentiment. They were ripe for the tea party movement — or any movement that keyed their anger and frustration into action. Tea party leaders push back against the charge that they are racist by endlessly citing popular anger at the perceived big government creep, taxes, runaway spending, and “socialist leaning” Obama administration programs as the sole cause for their rage at Washington and mainstream politicians. The evidence is compelling that this is a sincere if wrongheaded belief. The NAACP then was still right to call out the tea party for saying and doing nothing about the bad actors that spew their racism within the tea party movement. They create mischief and havoc, poison the racial air, and in some cases pose a physical danger. Tea party leaders should welcome not curse the NAACP for pointing that out. Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. He hosts a nationally broadcast political affairs radio talk show on Pacifica and KTYM Radio Los Angeles. Follow Earl Ofari Hutchinson on Twitter: http://twitter.com/earlhutchinson More on Tax Day Tea Parties

Read the rest here: 
Earl Ofari Hutchinson: Tea Party Should Hail NAACP Resolution on Racism

Congressional Republicans were all aflutter because Health Care Reform was a 2000+ page bill, and it regulates, albeit rather weakly as it turned out, 16% of the economy. Card-carrying Congressional loons such as Michele Bachmann have called it slavery. Rush Limbaugh said he would move to Costa Rica if it passed. He is still here so one suspects Costa Rica would not have him. If these freedom-loving ‘patriots’ do not like healthcare reform because it is an imposition on liberty and the free market, and it regulates 16% of the economy, what could they possibly think about the powers of the Food and Drug Administration? - It strictly regulates the manufacture and sale of food, drugs and cosmetics. - It determines what a manufacturer must prove, and with what evidence, before a product can be marketed. If it does not like the study the manufacturer has performed, it can require it to be changed and re-done, prior to allowing the product to be marketed. - It sets strict safety standards, inspects private (yikes!) industry manufacturing plants, imposes fines (e.g., Genzyme just paid $175M) for unsafe practices, and can ask prosecutors to indict violators who, upon conviction, could go to jail. - With the stroke of a pen, it can force a company to remove its product from the market. - It can force a company to take remedial actions that will cost the company money and time (and do not need to apologize to the company for doing it!). - It pre-approves what assertions a manufacturer may make about its product. - It can force companies to put labels on their products. - The economic activity it strictly regulates constitutes ~30% of our economy. This is ‘nanny-state’ writ large. How can a conservative live, how can she breathe, how can he feel free, with such a burdensome federal agency? So, Republicans/Tea Partiers–should we eliminate or severely weaken the FDA’s regulatory authority? Imagine if such regulation had not been previously established, and major outbreaks of contaminated food, contaminated drugs, ineffective drugs, failed implanted devices and scarring cosmetics had accumulated over 50 years, and one party–the Democrats–had decided enough was enough in 2009, and introduced the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. The above would have been just the beginning of the Republicans’/Tea Partiers’ list of horribles. Because that list accurately describes what is in the act, it would only have been their starting point. I am not sure what lies they would have concocted to embellish it, but I am certain they would. After all, Betsy McCaughey needs something to lie about. Sarah Palin needs to twitter that this is all designed to kill her Downs’ syndrome baby. So Republicans/Tea Partiers: do you trust the safety of the food you eat to “voluntary industry regulation”? What about drugs and medical devices–should private industry be allowed to make any claims they wish about the safety and effectiveness of the sleeping medication you take at night, or the asthma medication your kids use while at school? Or, for that matter, the anti-nausea medications you take when you are pregnant? Should drug companies be allowed to put 10 milligrams in a pill, when it is only effective if a patient takes 50 milligrams, saving itself 80% of the raw materials’ cost? Should the defibrillator in Dick Cheney’s heart have been subject to government-mandated safety or performance standards prior to its insertion? Yes or No? Can you live with the federal government regulating, strictly regulating, and probably with more than 2000 pages of regulation, 30% of the private economy? Wouldn’t the drug and device companies’ profits disappear overnight, and jobs be decimated? For that matter, how can it be that the drug industry is so heavily regulated and yet, and yet..is among the more profitable sectors of the economy? How is that even possible in your world view? C’mon, Newtie. You have an appointment scheduled with god in February to find out if he tells you to run for President. Shouldn’t we, shouldn’t HE, know in advance if you would nuke the FDA? What about carpet-bombing it with your conventional language of destruction, aka lying? I know you dodged the draft (bum knee, right?, I think it was Rush who had the pilonidal cyst, or do I have this ass-backwards?), but you sure know how to use tough-guy rhetoric. Tell us. How can any conservative Republican or Tea Partier feel free with 30% of the US economy being so strictly regulated? How? C’mon Michele, Rand, Sharon, Nikki, Carly… Instead of attacking healthcare reform–a weak regulatory law for only 16% of the economy (swatting at ‘gnats’ as Condi Rice put it as she defended ignoring al-Qaeda for the USS Cole bombing pre-9/11; or an “ant” as John Boehner calls the financial meltdown)–why not take down the FDA and go for the big enchilada? Now, that would be “a big f*kg deal”. And, if perchance, Republicans/Tea Partiers conjure a rationale for the FDA’s powers from the vapors of health, safety, confidence, then why should we leave our financial health (in many cases a person’s entire life’s work) to the whims of large banks, or our planet’s health to the machinations of big energy companies? That is, should not the general public, exercising collective power through government (and, that is all government is in a democracy), serve as a balance, a “counterveiling power” as Galbraith called it, to big business? Or, do you trust your lives, your health, your sacred fortunes, the planet your children will inherit, purely to the self-interest of corporations? Perhaps all you need do is cut their taxes, and all will be well.. More on Dick Cheney

See the original post here:
Paul Abrams: My Challenge to Republicans/Tea Partiers: FDA Strictly Regulates ~30% of the Economy. Should We Abolish (or Severely Weaken) It?

Gulf Coast!?! To think I had to waste an afternoon (cut my workout short and everything) to make those Tea Baggers along the Gulf Coast think we give a damn. It’s one thing to go down to Diddy’s or Kanye’s house on Star Island in Miami, but Panama City is a disaster. This place is known for one thing: endless strip malls. Do I look like I shop at Payless Shoes? This is supposed to be our vacation time and I’m blowing half my day in a hell hole like Panama City!! But what could I do? Axe, Rahm and the rest of the gang told me if we wanted to vacation in Maine this week, one of us had to go placate the oiled up yahoos down South. I’m still mad that Barack had to interrupt our Memorial Day weekend in Chicago to sympathetically stroke some greasy pelicans! But I suppose I must do my part. But I needed this trip like Hillary needs an extra fifteen pounds of thigh fat. The good news is–I got fantastic coverage out of this drop-by. I told the public that “there are thousands of miles of these beaches not touched by the spill” and encouraged the American people to come on down and vacation there. Then I jumped on my plane and made final plans for my weekend in Maine. LOL!! (I sure hope Olympia and Susan are going to hike with us on Saturday!) But back to today–it was pitiful the way those tubby mayors kept trying to coax me into spending a vacation on the Tar-ball Shores of Florida. Have the petroleum fumes gotten to their brains? Barack and me wouldn’t be caught dead vacationing down there with all those Palin supporters. Though if we swam around in those nasty waters, we might be caught dead. Honestly, I think we’ve done all we can for the Gulf Coast. On my way out of town I even stopped by the Pink Pelican Ice Cream Bar to enjoy a luscious treat called the “Chocolate Hurricane.” (I have to remember to e-mail Ray Nagin about that one.) After my visit, there will be lines around that ice cream joint for decades–and who knows, by then they might have even capped that oil spill. But in the meantime, they might want to consider renaming the place the “Brown Pelican Ice Cream Bar.” And to think, earlier today, I told the NAACP that, “Dessert is not a right.” I stand by that. It’s not a right. When I’m working this hard, it’s a necessity! LOL! Laura Ingraham’s new book, ” The Obama Diaries ,” is out this week.

Go here to see the original:
Laura Ingraham: Diary of First Lady Michelle Obama: July 12, 2010

MARQUETTE, Mich. — A woman charged with conspiring to bilk actor John Stamos of hundreds of thousands of dollars had a brief romantic fling with him when she was a 17-year-old high school student during a spring break trip to Florida in 2004, an attorney said Monday. Defense lawyer Sarah Henderson made the allegation during opening arguments in the U.S. District Court trial of Allison Coss and Scott Sippola, even though the presiding judge last week ruled that testimony about whether the “ER” and “Full House” star had an intimate relationship with Coss would not be allowed. Opening statements are not testimony and cannot be considered by jurors as evidence but allow attorneys to outline the case they will present. Stamos, who attended the trial’s opening day, declined comment to The Associated Press but is expected to testify. His attorney, William Sobel, issued a statement through publicist Matt Polk that said: “The allegations made today in the courtroom by the defendants’ attorneys during opening statements will not be proven because they are simply untrue.” Polk declined further comment. Coss, 24, and Sippola, 31, both of Marquette, are accused of conspiring to extort $680,000 from Stamos by telling him they had photos of him with cocaine and strippers. Prosecutors contend the pictures don’t exist, and FBI agents testified Monday they found no such photos while searching the defendants’ house after their arrest. Henderson and Assistant U.S. Attorney Maarten Vermaat agreed in their opening statements that Coss and Stamos met in Orlando, Fla., in 2004 – shortly after Stamos had separated from his wife, actress and supermodel Rebecca Romijn. The couple divorced the next year. Henderson said Stamos, now 46, noticed Coss and another girl at a club, asked friends to bring them over and later invited the star-struck teens to his hotel room. Stamos ordered a drink for Coss even after she told him she was 17, Henderson said. Two women who worked as strippers eventually showed up in the room with a bag of cocaine, she said, and Coss and her friend took a picture of Stamos bending over a table where the drugs had been laid out. Henderson said Stamos and Coss later kissed on a bed and got into a hot tub together after Stamos undressed and Coss stripped to her underwear. She said Stamos offered to perform oral sex on Coss, but she declined. Florida law makes it a second-degree felony for someone 24 or older to have oral sex with anyone 16 or 17 years old. It carries a penalty of up to 15 years in prison. Stamos eventually became frustrated, broke a bedpost with his hand and left the room before apologizing and inviting Coss to spend the night, which she did, Henderson said. For the next few years, they maintained a “flirty kind of relationship” by e-mail, Henderson said. Vermaat also said the two exchanged e-mails “with some regularity” but did not discuss details of the alleged 2004 encounter. Stamos received two e-mails last fall from a “Jessica T” who claimed she was pregnant and Stamos was the father, Vermaat said. Later came a series of e-mails from a “Brian L” describing allegedly compromising photos and saying they would be sold to tabloids if Stamos did not buy them for $680,000. Prosecutors contend Coss and Sippola sent the e-mails. Stamos contacted the FBI, Vermaat said. During testimony, two agents described a sting operation that ended with Coss and Sippola’s arrest at K.I. Sawyer International Airport near Marquette, where an agent posing as a Stamos representative had promised to leave a bag of cash. “This is really just a get-rich-quick scheme that is based on lies and betrayal,” Vermaat told the jury of eight men and four women. Defense attorneys acknowledged their clients tried to sell photos to Stamos but insisted they had a right to do so and considered it a legitimate business transaction, not a crime. “Human beings make mistakes,” Henderson said. “Not all mistakes are illegal.”

See the original post:
John Stamos Had Fling 17-Year-Old Girl, Night With Cocaine & Strippers: Lawyer

A heaping helping of offerings from the campaign trail greet the political junkies of America in a fitting kickoff to the penultimate week before Netroots Nation. (Brief plug: You really should go. It is going to be incredible) As Monday evening moseys along, we see new data from one of the most vulnerable GOP districts in the nation (color me skeptical about it), as well as dueling endorsements lighting up the Democratic primary in the state of Michigan. Two top-flight northeastern GOP contenders for Governor step in it to various degrees, while the Democrats may do something on the gubernatorial front that they haven’t done in almost a century (and it’s not a good thing). All this (and more!) on the Monday edition of the Wrap…. THE U.S. SENATE AK-Sen: Murkowski to debate Senate primary rival Here is a curious move for an incumbent to make, especially in a primary election–Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski is agreeing to debate her teabagging primary opponent, Joe Miller. The incumbent, seeking her second full term after her 2003 appointment, agreed to a trio of debates with the Palin-endorsed Miller. The debates will take place in an eight-day whirlwind, beginning exactly two weeks prior to their late August primary. CA-Sen: Fiorina into a narrow lead, according to late SUSA poll A late breaking poll this evening from SurveyUSA becomes among the first polls in the cycle to suggest that Republican nominee Carly Fiorina has taken a narrow lead over incumbent Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer. The poll has Fiorina at 47% of the vote, with Boxer at 45%. The poll was conducted on behalf of a CBS affiliate in the Bay Area. FL-Sen: LeMieux bucks the man who appointed him, backs Rubio This has been expected since Charlie Crist ditched the Republican Party a few months back, but the former right-hand man for the Governor has made it clear who he is backing in November, and it isn’t the nouveau Independent who once employed him. Senator George LeMieux, appointed to the seat as a placeholder in the wake of the resignation of Mel Martinez, not only endorsed Rubio, but expressed his disappointment with Crist for leaving the primary. He has also apparently contributed to Rubio from his PAC, and has offered other campaign assistance, as well. SC-Sen: Greene to make first formal speech as nominee Accidental Senate nominee Alvin Greene has not exactly been hiding under the bed as of late. For example, he announced to the world that he wants Denzel Washington to play him in the movie about his life (which is not in the planning stages, by the way). He has also suggested bridging the economic gap in South Carolina by selling Alvin Greene action figures. But now, he is apparently moving into candidate mode, with his first official appearance as the Democratic nominee. He will be appearing as a featured speaker before his local chapter of the NAACP this coming Sunday. SD-Sen: Thune in national figure mode with re-election assured It is usually not a great sign for the challenging party when an incumbent facing re-election can shutter his campaign apparatus a full four months prior to Election Day. Yet that is exactly what is happening in South Dakota, where freshman Senator John Thune has managed to avoid any opposition for November, Democrat or otherwise. This opens up Thune to fundraise in other states, to part with some of his re-election funds to other needy candidates, and to be a rainmaker for local candidates. DavidNYC at SSP offered a great counterargument, though–the Democrats might be better served in South Dakota by not having the locally uber-popular Thune gracing the top of the ballot. WV-Sen: Capito still on fence, with decision pending this weekend? With the AP now saying that Governor Joe Manchin will appoint the interim replacement for the late Robert Byrd this Sunday , speculation now turns to who will run in the special election that is likely to kick off this Fall. The oft-mentioned name at the top of the GOP wishlist–Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito–is still on the fence . She claims to be unconcerned about the prospect of defeat (which even the GOP polling clearinghouse known as Rasmussen said was likely), but is only making sure she is not giving up any “momentum” for the state by switching races. THE U.S. HOUSE AZ-03: Is Hulburd making this GOP open seat a pickup opportunity? In a solidly Republican open seat in the suburbs of Phoenix, local media are starting to take a very serious look at the lone Democrat in the field, attorney Jon Hulburd. Hulburd has raised monster cash thus far, including another quarter-million in the second quarter, according to the campaign. The analysis by the local Arizona Capitol Times points out, accurately, that the GOP field, numbering at an almost absurd ten candidates, could result in one of the fringier candidates making the cut with 15-20% of the vote. In short: Democratic pickup opportunities are few and far between this cycle, but keep an eye on this race. LA-02: Field is set, and GOP incumbent is claiming a huge lead The filing deadline in the Pelican State is closed, and a potential Democratic player in the competitive New Orleans-area seat occupied by Joseph Cao decided to remain on the sidelines . Karen Carter Peterson, who made it into a runoff election with embattled former Democratic Rep. Bill Jefferson a few cycles ago, declined a bid. Cao is far from secure, however, as he has a pair of Democratic state legislators (Cedric Richmond and Juan LaFonta) facing him in the Fall. For his part, however, Cao is claiming relative security in the race, by releasing a fairly dusty internal poll (late May/Early June) claiming a 51-26 lead over Richmond. Why Team Cao felt the need to hold onto this poll for six weeks is unclear, although it might have been to give the false impression that this was a recent poll. Richmond’s campaign was not rolling in earnest back then, though he is actively on the trail now. THE GUBERNATORIAL RACES AL-Gov: Byrne gets major late (too late?) endorsement In the final days before his primary runoff election with state legislator Robert Bentley, businessman and former college head Bradley Byrne got a late endorsement from a very big name–the outgoing Governor of the state, Bob Riley. His campaign also claimed the endorsements of Congressmen Jo Bonner and Mike Rogers in the final days of the runoff. As a final gambit to define the election, Byrne has been hammering the Alabama Education Association, arguing that the union was behind recent television ads attacking Byrne and implying that Bentley is a stealth union candidate (Byrne ally Jo Bonner referred to Bentley as a union “trojan horse” on Friday). AZ-Gov: Brewer continues to consolidate Arizona GOP support Any doubt that Jan Brewer has managed to completely resurrect her standing with Arizona Republicans has likely been erased today, with the news that she had earned the endorsements of both Senator John McCain and Senator Jon Kyl. Brewer’s nomination likely became a given this weekend, with the news that state treasurer Dean Martin was suspending his campaign. Brewer had already endorsed McCain’s Senate bid. CA-Gov: Whitman attacks Brown for union ties This was entirely predictable: with the campaign of Jerry Brown still sitting on the sidelines conserving resources in the face of free-spending GOP Meg Whitman, affiliated groups like “Working Families for Jerry Brown” have been bridging the gap. This has led Meggy Warbucks to launch her 838th ad of the cycle, which attacks Brown for being the “union” candidate. In other California news, a late-breaking poll from SurveyUSA is the first to show a significant lead for Whitman over Brown in the race. The poll, taken for CBS5 in the Bay Area, has Whitman holding down 46% of the vote, with Brown sitting on 39% of the vote. CT-Gov: Foley latest GOPer caught in a “war zone” kerfluffle It is starting to become somewhat obvious that the whole Richard Blumenthal/Vietnam fracas has been more of a minefield for Republicans than it has been for the Democrats. The latest GOP candidate caught up in the newfound interest in biographical veracity is fellow Nutmegger Tom Foley , the GOP frontrunner for Governor. Foley’s biography highlighted both his role in resurrecting the Iraqi economy while part of the Coalition Provisional Authority in 2003, and the dangers he faced while there. The only problem: other accounts of Foley’s role in the CPA contradict the details offered in his biography. FL-Gov: McCollum finances circling drain, under one mil in CoH One now gets a better understanding of why Rick Scott is so eager to see the Millionaire’s Amendment overturned in court in Florida. A court filing related to the case revealed that the former gubernatorial frontrunner, state Attorney General Bill McCollum, has just $800,000 on hand for the balance of the campaign cycle. McCollum is not completely destitute–if the law is upheld, he is eligible for an untold amount of cash courtesy of Scott’s lavish self-financing. Even without that, however, McCollum would have access to up to $2 million, the result of a state law which grants money to candidates who raise money within the state, rather than cashing in on wealthy out-of-state donors. GA-Gov: Barnes leads Dem primary; endorsements shake up both races Aside from the Alabama runoffs (and a curious special election in Ohio, but more on that tomorrow), the only electoral game in town this month is in the state of Georgia, and there is a ton of news out of the Peach State today. New polling from Insider Advantage puts Roy Barnes is fairly safe territory for avoiding an August runoff with state Attorney General Thurbert Baker. The poll has Barnes sitting at 59% of the vote, with Baker far behind at 15%. DuBose Porter and David Poythress languish at 2%, and are increasingly unlikely to be a factor. Baker could be, however, as he unloaded a huge endorsement today in the form of former President Bill Clinton . Republican co-front runner Karen Handel can claim an endorsement of her own today, from none other than Sarah Palin . Meanwhile, Congressman Nathan Deal is apparently bent out of shape for not being deemed a Papa Grizzly, because he did not take long to savage the recipient, asking why Palin would endorse the “most liberal” Republican in the field. He also made the somewhat bizarre accusation that Handel was facilitating “gay outreach” to kids. MI-Gov: It’s endorsement-fest in the Dem primary! The Democratic primary in the battle to be Michigan’s next Governor is reaching a heated stage, with both candidates notching major-league endorsements to kick off the week. After getting basically smoked in the endorsement derby, state House speaker Andy Dillon announced a big one this morning, as former Mayor Dennis Archer gave his support to Dillon. This came on the heels of Dillon’s primary rival, Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero, earning the endorsement of a pair of influential African-American members of Congress (John Conyers and Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick) over the weekend. Then, right on the heels of the Dillon-Archer announcement, Bernero added another big endorsement to his roster, as state legislator and former gubernatorial candidate Alma Wheeler Smith’s endorsement this afternoon. MN-Gov: Emmer tips flap continues unabated Last week, your curator of the Wrap reported on the “man of the people” tactics of GOP gubernatorial nominee Tom Emmer, who was proposing that tips from service employees be counted against their wages, so that the minimum wage for such employees could be dropped below the state minimum. Emmer is trying to fight back by claiming he is being taken out of context on that stand, and another outlandish claim that tips put service workers above the six-figure annual income. The only problem–of course!–is that there is video. Emmer might not only be hurting his gubernatorial candidacy, but he is seriously risking getting timely service in any restaurant or bar in Minnesota at this point. NE-Gov: Democrats flirting with leaving guv ballot line blank It hasn’t happened in nearly a century, but it may well happen in 2010. On the heels of former nominee Mark Lakers’ abandonment of his gubernatorial campaign, it is looking increasingly likely that Democrats will not find a replacement to run on the Democratic line. Such a move would, in fairness, be something of a suicide mission–Republican Governor Dave Heineman is sitting on over $1.5 million, and the state has a fairly large generic GOP lean in even the best of circumstances. PA-Gov: Corbett–unemployed are unemployed by choice? This could, in the long run, qualify as something of a game-changer in an open seat gubernatorial race that seemed to favor the GOP. Republican nominee Tom Corbett, while speaking in a radio interview yesterday , made a comment about how “the jobs are there”, but that some people would prefer to collect unemployment. It did not take long, of course, for his Democratic rival, Dan Onorato to seize on the comment , pointing out that nearly 600,000 people in Pennsylvania are presently out of work. THE RAS-A-POLL-OOZA The House of Ras hits just two races to open the week, hitting a high-profile gubernatorial race on the Eastern Seaboard, and a vulnerable open-seat contest for the U.S. Senate in the Midwest. Republicans lead in both, according to the House of Ras. Feel free to make your surprised face…now! IN-Sen: Dan Coats (R) 51%, Brad Ellsworth (D) 30% MD-Gov: Robert Ehrlich (R) 47%, Martin O’Malley (D) 46%

See the rest here: 
Polling and Political Wrap, 7/12/10

Now that Newt Gingrich has his ducks in a row, having declared declared declared his faith in God, married married married the love of his life, gotten over his habit of writing bad checks, being reprimanded by the House of Representatives for ethics violations, and fleeing from the halls of Congress for the hallowed halls of Fox News, he’s ready : Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Monday he’s seriously considering seeking the Republican presidential nomination and will announce his decision early next year. Gingrich, 67, told The Associated Press that he would focus on helping Republican candidates through the midterm elections in November, then decide in February or March whether to seek the GOP nomination. “I’ve never been this serious,” Gingrich said. My suggestion? Gingrich/Palin. It’s a sure-fire winner.

Original post:
Newt Gingrich (sort of) announces he’s running in 2012

I don’t know if it was the heat or humidity covering much of the East Coast, but last week the media continued its pursuit of stories that have little or no meaningful substance. Last Tuesday, a Los Angeles judge sentenced Lindsay Lohan to 90 days in jail after the actress violated terms of her probation - certainly worthy of a mention in the news segment of most shows. What was completely un worthy was the follow-up coverage by everyone from The Today Show to Good Morning, America to Fox News on the multiple reactions and commentary over the next several days - from Lohan’s father, to addiction specialists and legal experts - all of which clearly placed this story at the top of the vapid list. Tied with Lohan: Crisis in Hollywood was ESPN’s LeBron-a-thon in which the sports network first hyped then padded the first thirty minutes of a TV special where basketball star LeBron James announced which city’s team he finally chose to play for next season. And the winner was… Miami! (Think what ESPN could have done with baseball great Lou Gehrig’s farewell speech.) The vacuous came in the form of former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s political-campaign-infotainment-you-betcha video broadcast on her Facebook site. Over dreamy images from Tea Party rallies and paid speeches, the Palin gospel is heard against lilting, beatific music. “This year,” Palin intones, “will be remembered as the year when common sense, conservative women get things done for our country. All across this country, women are standing up and speaking out for common sense solutions. These policies coming out of D.C. right now, this fundamental transformation of America — well a lot of women who are very concerned about their kids’ futures saying, ‘we don’t like this fundamental transformation and we’re going to do something about it.’ “It seems like it’s kind of a mom awakening in the last year and a half where women are rising up and saying, ‘you know, we’ve had enough already,’ because moms kind of just know when something’s wrong. “Here in Alaska, I always think of the mama grizzly bears that rise up on their hind legs when somebody’s coming to attack their cubs, to do something adverse toward their cubs. You thought pitbulls were tough, well, you don’t wanna mess with the mama grizzlies. “And that’s what we’re seeing with all these women who are banding together, rising up, saying, no. This isn’t right for our kids and for our grandkids and we’re going to do something about this. We’re going to turn this thing around. We’re going to get our country back on the right track no matter what it takes - to respect the will of the people. “Look out Washington, because there’s a whole stampede of pink elephants crossing the line and the E.T.A. stampeding through is November 2, 2010. A lot of women coming together.” Now, I’ve posted the entire text because I’m at a loss to understand exactly what Palin’s purpose is here. Is she running for president? Is she supporting a specific platform? She talks about “common sense solutions,” but what are those solutions? She doesn’t say. Clearly, she’s speaking against “These policies coming out of D.C…. this fundamental transformation of America…” Okay, but which policies, what fundamental transformation is she speaking out against is unclear. However, there was a media moment that was both intelligent and thought-provoking. Sunday morning, CNN’s Fareed Zakaria conducted a riveting interview with cleric Anjem Choudary, a British citizen and radical Islamist who has called for the execution of the Pope and boasted of more bombing attacks in London. During the course of the 12-minute or so interview, I was engaged in Zakaria’s knowledge and skill in trying to debate this self-confessed radical: Zakaraia : All right. What I want to first talk to you about, though, is if you look at polling done across the Islamic world, what you find is support for the kind of ideas you’re describing has been dramatically falling all over the world - Choudary : I don’t think so. You’ve been living in America for too long. If you go into the streets of Indonesia or into Malaysia or Pakistan, if you go into the streets of Lahore and say to them what they think about Sheik Osama bin Laden or the current — Zakaraia : When was the last time you were in Indonesia and — Choudary : I was in Indonesia about three, four months ago. Zakaraia : Because I’ve been to both places and I would disagree. I would say the polling is also consistent with my personal observations. So — Choudary : Let me tell you something. If there was an election between any leader of Muslim - of the Muslim countries in the world today and Sheik Osama bin Laden, he would win hands down. Zakaraia : Except that there are elections in half the Muslim world and the Muslim fundamentalists, let alone the jihadis, do terribly. Choudary : No, you’ve got - Wait a second. Wait a second, I’m not propagating the idea of elections and democracy and freedom because these things are anathema to Osama — Zakaraia : Except when you want to make your point. Of an entire week of news and events, the interview between the proficient Zakaria and the radical cleric was clearly the most informative and purposeful. We need to hear people like Choudary. We need to try to understand the thinking of extremists so we can begin to frame a dialogue with Muslims around the world concerning the critical differences between real democratic principles and the kind of fear and hate people like Choudary represent. It’s this kind of responsible, intelligent and meaningful interchange that the media needs to focus on. Jim Lichtman writes and speaks on ethics to corporations, associations and colleges. His commentaries can be found at www.ethicsstupid.com More on LeBron James

The rest is here:
Jim Lichtman: The Vapid, the Vacuous and the Inspired

Just in time for the holiday shopping season! A biography of Sarah Palin written for 9- to 12- year olds is slated to hit shelves this September, the AP reports. The unauthorized book is one in a series of biographies by the Christian book publisher Zondervan, who has also profiled Bono and football player Tim Tebow. The book is titled “Speaking Up: The Sarah Palin Story”, and is intended to be a source of inspiration for young people, who can gain inspiration from people whose greatness is motivated by Christianity, according to the editors: The subjects in this series are role models who are “working for the betterment of the world in which we live and who are motivated primarily by their Christian faith,” according to Kathleen Kerr, an editor at the company. Indeed, quitting the job that the people of Alaska (well, 48% of them, at least) entrusted you with to cash in on the speakers circuit (to say nothing of Fox News) should fill the hearts of youngsters everywhere with inspiration. Although, I suppose divine intervention could explain why John McCain plucked her from relative obscurity in the 2008 campaign to be his running mate, since more rational explanations remain something of a mystery.

Go here to read the rest:
Won’t someone please think of the children?

We live in the world of work. But whether we hold onto our jobs or not, that world is being taken from us; taken by the blind forces of aging, science, and arithmetic. In the ’70s it was popular to say that work is how you survive, but your life was elsewhere. But that was even wrong then; aside from sleeping, work is how we spend our time and how we identify ourselves. For many of us, the rest of life is squeezed into the margins. And those margins keep shrinking, whether we work in an office or on a road crew. For most professionals, a 60-hour week is now routine, while working-class people take for granted that they need to work longer hours, at several jobs, just to keep body and soul together. As I said in an earlier piece , the biggest investors — mostly pension funds — are mercilessly squeezing the companies they invest in to do better and better, quarter after quarter, because their pensioners are routinely living well past what the funds’ actuarial tables predicted. This in turn is creating a dystopian world — one in which many Americans will be frozen out of a life they considered their birthright as recently as the 1980s. That disappearing world was beautifully laid out in The Daily Kos , in its recent posting, ” John Boehner’s America “. But those of us who manage to stay on the inside won’t be much better off. The world of blue-collar work is getting harder and poorer; but so is the white collar world. According to The Wall Street Journal , the US is not replacing jobs at anywhere near the rate of the rest of the world. The piece blames most of this on weak banks and the huge amount of household debt; but anybody with a job knows another reason is that employers know they can get more work out of the same people — so why hire? That lesson won’t be lost on business when the recession finally ends. And in fact we’re already hearing from some economists that wages need to fall for business to regain their health, even though real wages for most working people have been pretty much flat since 1990 , while the cost of living has been rising an average of 3.07 percent a year . People are already seeing the result in the workplace; white-collar sweatshops. Today’s offices, in fact, are looking more and more like call centers, where people work like machines in little cubicles, at jobs with a 97 percent failure rate. It’s even worse for interns and young hires, who have work piled on them until they break — after which management says the kid didn’t have what it takes. It’s all unfair and mean-spirited; but what does that matter to management, when there are so many people dying to get any job? Even though, in fairness, management’s just trying to survive in a brutal world driven by those investors — driven themselves by arithmetic. Of course, it doesn’t have to be this way. Pension funds, for instance, could stop squeezing their investments without short-changing their retirees, if their sponsors — companies and governments — stopped demanding the funds make enough money to spare said sponsors the agony of actually contributing to said funds. This is the great, open secret of pension funds; sponsors expect employees to make regular contributions to their pension out of their paychecks, but expect the funds themselves to be self-funding — to make enough money that the sponsors don’t need to put a hand in their own pocket. Then the sponsors can report the money they don’t kick in as profit, while reporting the funds themselves as growing assets. I hate to sound old-fashioned, but that doesn’t seem very fair to me. If a corporation is a legal person — as we learned in the Supreme Court’s recent Citizens United ruling - -then that person isn’t exempt from its obligations to the community; in this case, the community that makes up the company, and supports its pensioners. The same goes for governments, which — according to theory — are us. Will plan sponsors bite the bullet and do this? Not without a fight. Companies will complain it will mean lower profits — they’re right — and governments will warn it would mean higher taxes — it will. But isn’t that a price worth paying? Do we really want to turn the world of work — the place we spend most of our time — into a nightmare almost no one can survive? In any event, the probable complaints are, as usual, only half-true. For instance: If all companies start contributing to their pension funds, then all company profits will decline by similar amounts, and no company will lose what MBAs call a competitive advantage. The worst that could happen is that senior management would make a little less. And there’s the real reason: Senior executives are raking it in too fast to want anything to change. As for governments needing to raise taxes: It’s time this country stopped worshiping at the altar of cutting taxes forever, and accept that you get what you pay for. That includes cops and teachers. Taking care of our own is part of our mutual obligations as a society. Plus, like I said, the government is supposed to be us. Another thing we can do? Medicine — and we — can accept reality and stop imagining we should live forever. I’m not talking about withholding treatment from the sick or convening those death panels Betsy McCaughey and Sarah Palin keep lying about. But I do think that modern medicine could use a dose of common sense. Medicine is still wrestling with the idea that if something can be done, it must be done. But if you ask me, medicine should embrace what A. H. Clough wrote in the 1840s: “Thou shalt not kill, but needst not strive officiously to keep alive.” It just seems to me that the typically aggressive treatment of every ailment of age is both unnecessary, and unwise. I know that I’ve had that conversation with my doctor; she not only agrees with me, but doesn’t think it makes me suicidal — only that I know death is part of life. Demagogues are bound to turn that into something depraved, or sad; but it seems to me that it’s a personal call, and none of their damned business. It also seems to me that if we, as a people, embraced that idea, pension funds wouldn’t have to squeeze their investments so hard, the living could live better lives, and the dying can be left in peace. And I don’t see how that’s a bad thing. The problem is that even though there’s no evil genius, or committee of evil geniuses, steering this bus — you might wish there were — the forces that really run this country, and keep stirring the political pot, have nothing to gain by allowing a rational discussion of either of those ideas. In fact, it’s much better for them if we keep slugging it out over a bunch of half-true slogans than come to grips, as a people, with what’s turning our country into something out of a bad sci-fi movie. That way, after all, we won’t notice what’s happening right under our noses. The worst thing about that: Said forces don’t even care if what they’re doing gets written up, and published. In fact, pieces saying so are fine with them; it preserves the illusion we’re living in a world responsive to the will of the people — something the middle class goes along with out of delusion or fear, and that the working class understands is only going to work against them — which is why they’re so angry, and susceptible to the blandishments of right wing talk radio. Those forces know they’ve got the whip hand, after all, and can always change the subject.

Read more from the original source:
Andrew Reinbach: Work, and Tomorrow

The Tea Party got a big boost this week when LeBron James announced (to comic effect ) his plan to leave Cleveland and head for the greener pastures of Miami. This wasn’t just a slap in the face of our Socialist-in-Chief , Barack Obama, who had hoped that James would go to Chicago, but also to Joe Biden, who had confidently predicted that James would stay in Cleveland. In other words, it was a big fucking deal .

Original post: 
Sunday Talk - The Heat Is On

JUNEAU, Alaska — You might call it Sarah Palin’s introduction to the cubs. A biography of the former Alaska governor and self-described “mama grizzly” is set for release in September by Christian book publisher Zondervan. “Speaking Up: The Sarah Palin Story,” is one in a series of biographies aimed at 9- to 12-year-old readers. Others feature 2007 Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow and U2 frontman Bono. Kathleen Kerr, an acquisitions editor for Zondervan’s Zonderkidz division, said the subjects are prominent figures who children hear about in the news and role models for tweens who are “working for the betterment of the world in which we live and who are motivated primarily by their Christian faith.” Palin, the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee, has often referred to her faith and what she sees as her calling to public service. Palin has credited God with readying her heart for the birth of her youngest child, Trig, who has Down syndrome. At one time, Palin said, she wasn’t sure if she would be patient enough, but those doubts dissipated when he was born. The biography by Grand Rapids, Mich.-based Zondervan is unauthorized. Author Kim Washburn said she was unable to interview Palin and didn’t speak with anyone close to her. A Palin aide did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment Friday. Washburn said she researched previously published material, including Palin’s best-selling memoir, “Going Rogue: An American Life,” and news articles, many of which Washburn said were “really polarized” and complicated her efforts to focus more on the personal side of Palin than on the political side. She said she was struck by Palin’s work ethic and her independent streak – something she believes will resonate with young girls. Kerr said the book begins with Palin’s childhood in Alaska and shows that “with guts, character, determination and unwavering faith in God, even an ordinary person can change the world.” There are aspects of Palin’s life that the book shies away from. For example, Kerr said, there’s no mention of her teenage daughter Bristol Palin’s pregnancy. Bristol Palin was thrust into the national spotlight while her mother was seeking the vice presidency. Bristol Palin’s son Tripp was born in December 2008, when she was 18, and she has gone on to speak about the virtues of abstinence and the challenges of life as a young, single mom. “We tried to stay away from the super-heavy stuff,” Kerr said. More on Sarah Palin

More: 
Palin Biography For Kids Aimed At 9- To 12-year-olds

The first to benefit from the Hillary effect, Sarah Palin is asserting her prowess in 2010 like no other female has done in political history. Her politics are not mine , but credit is due. The void created by Hillary’s historic presidential run, at a time when Sarah made her own history on the right by being the first Republican female on a national ticket, has been filled by an avalanche of women, several of whom on the right have been encouraged and endorsed by Sarah. That she’s leading the Tea Party faction inside the GOP at a time when the Republican brand has crashed works in her favor, no matter what Democrats say. Read John Ellis , everybody else is. Oh, and remember that George W. Bush beat Gore and Kerry. Besides, it’s not like the Smart Set in Washington is winning raves. Andrew Sullivan, perpetual Hillary hater and Palin conspiracy theorist, writes about this today; at least he understands Palin’s power, which is more than I can say for most, especially on the left. Interesting that career Hillary hater Chris Matthews gets what’s possible for Sarah, too. In the post-Hillary political era, it seems some men have finally awakened. Sarah Palin is the first to benefit from the Hillary effect, which has caused a ripple in the conservative movement and beyond . Not bad having five governors who have a good shot at winning in November, with Congress certainly to tilt towards Republicans whether Democrats retain control or not. If Meg Whitman wins in California it could become Obama’s first nightmare looking to 2012. Call it a slow walk or a steady drum beat that’s getting louder, but during 2010 Sarah Palin has shown why her plan to bail on Alaska and turn the heat up in the lower 48 was the best move for her. It’s also been very good for Republicans, particularly conservative “mama grizzlies,” who are her prime target, along with the military, which has always been the first mention out of her mouth in any event. In an Iowa poll released last month , Mitt came in at 62% (and is still one to watch), with Sarah at 58%, Newt next, but it’s not even begun, with the “mama grizzlies” just getting organized. In South Carolina, Mitt might have given Nikki Haley the nod first, but it was Sarah’s star power who brought in the klieg lights to lift her up. From Politico , though the headline wasn’t exactly apt, with the new one giving a nod to “going pro” part of the upgrade. Sarah gets slick is more to the point. But watching the ad there is definitely a higher octane additive. Palin recognizes the power she wields, and explained to POLITICO in a statement that “sending my own message, minus the media filter, is a valuable way to remind voters that they have great choices in these upcoming mid-term elections.” “The tools I’ll use, like this energetic video that showcases commonsense Constitutional conservative women, will highlight a significant movement in our nation as we advance ever closer to what will be historic 2010 elections,” Palin said. - Palin goes pro Most thought the best move was to keep a low profile and study. The “tactical dive into policy” mentioned by Politico is really nothing more than driving the usual cut federal spending message, while saying the obvious about keeping the Pentagon budget up. Sarah has also amped up her profile and her messaging, with policy prowess something she’s obviously going to leave to instincts and soundbites she can broadcast through forums filled with “mama grizzlies.” Palin’s decision to steer her energy toward electing Republican women has proven wise, said Republican operative Mary Matalin. There is “nothing so powerful as a mother in progeny protection mode,” Matalin said, noting that she thought the video was “really great.” “This isn’t just another electoral cycle ‘mom’ constituency,” Matalin said. “These moms are bringing their parents, husbands and children along.” Matalin, the longtime GOP strategist, said she was uncertain if Palin’s ‘Momma Grizzly’ image and recent foray into policy was enough to vault her to the presidency. “I don’t think she’s there,” said Matalin, who has offered some advice to Palin. “But every time this conversation takes place she has advance the ball in her favor.” Nobody’s certain about Sarah for the presidency. How could they be. Look what certainty did for Hillary Rodham Clinton. But it hardly matters. The reality is that in 2010 Sarah is shoring up Iowa support, with evangelicals on her side, with Nikki Haley in South Carolina unlikely to bet against her on Mitt; meaning neutrality isn’t bad, especially with Tea Party Republicans likely to play a real role in selecting the nominee. Besides, it’s not about playing for the certain where Sarah is concerned, it’s about playing for the possible, with all options still on the table. In the post-Hillary political era, women are rising. Sarah’s the first to fill that void and her instincts have been dead on since she took to Facebook and wrote about “death panels” taking Democrats off message and igniting the tea partiers, but also when she left Alaska behind to take on 2010. No one knows where she’ll end up, especially since Palin hasn’t proved she can widen her support beyond her own choir, which she must do to be president. However, way too many people are forgetting that that doesn’t matter in the Republican nomination process. A good portion of primary voters are her choir. Sarah Palin’s just getting started. Taylor Marsh is a political analyst and writer out of Washington, D.C. More on Sarah Palin

Read the original:
Taylor Marsh: In the Post-Hillary Political Era, Sarah is Queen

Since we took last week off to write something patriotic for Independence Day weekend, we’ve got two weeks to cover today. Fortunately, every other week in Washington (or so it seems) is vacation time for Congress, meaning they were only in session (or “working”) for one week of that. Add to this the fact that Congress usually defines “a work week” as from noon on Tuesday to noon on Thursday (nice work if you can get it, eh?), and it puts it all in perspective. But since it’s still going to take a while to cover all this (and we’re not even bothering to cover crazy Republican statements , other than Michael Steele’s), we’re going to skip this whole “intro” section this week, and move straight to the awards. Then, in lieu of Friday Talking Points, we’re going to take a look at a speech by President Obama and an interview given by Rahm Emanuel, with a bit of commentary. So let’s get right to it!   I have to give a little mini-shout-out to Vice President Joe Biden here, for traveling to Iraq and forcing the news media to pay a shred of attention to the country for a brief period (after calling on them to do just that last week). Biden was in Iraq mainly to tell the Iraqis that it is time to get their act together and form a government, because the U.S. troops are leaving on schedule whether they do or not — and it’d be a whole lot better for them if this was completed real soon now. But, as I said, Biden did remind the media with his trip that we are now down to 77,500 American troops there, and are on track to hit 50,000 by the end of next month. So an Honorable Mention is in order for Joe. This week, though, we’re going to (quite possibly prematurely) award the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award to a coalition calling itself One Nation, for (at least so far) performing a near-impossible cat-herding feat: getting Democrats to act together, instead of at cross-purposes. From a Washington Post article today about the effort: Liberal leaders see “much of the progressive agenda at risk in this election,” said Paul Starr, a professor of public affairs at Princeton University and co-editor The American Prospect [sic], a liberal magazine. “There is no choice but for these groups to get together. The historical pattern is that voter turnout falls disproportionately among minorities and young people at these midterm elections so they are fighting a historical trend.” Leaders of the groups have been meeting for about three months in a planning process that some participants called arduous, debating everything from the name of the coalition to what the branding and logo should look like. The network’s first goal is to plan a march to “demonstrate to Congress that these agenda items have support across multiple demographics,” Jealous said. The demonstration, to be held Oct. 2, will center on pressing for more government spending on job creation. Lest we be compared to, say, the Nobel Prize committee, we have to say that we’re mostly impressed at this point that One Nation has gotten this far (see: previous cat-herding comment). We have no idea how effective or large their October rally will be, but we have to applaud them for even making the attempt. For coming together right before a big midterm election, we salute One Nation and hereby award them the coveted Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award. Good luck on the rally, too! [ A quick search turned up no website address for One Nation, so if anyone has contact info for them, please post it in the comments. ]   The entire Senate, on vacation for a whole week (while still being paid a handsome sum, of course), deserves some sort of mention here for fleeing the heat (both politically and literally) in Washington without passing an extension of unemployment benefits. For shame, guys. We offer up our very first Most Deserving Of A Gigantic Raspberry award to all of them. [Etymological Note: The slang term "raspberry," sometimes referred to as a "Bronx cheer," is actually the result of one of the few instances where Cockney rhyming slang made it to the shores of the United States intact. This patois, for those unfamiliar, uses the first part of a compound term or phrase -- the second (unsaid) part of which rhymes with the word that the whole thing replaces. Such as, for instance: "I left my mickey this morning...." Mickey, in this case, refers to "Mickey Mouse," which rhymes with "house." Got all that? Well, the term "raspberry" for making a rude sound with lips and tongue actually refers to "raspberry tart"... and (in the interests of propriety), I will leave it to the student to complete the exercise with what rhymes with "tart" and sounds similar to a Bronx cheer.] Ahem. Where were we? Oh, right, the MDDOTW , of course. The winner this week is the Democratic National Committee as a whole, and spokesperson Brad Woodhouse in particular. In response to an enormous Republican gaffe by RNC chairman Michael Steele on the winnability of the war in Afghanistan, Woodhouse responded with a statement: RNC CHAIRMAN MICHAEL STEELE BETS AGAINST OUR TROOPS, ROOTS FOR FAILURE Here goes Michael Steele setting policy for the GOP again. The likes of John McCain and Lindsey Graham will be interested to hear that the Republican Party position is that we should walk away from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban without finishing the job. They’d also be interested to hear that the Chairman of the Republican Party thinks we have no business in Afghanistan notwithstanding the fact that we are there because we were attacked by terrorists on 9-11. And, the American people will be interested to hear that the leader of the Republican Party thinks recent events related to the war are ‘comical’ and that he is betting against our troops and rooting for failure in Afghanistan. It’s simply unconscionable that Michael Steele would undermine the morale of our troops when what they need is our support and encouragement. Michael Steele would do well to remember that we are not in Afghanistan by our own choosing, that we were attacked and that his words have consequences. Now, some might say “Republicans make this sort of attack on Democrats’ patriotism whenever a war is questioned, so why shouldn’t we use the same tactic against them?” These folks would be wrong, in my opinion. I realize this entire column series is dedicated to teaching Democrats how to use a few tactical ideas in how they communicate (borrowing heavily, at times, from the Republican playbook), but there are certain lines that, once crossed, result in losing the moral high road forever. This is one of those times. It is shortsighted in the extreme for an official of the Democratic Party to say this sort of thing, because it means Republicans are going to point to his statement in the future whenever Democrats complain about such Republican attacks. Especially since you don’t even have to look to the future to see what I’m talking about. Plenty of Democrats in Congress right now probably mostly agreed with what Steele was trying to say (if not quite endorsing exactly how he said it) on the subject of Afghanistan. Meaning the DNC is undermining its own members by this statement. Which is why we’re awarding Brad Woodhouse, and (by extension) the entire DNC this week’s Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award. Think twice before you speak, next time. Sometimes when your opponent is digging himself in a hole, the best thing to do is just offer to hold his coat and stand to the side while you watch him dig deeper. This should have been one of those times, since Steele was getting so much grief for his statement from the right wing already. [ Contact the Democratic National Committee on their official contact page , to let them know what you think of Woodhouse's statement. ]   Volume 130 (7/9/10) Before we begin here, I’d like to recommend a recent column written by George Lakoff in the Huffington Post recently. I fully admit that I’m a rank amateur at this whole messaging/framing/talking points thing, but George Lakoff is not — he is a professional who has written many excellent books on the subject and who also gets the chance to talk to powerful Democrats in Washington — who really should pay a lot more attention to what he has to say. In any case, Lakoff’s recent column is fairly long and technical, but I still heartily recommend it to anyone interested in this sort of stuff. With that out of the way, we turn our attention to two recent public appearances. The first was President Obama appearing in Kansas City, Missouri, in a factory which makes battery-powered electric trucks (”green jobs” in other words), and the second was a fairly disastrous interview which Rahm Emanuel gave PBS’ News Hour last night. Now, no matter what your opinion of Rahm personally (or politically, for that matter), usually he’s pretty good at giving a good interview. He normally is sharp, quick-thinking, has multitudes of facts and examples he can cite to make his point, and he usually knows how to put things in a soundbite that is media-friendly. You may hate what he’s saying, in other words, but you’ve got to give him credit for clearly making his case. Usually. Yesterday, Rahm looked tired. He fumbled in his answers, had problems following his own thoughts through to a conclusion, and rambled on quite a bit without even coming close to answering simple questions. He missed a large opportunity to make his point by not having his facts straight, and he could not say whether President Obama really had made any of the key decisions in the past few weeks. It really was a disastrous interview, which is available in full from PBS’ website (in both video and written transcript formats). Obama’s speech (transcript only) is also available , for those wishing to read it in full. Obama’s speech is notable, because it was reviewed as “Obama makes the case for Democrats for the fall election.” It does have a certain stump speech quality to it, so it’s easy to see why it’s gotten this reaction. My biggest problem with both Obama’s speech and Emanuel’s interview is that neither one of them truly seems to understand that an election is underway. The word “Republican” is not uttered once by President Obama. Rahm only uses the word four times, and only two of those are really drawing distinctions between what Democrats want to do, and what Republicans want to do (or, more to the point, not to do). And neither one of them uses the word “Democrat” (or “Democrats” or “Democratic”) once . This is just inexcusable. Obama, in particular, put the entire political situation in Washington into the most passive voice he possibly could. He uses the word “we” repeatedly, without defining whether he’s talking about all Democrats… or perhaps just using the royal “we” to talk about himself, and his administration. This is contrasted — again, without explanation or definition — by “some people” who were against the ideas “we” have. Here’s the best example: We’re not there yet. We’ve got a long way to go. But what is absolutely clear is we’re moving in the right direction. We are headed in the right direction. And that’s — the surest way out of this storm is to go forward, not to go backwards. There are some people who argue that we should abandon some of these efforts — some people who make the political calculation that it’s better to just say no to everything than to lend a hand to clean up the mess that we’ve been in. But my answer to those who don’t have confidence in our future, who want to stop — my answer is come right here to Kansas City. Come see what’s going on at Smith Electric. I think they’re going to be hard-pressed to tell you that you’re not better off than you would be if we hadn’t made the investments in this plant. Obama then goes on to start referring to “some people” as an even-more-amorphous “they,” who should get out and talk to everyone in America who is seeing the benefits of what “we” managed to get done. Note to White House speech writers: it is perfectly acceptable to use the words “Democrats” and “Republicans” in such a speech. In fact, it is politically negligent not to use these terms, when attempting to define what “we” are doing and why “they” don’t want us to succeed. Think I’m overstating the case? Here’s another example: And that’s why, when my administration began, we immediately cut taxes — that’s right. You wouldn’t know it from listening to folks, but we cut taxes for working families and for small business owners all across American to help them weather the storm. Through our small business loans, and our focus on research and development, and our investment in high-tech, fast-growing sectors like clean energy, we’re helping to speed our recovery by harnessing the talent and the drive and the innovative spirit of the American people. So our goal has never been to create another government program, our goal has been to spur growth in the private sector. “Listening to folks”? Are you serious? Unidentified “folks” are the ones telling people this? Pray tell, who are these “folks” of whom you speak? Now, there is a rule in politics that if you can avoid it, you’re never supposed to say your opponent’s name (so as to not give them free publicity) — on a personal level. But not at the party level. The midterm elections are going to be about “Democrats want to do this, Republicans don’t want to do anything” — if Democrats can make this case. But you’ve got to use their party’s name to do so. To say nothing of using your own party’s name . Sheesh. Here is one of Obama’s wrapping-up paragraphs from his speech: That’s how we’re going to take charge of our destiny. That’s how we create jobs and create lasting growth. That’s how we ensure that America doesn’t just limp along, maybe recover to where we were before, but instead that we’re prospering — that this nation leads the industries of the future. Here is what he should have said instead: That’s how Democrats are going to take charge of America’s destiny. That’s how Democrats plan on creating jobs and creating lasting growth. That’s how Democrats — and any Republicans willing to meet us halfway — ensure that America doesn’t just limp along, maybe recover to where we were before, but instead that we’re prospering. Democrats want this nation to lead the industries of the future, as we’ve led the industries of the past, but we can only do so with your help, and your vote. I hope you’ll think about this in November. Moving on to Rahm Emanuel’s interview, for about the first half of it, Rahm seemed to want to deny that President Obama had any sort of role whatsoever in any major decision in the past month or so, with the exception of firing General McChrystal and replacing him with General Petraeus. Here is Rahm answering Jim Lehrer’s question: “Was the decision on this spy swap the president’s?” Well, first of all, what the president does appreciate is the work of the law enforcement community, as well as the intelligence community for their hard work in this case. It wasn’t the decision of the president. It was the decision, obviously, of the law enforcement community and the intelligence community. But he does appreciate what they did and making America safer and the hard work that they did to get this done. So the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. decides on a spy prisoner swap with Russia, and the president isn’t really even in the loop? You have got to be kidding me. Lehrer was stunned by Emanuel’s answer. He tried to give Rahm a chance to walk this back, and incredulously rephrased the question five separate times and all he got back was more of the same: He [Obama] understood that, you know, these type of things are done by the law enforcement community and the intelligence community. He was briefed about it, given the information about it. But the actions were taken by the law enforcement community. Lehrer moved on to ask about whether the decision to take Arizona to court over their new immigration law, and (to be fair) this sort of decision is not really supposed to be the president’s to make (the Attorney General is supposed to operate independently on what cases to bring to court), but it just reinforced the impression that Obama sits in the Oval Office while Washington moves on all around him, without Obama having any influence whatsoever over these things. Emanuel, however, really appeared off his game in the entire first half of the interview. Here is one of his answers on Arizona, for instance, with mangled syntax worthy of Sarah Palin: And the good news is — I’m not a lawyer. And so I think the way to see this is — is the president’s been clear about — and I think the most important thing is to take away that, on this case, he doesn’t believe 50 states should have — we should have 50 separate immigration laws. Rahm’s usually better than this, I have to say. If you think I’m cherry-picking quotes here to make Emanuel look bad, I invite you to watch the full video and see if you agree that Rahm looked like he was in desperate need of a cup of strong coffee before the interview. Rahm did wake up a bit at this point in the interview, and got a few solid points across, to be fair. But then he got hung up on the phrase “there are choices” — basically talking about the choice voters were going to make in November. As with Obama’s speech, this is couched in the most passive language imaginable: Well, you know, there are choices here. There are clear choices. There are a set of policies that led to the recession. There are a set of policies and lack of enforcement that led to a financial crisis on Wall Street. There was a set of policies that also led to, I believe, leaving us in the worst fiscal condition we had ever seen in this country. And the president understands he’s made a series of choices, willing to explain them, live up to them, and defend them. “There are a set of policies”? Where, pray tell, did these policies come from, Rahm? Did they just spring into existence one bright day on the banks of the Potomac? Perhaps you should mention that these were Republican policies? Rahm even went on to name two Republicans — without mentioning that they were Republicans — in his next few paragraphs. The term “they” was also tossed around quite a bit –with no explanation or definition. Once again, sigh. Emanuel’s shining moment in the sun, where he actually names the opposing party came next, but it was marred by the fact that Rahm completely fumbles the factual football in an enormous way while doing so: Congressman Boehner in Ohio knows the president made some tough decisions that it required to the auto industry — just take one industry by example — criticized by business, criticized by Republicans. He said, we’re not going to support you unless you make the tough decisions to get your costs under control. They have restructured. They are coming — they have come out of bankruptcy. This month, GM, rather than close nine factories, kept them open, because they have turned around. They are filing an IPO, which will be the first IPO in the auto industry in over 50 years in the United States. And a bunch of suppliers have kept people on because GM is profiting. That was a tough — going back to leadership, that was a tough decision, criticized at the time. And America, where he said, and the president said, the auto was invented, the industry was created here, and we have now GM back, starting to be aggressive again, good for future shareholders and good for its workers, and I and the president believes good for the United States. And that was a decision that Republicans at the time criticized. And it turned out and so far to date has turned out to be the right decision for America’s economy. He talked earlier about this Initial Public Offering (IPO) without mentioning that he was talking about GM. He used the phrase “first IPO in the auto industry in over 50 years” more than once. There’s only one problem with this. Not only is Rahm wrong, but he is ignoring one of the best examples he could be using to make the case for green jobs and auto jobs — which is the main point he’s trying to make here. Because if GM does have an IPO soon, it will be the second IPO in the American auto industry this year . And the first IPO, which just happened a week ago or so was for an all-electric sports car company . Google “Tesla Motors” to find out more about this Silicon Valley green job automotive success story. In other words, the IPO of GM is nice to talk about, but the Tesla IPO makes the case you’re trying to make in a much better way . Rahm ends the interview weakly, by trying to make the case which can be paraphrased as: “here’s where the country was when Obama took office, here’s where we are now — we’re heading in the right direction because we made tough choices.” The only problem with this is that it was an answer to questions about why the public doesn’t seem to agree. Lehrer, in response to Rahm’s happy talk, asked again “Whether the public gets it or not?” to which Emanuel limped home with: No, I — but it makes it — I mean, let me say this as a former member of Congress and also somebody that enjoys politics… it is understandable for their frustration because of their own economic conditions. … That doesn’t take away from where we have been, where we are today, and the road going forward. This is exactly the caricature of “elitism” Republicans love to use against Democrats — “Trust us, we know what’s best for you even if you don’t.” I don’t know if Rahm just had an off day yesterday. But it is pretty obvious that the White House — who is supposed to be helping Democrats everywhere have a better chance at getting elected in November — is not doing this job well enough. Both Obama and Emanuel were so terrified of stating — in plain language — that there are two political parties in America, that they themselves belong to the Democratic Party, who has certain ideas for moving the country forward; and that their opponents are the Republican Party who are against every good idea Democrats come up with — without offering any better ideas themselves . That is the case to be made this year to the voters. That is the fundamental difference Democrats need to be pointing out, every chance they get from now until November. Running against George W. Bush isn’t going to work this time around — you have to paint the whole Republican Party with the Bush policies they all endorsed at the time. To misquote Ecclesiastes, there’s a time for bipartisanship and a time for partisanship. And if an election isn’t time for some Democratic partisan cheerleading, then when is?   Chris Weigant blogs at: Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground   More on Democratic Convention

Excerpt from:
Chris Weigant: Friday Talking Points [130] — Who Is This "They" Obama Speaks Of?

Haven’t you heard that argument from conservatives whenever you advocate raising taxes on the wealthy? They say “if you want to give all your money to the government, go right ahead! But don’t force me to do it.” Whenever someone reasonably says we should raise taxes to deal with Republican debt-fueled spending, they come back with the above-mentioned stock answer. Republicans talk a good game on spending. But when they get power, they never follow through. This got me to thinking: How much money do people voluntarily give their government to reduce the debt? According to the U.S. Treasury , total voluntary contributions towards reducing the U.S. Debt totaled just over $3 million dollars in 2009. That’s about one penny per person. A penny. I haven’t heard one national Republican leader call on their followers to do their part on the issue they say is so important. So, I’m going to throw this back in the face of conservatives. This goes out to Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Red State, Jim DeMint, and all the rest of you guys who seem to be in favor of voluntary contributions to reduce the national debt in lieu of taxation: Put your patriotism where your mouth is. Here is the link to pay.gov where you can make a voluntary contribution towards reducing the national debt. You’ve got money to pay for Glenn Beck’s merchandise. You’ve got money to book Sarah Palin for speeches. Put your big money where your big mouth is. You say you’re serious about reducing the national debt? Alright then, go ahead and reduce it. Update: Dante Atkins points out to me that gifts to reduce the national debt are tax deductible as charitable contributions!

Read the original post:
A penny to reduce the national debt

by Sarah Laskow, Media Consortium blogger Washington has a blind spot when it comes to the environment. BP and the oil spill brought the government’s failures into the spotlight, but the same problems crop up across industries: Corporations pollute water, blast through mountains, and pour carbon into the atmosphere with insufficient oversight. But no one–Congress, the environmental community, or the president–seems to have the power to address these issues. The Senate says it will take up energy legislation soon, but staffers are saying the body won’t pass a strong climate bill without more public pressure. Energy companies are ripping resources from the land and leaving destruction in their wake, while clean energy technology, though popular, has yet to form a new platform to fill the country’s needs. And where’s presidential leadership on this issue? “The president had a good meeting a couple days ago with senators from both parties that have led on this issue,” Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told the press this week, according to Mother Jones . “We have not made any final determinations about the size and scope of the legislation except to say that the president believes, and continues to believe, that putting a price on carbon has to be part of our comprehensive energy reform.” President Barack Obama has taken his time to reveal definitive policy stances on issues like health care and the war in Afghanistan; in those cases, it was clear a decision was coming. On climate, it’s less clear that the president is moving towards a decision that will push Congress to act. The Senate The problem is not a lack of policy ideas. The Senate has already produced two decent bills that put a price on carbon, an effort that would over time decrease the country’s contributions to the world’s emissions. The second of those bills–the American Power Act, also known as the Kerry-Lieberman bill–would reduce the deficit by $19 billion, as the Congressional Budget Office announced this week. Plenty of Senators have trumpeted about the need to reduce to the deficit. But in Washington, even a $19 billion reduction won’t help push forward legislation that Senators have decided to shirk. As Aaron Wiener writes for the Washington Independent: “Will that be enough to get the bill passed? Of course not. The very same centrist senators who frequently raise deficit concerns are wary of legislation that could raise energy prices, and so the APA appears all but dead.” Clean energy technology At Grist , Jesse Jenkins suggests that enviros needs to reframe the issue altogether. “If you look at what Americans support in poll after poll, it is clean energy technology,” he says. “Put investment in clean technology front and center–and oh, by the way, we’re going to pay for this with a modest fee on carbon.” Part of the problem could be that the country’s waiting for big corporations to lead the energy revolution. At Chelsea Green , however, Greg Pahl argues that smaller projects should play a bigger role, too. “Given the choice between a large, corporate-owned coal-fired power plant or a large, corporate-owned wind farm, the obvious choice is the wind farm, regardless of who owns it,” he writes. “But that’s no reason to exclude smaller…community projects that are far more effective in promoting distributed-generation strategies.” Yes, your Majesty It should be embarrassing for the Senate that, as a body, it’s more conservative than the Queen of England. This week, Queen Elizabeth told the United Nations that climate change was a front-line issue. Care2 reports that the Queen’s “brief statement was largely unremarkable but for the fact that she called out climate change, placing it on a par with terrorism in terms of today’s challenges.” On environmental issues in general, though, the American government isn’t living up to its potential. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), for example, could be working to minimize the impacts of oil and gas drilling on public lands, but “the agency is reluctant to wiled that power after a drilling lease is granted,” Public News Service reports . National Marine Fisheries Service BLM is just one of a tangle of agencies that could, in theory, push back against the interests of big energy companies. They haven’t done so. In the case of the BP oil spill, for instance, TPMMuckraker reports that the National Marine Fisheries Service missed an opportunity to push back against BP’s lease, but, using bad information from the Minerals Management Service, rubber-stamped the operation. Rachel Slajda writes : “In 2007, the National Marine Fisheries Service, which enforces the Endangered Species Act, was asked to give its ‘biological opinion’ on the impact of new oil drilling leases–including the lease of the now-leaking Macondo prospect–on endangered species, including turtles, sperm whales and sturgeon. … In the report (PDF), NMFS estimated the impact of a major spill on endangered species and concluded that the new drilling ‘is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of these species.’” New Dawn Energy companies are not the only ones tipping the balance against the environment, either. At the American Prospect , Monica Potts delves into Dawn detergent’s less than pristine environmental record. The detergent has benefited lately from a spate of good press because wildlife groups are using Dawn to clean oiled birds in the Gulf. But Potts writes that Dawn’s parent company, Procter & Gamble spent more than $4 million last year on lobbying and opposed measures that would, for instance, regulate household chemicals. “Procter & Gamble lobbied against a 2009 effort to disclose ingredients in household cleaning products, instead supporting an industry-led voluntary-disclosure effort. It also lobbied against bans in various states on dishwashing detergent containing high levels of phosphorus and fought to delay the bans’ implementation,” Potts explains. “The company opposed stricter household chemical regulations in the European Union in 2003 and is rated poorly by Greenpeace for the chemical content of its household products. Those chemicals, including ones banned in the EU because they can be harmful to fish and humans, end up in the environment.” The list of such offenses goes on, and touches legions of companies. However limited, a climate bill would be a good start to addressing the country’s environmental woes. The Senate says it needs to hear this from more people before taking real steps to combat climate change; anyone who’s concerned about the planet’s future might want to start speaking up. 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. More on Climate Bill

Excerpt from:
The Media Consortium: Weekly Mulch: Politics, Power, and the Environment Beyond BP

HARDCOVER FICTION 1. “Private” by James Patterson and Maxine Paetro (Little, Brown) 2. “Sizzling Sixteen” by Janet Evanovich (St. Martin’s) 3. “The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest” by Stieg Larsson (Knopf) 4. “The Overton Window” by Glenn Beck (Threshold Editions) 5. “The Help” by Kathryn Stockett (Putnam/Amy Einhorn) 6. “Foreign Influence: A Thriller” by Brad Thor (Atria) 7. “The Passage” by Justin Cronin (Ballantine) 8. “The Lion” by Nelson DeMille (Grand Central Publishing) 9. “Family Ties” by Danielle Steel (Delacorte) 10. “Ice Cold: A Rizzoli and Isles Novel” by Tess Gerritsen (Ballantine) 11. “Dead in the Family” by Charlaine Harris (Ace) 12. “Whiplash” by Catherine Coulter (Putnam) 13. “In the Name of Honor” by Richard North Patterson (Holt) 14. “Heart of the Matter” by Emily Giffin (St. Martin’s) 15. “The Particular Sadness of Lemon Cake: A Novel” by Aimee Bender (Doubleday) HARDCOVER NONFICTION 1. “Sh t My Dad Says” by Justin Halpern (It Books,) 2. “Medium Raw” by Anthony Bourdain (Ecco) 3. “Women Food and God” by Geneen Roth (Scribner) 4. “Delivering Happiness” by Tony Hsieh (Business Plus) 5. “Chelsea Chelsea Bang Bang” by Chelsea Handler (Grand Central Publishing) 6. “The Big Short” by Michael Lewis (Norton) 7. “War” by Sebastian Junger (Twelve) 8. “Spoken from the Heart” by Laura Bush (Scribner) 9. “Home Team: Coaching the Saints and New Orleans Back to Life” by Sean Payton and Ellis Henican (New American Library) 10. “Empire of the Summer Moon” by S.C. Gwynne (Scribner) 11. “The Last Lecture” by Randy Pausch (Hyperion) 12. “The Last Stand” by Nathaniel Philbrick (Viking) 13. “Outliers” by Malcolm Gladwell (Little, Brown) 14. “Switch” by Chip Heath & Dan Heath (Broadway) 15. “The Secret” by Rhonda Byrne (Atria/Beyond Words) MASS MARKET PAPERBACKS 1. “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” by Stieg Larsson (Vintage) 2. “The Girl Who Played with Fire” by Stieg Larsson (Vintage) 3. “McKettricks of Texas: Austin” by Linda Lael Miller (HQN) 4. “Love in the Afternoon” by Lisa Kleypas (St. Martin’s) 5. “Finger Lickin’ Fifteen” by Janet Evanovich (St. Martin’s) 6. “Knock Out” by Catherine Coulter (Jove) 7. “The Darkest Lie” by Gena showalter (HQN) 8. “The Brazen Bride” by Stephanie Laurens (Avon) 9. “The Neighbor” by Lisa Gardner (Bantam) 10. “The Lucky One” by Nicholas Sparks (Vision) 11. “Game Over” by Fern Michaels (Zebra) 12. “A Summer in Sonoma” by Robyn Carr (MIRA) 13. “Almost Perfect” by Susan Mallery (HQN) 14. “The Black Hills” by Nora Roberts (Jove) 15. “206 Bones” by Kathy Reichs (Pocket Star) TRADE PAPERBACKS 1. “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” by Stieg Larsson (Vintage) 2. “Eat, Pray, Love” by Elizabeth Gilbert (Penguin) 3. “The Girl Who Played with Fire” by Stieg Larsson (Vintage) 4. “Little Bee” by Chris Cleave (Simon & Schuster) 5. “Swimsuit” by James Patterson & Maxine Paetro (Grand Central Publishing) 6. “One Day” by David Nicholls (Vintage) 7. “Best Friends Forever” by Jennifer Weiner (Washington Square Press) 8. “Three Cups of Tea” by Greg Mortenson & David Oliver Relin (Penguin) 9. “A Reliable Wife” by Robert Goolrick (Algonquin) 10. “Sarah’s Key” by Tatiana de Rosnay (St. Martin’s Griffin) 11. “Cutting for Stone” by Abraham Verghese (Vintage) 12. “My Horizontal Life” by Chelsea Handler (Vintage) 13. “The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel” by Garth Stein (Harper) 14. “Are You There, Vodka? It’s Me, Chelsea” by Chelsea Handler (Gallery) 15. “The Alchemist” by Paulo Coelho (Harper) More on Bestsellers

View original post here:
Bestsellers: Publishers Weekly

To hear Sarah Palin and other members of the extreme right tell it, the Socialist Party is a huge political institution on the rise and a necessary stepping-stone for getting into liberal electoral politics, along with being born in Hawaii and other places outside the United States. They practically claim that everyone in the Obama Administration is a socialist . This rap is classic - another one of their big lies and scare tactics. And apparently they don’t like people who have traveled abroad either. Now they’re going after Donald Berwick , the Harvard Medical School professor who President Obama appointed to run the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Service (CMS). Sure, Berwick may have traveled to London once (or even twice), but for eight years we had a President who had barely set foot outside of the U.S. before he was elected and then he dragged us into two endless wars that continue to suck the life out of our economy and exponentially increase our deficit. Which leads me to Dr. Berwick. He’s eminently qualified . Everyone who’s not trying to score partisan, political points says so. Mark McClellan , who had the job under the last President Bush, said: “What happens at CMS in the next few years will determine whether the new legislation actually improves quality and lowers costs. Don [Berwick] has a unique background in both improving care on the ground and thinking about how our nation’s health care policies need to be reformed to help make that happen.” But none of this matters to the Republican leadership in Congress. Berwick’s merits are irrelevant to them. They just blather on and on without regard for the truth. And the truth is that we need this recess appointment because we need to fill this position and move this health reform implementation along. Consider a few facts: CMS has been with out a permanent head since 2006. George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments. President Obama has now made a total of 18 recess appointments. There are currently 180 nominees still pending before the Senate. One might assume that Senate Republican Leaders might care about these issues. But they don’t. They no longer seem to care about anything but crass partisan politics. And they’re happy to hold up the process no matter what the consequences. They don’t care if people lose their health care benefits. Or if their unemployment benefits run out . Or if state governments have to cut services and lay people off. People don’t matter to them. And neither does the truth. Which is why Sarah Palin really is a whack job. Her “tweet” this Tuesday on the topic says it all: @sarahpalinusa: Press Corps-pls do your job as Obama sneaks in Berwick appt;pls cover his mission:socialized healthcare&rationing based on”quality of life. And the Republican leaders in the Senate are no longer holding themselves to a higher standard than people like Palin who are free to “go rogue”. They feel no obligation to govern and use the Senate for good of the American people. They have become nothing but populist demagogues, political parasites of the worst kind (though I don’t mean to leave out Representatives Boehner or Canter, but fortunately their grotesque political games can’t hijack the entire Congressional agenda the way their Senate counterparts can). So kudos to the White House for doing the right thing and addressing the needs of our country, our economy and the more than 100 million Americans who depend on the life-saving and life-enhancing care provided by Medicaid and Medicare. Cross posted at the NOW!blog More on Sarah Palin

See the rest here: 
Ethan Rome: Dr. Berwick’s Test Results are Positive: Palin is a Whack Job

Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC), who lost his renomination bid last month after rebuking Glenn Beck, isn’t backing down from his criticism of fellow conservatives. In a revealing interview with AP, Inglis — a bona fide conservative who took office in the GOP revolution of 1994 and helped lead the impeachment of Bill Clinton — said the Republican Party had become poisoned by demagogues and racists. Inglis singled out Sarah Palin’s oft-repeated (but false) claim that there were “death panels” in the health care reform bill. “There were no death panels in the bill … and to encourage that kind of fear is just the lowest form of political leadership. It’s not leadership. It’s demagoguery,” said Inglis, one of three Republican incumbents who have lost their seats in Congress to primary and state party convention challengers this year. Inglis said voters eventually will discover that you’re “preying on their fears” and turn away. Inglis said racism motivated some of the GOP antagonism towards President Obama: Inglis, 50, who calls himself a Jack Kemp disciple because he has emphasized outreach to minorities as the late Republican congressman did, thinks racism is a part of the vitriol directed at President Barack Obama. “I love the South. I’m a Southerner. But I can feel it,” he said. Inglis also said that right-wing media personalities were dividing the nation: “I think we have a lot of leaders that are following those (television and talk radio) personalities and not leading,” he said. “What it takes to lead is to say, ‘You know, that’s just not right.’” Inglis said the rhetoric also distracts from the real problems that politicians should be trying to resolve, such as budget deficits and energy security. ” It’s a real concern, because I think what we’re doing is dividing the country into partisan camps that really look a lot like Shia and Sunni ,” he said, referring to the two predominant Islamic denominations that have feuded for centuries. “It’s very difficult to come together to find solutions.” Maybe he should have written the introduction to kos’s upcoming book , American Taliban: How War, Sex, Sin, and Power Bind Jihadists and the Radical Right. Join the discussion in karpaty Iviv’s recommended diary, GOP congressman: GOP is led by demagogues .

Go here to read the rest:
GOP congressman condemns Republican demagoguery, racism

The Denver Biennial opened on July 1 featuring art exhibits, performances and political roundtables. Also included are a hot pink fabric tent and a plant intervention by Mexican artist Jeronimo Hagerman that attempts to turn the Greek Revival pillars of the McNichols Building into psuedo palm trees. I interviewed Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper on a recent campaign stop in SW Colorado and he said the biennial was already a success because it’s “brought the community together in new and fresh ways…What we are really doing is trying to draw attention to the fact that we have these incredible opportunities in our own hemisphere.” Watch the complete video interview: I’ve been reporting on the biennial since June of 2009 and it’s been far from a pleasant or successful experience. And the resulting exhibitions are disjointed and disconnected from the original concept. That said, the month is filled with possibility. From Energy Effects at MCA/Denver to Guillermo Gomez-Pena, youth projects, murals, a Native American expo and what I most look forward to seeing, “The Nature of Things” exhibition where 24 artists fill the McNichols building with art that promises to challenge, puzzle, intrigue or perhaps do none of these things. Curator Paola Santoscoy has done the impossible and pulled off an international exhibition in less than six months. Hats off to her for even attempting such a risky task. Plus Gallery is the only partner to turn their eyes north, and will exhibit five artists from Canada. Local artist Lauri Lynnxe Murphy has curated the second largest exhibit space with more than 45 artists, most local and regional in a show called “Objectophillia” , and nearly every cultural venue in town has something to offer biennial related. My hunch is this will be the first and last Denver Biennial of the Americas. Mayor Hickenlooper may well be our next Governor and the city has come late to the game of biennials. SITE Santa Fe is hosting their 8th incarnation of a biennial called “The Dissolve” featuring video work curated by Sarah Lewis and Daniel Belasco. Jerry Saltz, art critic for New York magazine speaking at SITE Santa Fe on June 29 called biennials a machine for sleepovers. Yawn. Mayor Hickenlooper is counting on his biennial to increase sales tax dollars, even predicting tens of millions of benefit as reported here . But I’m not willing to declare Denver’s Biennial of the Americas a success or a failure. I’m waiting for the actual numbers (which I predict will be well below the mayor’s hopeful figures). And if the slow trickle of visitors to the McNichols Building yesterday is any indication and the dismal turn out for the first lectures in the series is any indication, the Denver Biennial may not be the success the mayor hopes. That said, success if determined by many a differing criteria and while it may not succeed financially, “The Nature of Things” exhibit does succeed in being visually and intellectually intriguing. More on Brazil

Go here to see the original: 
Leanne Goebel: Biennial "Already a Success"?

BURBANK, Calif. — Vice President Joe Biden is headed to Jay Leno’s stage. The Friday appearance will be Biden’s first stop on NBC’s “The Tonight Show” since he took office in January 2009. He was a guest in 2007, and stopped in after he accepted the Democratic vice presidential nomination in 2008. President Barack Obama, first lady Michelle Obama and White House senior adviser David Axelrod also have made appearances on the late-night show. Biden’s visit could signal that he doesn’t hold grudges. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Leno joked that Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin was going off script and making embarrassing statements so often that “her Secret Service code name is now Joe Biden.” More on Tonight Show

Read more here: 
Joe Biden Going On ‘Tonight Show With Jay Leno’

The Twilight Saga: Eclipse 2010 124 minutes rated PG-13 by Scott Mendelson I’m probably one of six people on the planet who preferred Spider-Man 3 to Spider-Man 2 . The second Spider-Man picture is arguably the better film. It’s better written, better acted, and contains moments of real pathos and drama (Aunt May’s birthday present to Peter, Peter confessing his role in Uncle Ben’s death, the train action-scene, Peter’s conversations with Doctor Octavius). Yet it is derailed by the fact that Peter Parker spends the entire movie in a swirl of self-pity, endlessly moping for the girl he loves, while forgetting the fact that he dumped her first at the conclusion of the first film (nevermind that most of his other problems have pretty obvious solutions - move in with Aunt May and take your Spider-Man photos to other newspapers for money, etc). The third film, by virtue of having three hundred subplots, focuses less on the annoying Peter Parker/Mary Jane romantic plot, and is less forehead-slappingly obnoxious despite the kitchen-sink plotting. So while the Twilight Saga: Eclipse is not as focused and disciplined as Twilight Saga: New Moon , I did enjoy it a bit more due to the plentiful distractions from the Bella/Edward/Jacob arc. It’s not nearly as fun and light-on-its feet as the first Twilight picture , but it’s a case of improvement-by-default. A token amount of plot - Edward and Bella are back together, much to the chagrin of Bella’s father (the again-delightful Billy Burke) and Jacob (the native-American/werewolf who helped her recover from being dumped by Edward in the last film). As Bella decides whether or not to become a vampire in order to be with Edward forever, an old threat rears her head. In order to avenge the death of her mate at the hands of the Cullen clan back in Twilight , Victoria (Byrce Dallas Howard replacing Rachelle Lefevre) is breeding an army of ‘newborn’ vampires (vampires are most powerful and out of control during their initial months after being turned) to kill Bella, wipe out the Cullen clan, and/or rampage their way into Forks, Washington. With a threat this severe, the Cullen clan will be forced to align themselves with the local Quileute tribe, who of course are also werewolves. Obviously, there is a little bit more going on here than just a non-stop pity party for Bella. And, ironically, the character work ends up mirroring the Peter Parker progression as well. Mirroring Peter’s struggle to win back Mary Jane in Spider-Man 2 , Bella spent the second film drowning in self-pity after Edward dumped her. But in this film, she’s got her man, so she’s become a bit more of self-centered jerk. Just as Peter Parker became cocky and obnoxious once he got what he wanted, so too does Bella. This time around, she basically uses her desirability as a weapon, using Jacob’s infatuation to make Edward jealous for no particular reason. And while Edward was merely a little creepy in the first film, and mainly absent in the second, here he comes off like a controlling, jealous, and easily angered obsessive. Yes, Bella generally doesn’t stand for his overt ‘protectiveness’, but Eddie still comes off like a future domestic-abuser more so than the first two pictures. Our three leads are still relatively bland and not-terribly personable, so whenever the film focuses on their romantic plight, the picture becomes frankly a little dull. Much has been written, by myself and others , about the theoretically terrible morals that this series teaches young girls about romance and self-esteem. But I will say that the film seems to almost be questioning, if not condemning, Bella’s choice to leave behind her friends and family to live with her vampire boyfriend. Even Edward is very much against Bella becoming a vampire, and any number of characters (Jacob, Rosalie Hale, Bella’s unknowing parents) make quite convincing cases for why she should not go on this path. It doesn’t help that Bella slightly more chemistry with Jacob than with Edward, but of course the idea of her choosing neither of these men and simply going to college isn’t even an option to her. Anna Kendrick’s Jessica gets a valedictorian speech that all-but explicitly mocks the very story that has been told up to this point in the series. Point being, whether it’s Stephenie Meyer’s source material or director David Slade’s directorial hand, Bella’s single-minded pursuit of Edward is not presented as the picture-perfect that one might expect from a series that has been sold as wish-fulfillment fantasy. As is the case with the prior two pictures, the film comes to life whenever someone other than Bella, Jacob, or Edward takes center stage. I wrote back in my Twilight review that I loved the supporting characters, and that still stands. By virtue of being about more than just Bella obsessing over Edward, this film allows said supporting cast to shine a bit more. A few of the Cullen family members are given flashbacks showing how they became vampires (Jackson Hale was turned while fighting for Texas in the Civil War, although Jackson Rathbone is not allowed to give his opinion on slavery). Bella’s mother (Sarah Clarke) is given one extended moment of motherly warmth, and Sheriff Charlie again stands in for an uncomfortable audience as he helplessly watches his daughter disappear into the Cullen family (his ’sex talk’ is highly amusing, and the pay-off is a corker). The problem is as it always has been with this series. The game lead actors (Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, and Taylor Lautner) are forced to be relatively blank slates, so that the reader can imagine themselves as their favorite character, while the rest of the cast get to be distinct human beings (undead or otherwise). Whether or not the film is ‘better’, it certainly is a more entertaining picture than the dreary New Moon . There are moments of (generally bloodless) violence, and there is a brief climactic action-blow out to satisfy carnage junkies. The film has superior production values and the period flashbacks combined with brief excursions into downtown Seattle add a bit of variety to the backwoods locales. It’s still not ‘big’ enough to justify the IMAX upgrade, although the film’s dramatic scenes are often shot in extreme close-up, so those that want ginormous and super-detailed looks at their favorite hottie might do well to pay the surcharge (everyone in this movie looks gorgeous and there is plenty of eye candy regardless of your sexual preference). The supporting cast is given more time to shine, and the Cullen family remains as entertaining as ever. The film’s morality is just as awkward it has always been, but there are signs that the material isn’t as regressive as it’s been painted (regardless, I still think that our young girls can handle a little escapist fantasy and still keep their self-esteem). Like the Spider-Man series, this third film is less streamlined and less disciplined than the second entry, but the emphasis on the entire Twilight world vs. exclusively focusing on Bella’s love triangle makes this entry superior entertainment. And like Rami’s webslinging adventures, the first film is still the best . Grade: B-

More here: 
Scott Mendelson: Huff Post review: Twilight Saga: Eclipse

The Twilight Saga: Eclipse 2010 124 minutes rated PG-13 by Scott Mendelson I’m probably one of six people on the planet who preferred Spider-Man 3 to Spider-Man 2 . The second Spider-Man picture is arguably the better film. It’s better written, better acted, and contains moments of real pathos and drama (Aunt May’s birthday present to Peter, Peter confessing his role in Uncle Ben’s death, the train action-scene, Peter’s conversations with Doctor Octavius). Yet it is derailed by the fact that Peter Parker spends the entire movie in a swirl of self-pity, endlessly moping for the girl he loves, while forgetting the fact that he dumped her first at the conclusion of the first film (nevermind that most of his other problems have pretty obvious solutions - move in with Aunt May and take your Spider-Man photos to other newspapers for money, etc). The third film, by virtue of having three hundred subplots, focuses less on the annoying Peter Parker/Mary Jane romantic plot, and is less forehead-slappingly obnoxious despite the kitchen-sink plotting. So while the Twilight Saga: Eclipse is not as focused and disciplined as Twilight Saga: New Moon , I did enjoy it a bit more due to the plentiful distractions from the Bella/Edward/Jacob arc. It’s not nearly as fun and light-on-its feet as the first Twilight picture , but it’s a case of improvement-by-default. A token amount of plot - Edward and Bella are back together, much to the chagrin of Bella’s father (the again-delightful Billy Burke) and Jacob (the native-American/werewolf who helped her recover from being dumped by Edward in the last film). As Bella decides whether or not to become a vampire in order to be with Edward forever, an old threat rears her head. In order to avenge the death of her mate at the hands of the Cullen clan back in Twilight , Victoria (Byrce Dallas Howard replacing Rachelle Lefevre) is breeding an army of ‘newborn’ vampires (vampires are most powerful and out of control during their initial months after being turned) to kill Bella, wipe out the Cullen clan, and/or rampage their way into Forks, Washington. With a threat this severe, the Cullen clan will be forced to align themselves with the local Quileute tribe, who of course are also werewolves. Obviously, there is a little bit more going on here than just a non-stop pity party for Bella. And, ironically, the character work ends up mirroring the Peter Parker progression as well. Mirroring Peter’s struggle to win back Mary Jane in Spider-Man 2 , Bella spent the second film drowning in self-pity after Edward dumped her. But in this film, she’s got her man, so she’s become a bit more of self-centered jerk. Just as Peter Parker became cocky and obnoxious once he got what he wanted, so too does Bella. This time around, she basically uses her desirability as a weapon, using Jacob’s infatuation to make Edward jealous for no particular reason. And while Edward was merely a little creepy in the first film, and mainly absent in the second, here he comes off like a controlling, jealous, and easily angered obsessive. Yes, Bella generally doesn’t stand for his overt ‘protectiveness’, but Eddie still comes off like a future domestic-abuser more so than the first two pictures. Our three leads are still relatively bland and not-terribly personable, so whenever the film focuses on their romantic plight, the picture becomes frankly a little dull. Much has been written, by myself and others , about the theoretically terrible morals that this series teaches young girls about romance and self-esteem. But I will say that the film seems to almost be questioning, if not condemning, Bella’s choice to leave behind her friends and family to live with her vampire boyfriend. Even Edward is very much against Bella becoming a vampire, and any number of characters (Jacob, Rosalie Hale, Bella’s unknowing parents) make quite convincing cases for why she should not go on this path. It doesn’t help that Bella slightly more chemistry with Jacob than with Edward, but of course the idea of her choosing neither of these men and simply going to college isn’t even an option to her. Anna Kendrick’s Jessica gets a valedictorian speech that all-but explicitly mocks the very story that has been told up to this point in the series. Point being, whether it’s Stephenie Meyer’s source material or director David Slade’s directorial hand, Bella’s single-minded pursuit of Edward is not presented as the picture-perfect that one might expect from a series that has been sold as wish-fulfillment fantasy. As is the case with the prior two pictures, the film comes to life whenever someone other than Bella, Jacob, or Edward takes center stage. I wrote back in my Twilight review that I loved the supporting characters, and that still stands. By virtue of being about more than just Bella obsessing over Edward, this film allows said supporting cast to shine a bit more. A few of the Cullen family members are given flashbacks showing how they became vampires (Jackson Hale was turned while fighting for Texas in the Civil War, although Jackson Rathbone is not allowed to give his opinion on slavery). Bella’s mother (Sarah Clarke) is given one extended moment of motherly warmth, and Sheriff Charlie again stands in for an uncomfortable audience as he helplessly watches his daughter disappear into the Cullen family (his ’sex talk’ is highly amusing, and the pay-off is a corker). The problem is as it always has been with this series. The game lead actors (Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, and Taylor Lautner) are forced to be relatively blank slates, so that the reader can imagine themselves as their favorite character, while the rest of the cast get to be distinct human beings (undead or otherwise). Whether or not the film is ‘better’, it certainly is a more entertaining picture than the dreary New Moon . There are moments of (generally bloodless) violence, and there is a brief climactic action-blow out to satisfy carnage junkies. The film has superior production values and the period flashbacks combined with brief excursions into downtown Seattle add a bit of variety to the backwoods locales. It’s still not ‘big’ enough to justify the IMAX upgrade, although the film’s dramatic scenes are often shot in extreme close-up, so those that want ginormous and super-detailed looks at their favorite hottie might do well to pay the surcharge (everyone in this movie looks gorgeous and there is plenty of eye candy regardless of your sexual preference). The supporting cast is given more time to shine, and the Cullen family remains as entertaining as ever. The film’s morality is just as awkward it has always been, but there are signs that the material isn’t as regressive as it’s been painted (regardless, I still think that our young girls can handle a little escapist fantasy and still keep their self-esteem). Like the Spider-Man series, this third film is less streamlined and less disciplined than the second entry, but the emphasis on the entire Twilight world vs. exclusively focusing on Bella’s love triangle makes this entry superior entertainment. And like Rami’s webslinging adventures, the first film is still the best . Grade: B-

See more here:
Scott Mendelson: Huff Post review: Twilight Saga: Eclipse

Nouriel Roubini, the economist and founder of Roubini Global Economics, has yet to join the growing but far from unanimous chorus saying a double-dip recession may be in the offing. On the other hand, he isn’t exactly optimistic. The guy known as “Doctor Doom” - who in 2006 prophesied the massive hit the U.S. economy would eventually take (to a barrage of ridicule from experts who didn’t predict the recession until well after it was under way) - told CNBC today : “Everything signals a slowdown of the US, a slowdown of Europe, a slowdown of Japan and a slowdown of China,” he said. The US economy will grow at a rate of 1.5 percent, while the euro zone and Japan will see growth close to 0 and China will grow at a rate of 7 percent, he said. … The unemployment rate goes higher, the budget deficit is larger, home prices don’t stabilize, but fall further and trade tensions with China will be bigger, he said. “You don’t need to have a double dip recession to have a situation that is dismal,” he said. The near-term future is not soothing. Europe’s in trouble, China is showing signs of a housing bubble, the effect of the U.S. stimulus is fading, the growth rate in U.S. manufacturing and non-manufacturing is slowing, small businesses that are usually the primary engine of growth after a recession are not hiring , office vacancy rates are at a two-decade high, factory orders have dropped unexpectedly, initial unemployment claims have refused to move down for the past seven months, long-term unemployment is still running at a record high , the generation of private-sector jobs is anemic after a couple of encouraging months, retail sales have softened , state tax revenues have increased slightly this quarter but their budgets remain grim , recently and the gross domestic product for the first quarter has been revised downward (twice) to 2.7 percent. Reflecting all this, consumer confidence has fallen . Meanwhile, operating as what economist Paul Krugman calls the “coalition of the heartless, the clueless and the confused,” Republican obstructionists and a few Democratic enablers are more focused on the deficit than extending unemployment benefits for millions of Americans who have been most battered by the economic downturn. Given a recent Calculated Risk analysis , the conventional expert view that the recession ended in Julyish 2009 when the GDP started growing again can be called into question not just by rank-and-file Americans asking what-the-devil-are-you-talking-about, but also by the experts themselves. And if we haven’t really emerged, technically speaking, from recession, then there really is no reason to worry about a double dip. Because, instead of two back-to-back recessions, the record-breaking one that began in December 2007 will just turn out to be more than twice as long as any other in the post-Depression era. The third depression, as Krugman has famously labeled it. Or, things might not be quite so bad, just the slow but painful recovery that many Federal Reserve Bank branch presidents have been talking about for the past nine months. Tepid recovery, double-dip recession, continued recession, third depression. Missing from that collection of options is one that a few powerful voices were touting not so many months ago: a robust recovery with 5-6 percent GDP growth and a spectacular repair of the unemployment situation, with as many as half a million new jobs generated each month. Elected Democrats are absolutely right to point out that without actions taken by the Obama administration in February 2009, actions all but three Republican Senators tried to block, the situation we now face would be far worse. The GDP might still be in negative territory, there might well be 17 or 18 million unemployed instead of 14.6 million, and even more millions of underemployed and labor force drop-outs than the 15 or so million there already are. Maybe 45 million instead of 40 million people would be surviving on Food Stamps. There would no doubt have been more bankruptcies, foreclosures, businesses going under. But, going into November, the party needs a better message than “things would be worse” if President McCain and Vice President Palin were running the show. Of course they would. The Republican view of economics, after all, can be summed up as “Let the devil take the hindmost.” But a better message without a better program is hollow. To be taken seriously, the cry of “jobs, jobs, jobs” must be combined with a serious industrial policy, new trade policy, direct hiring by the government, and a long-term vision to deal with structural problems like the widening rich-poor gap that have plagued the economy for decades and are growing steadily worse. Some will object. Impossible, they will say. “Political reality” will allow no such approach to be adopted. Not enough votes in Congress. Others will argue that since all of one political party and half the other are beholden to or fully integrated into the American oligarchy, all these reformist ideas are progressive pipe-dreams, dead on arrival. Such no-can-do cynicism generates apathy, which generates despair, which is the killer of activism. A spectacularly defeatist dead-end path. Taking it can only lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Read more:
‘Doctor Doom’ warns of dismal times ahead

In a story that’s at least ten years overdue, the New York Times reports today that ” many groups in the United States [are] using tax-exempt donations to help Jews establish permanence in the Israeli-occupied territories — effectively obstructing the creation of a Palestinian state, widely seen as a necessary condition for Middle East peace “: The result is a surprising juxtaposition: As the American government seeks to end the four-decade Jewish settlement enterprise and foster a Palestinian state in the West Bank, the American Treasury helps sustain the settlements through tax breaks on donations to support them . A New York Times examination of public records in the United States and Israel identified at least 40 American groups that have collected more than $200 million in tax-deductible gifts for Jewish settlement in the West Bank and East Jerusalem over the last decade . The money goes mostly to schools, synagogues, recreation centers and the like, legitimate expenditures under the tax law. But it has also paid for more legally questionable commodities: housing as well as guard dogs, bulletproof vests, rifle scopes and vehicles to secure outposts deep in occupied areas. In 2007, I profiled the Hebron Fund , a New York-based charity supporting Jewish settlements in and around the West Bank city of Hebron. To put it simply, life for Palestinians in Hebron is hell. They are literally forced to live in cages to avoid harassment and violence by radical, racist Jewish settlers, abetted by Israeli troops, who are there to protect the settlers . On a recent trip to Israel, a U.S. official I spoke to acknowledged settler harassment and incitement against Palestinians as “a real problem” for U.S. goals. It is, to put it mildly, reprehensible that this problem should continue to be supported, tax-free and below the radar, by private American donors. It would be one thing if support for settlements were just a phenomenon of the Israeli extreme right and a handful of American zealots, but it’s not. In addition to the millions of dollars going to the settlements from American citizens, a substantial portion of the conservative media establishment — Fox News, the Weekly Standard , Commentary , National Review — either supports the expansion of settlements, or opposes any meaningful efforts to stop them, which essentially amounts to the same thing. Key members of the GOP have also been very explicit about their support for the settlements. Last August, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) led Congressional delegation to Israel, offered his support for Israel’s evictions of Palestinian families from their homes in East Jerusalem to make way for Jewish settlers, and criticized the Obama administration’s efforts to halt the evictions. In May, Republican National Comittee Chairman Michael Steele spoke at a rally sponsored by a number of pro-settlement groups , including the Hebron Fund, accusing the Obama administration “and its Congressional collaborators” of “[leaving] Israel to fend for herself.” Republican activist and former presidential candidate Gary Bauer said in a speech to AIPAC that ” God granted the Land of Israel to the Jewish people and there is an absolute ban on giving it away to another people.” A close associate of Kristol’s, Bauer recently launched Keep Israel Safe , cloned off of Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney’s Keep America Safe . I recently contacted Bauer to see if it was still his position that the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza — which became official U.S. policy under George W. Bush — was a violation of God’s “absolute ban” against dividing the land. Speaking through his press representative Kristi Hamrick, Bauer had no comment. Last November, former governor and current Republican celebrity Sarah Palin told Barbara Walters that ” I disagree with the Obama administration ” — and decades of U.S. policy — on settlements. ” I believe that the Jewish settlements should be allowed to be expanded upon,” Palin said. “I don’t think that the Obama administration has any right to tell Israel that the Jewish settlements cannot expand.” And, of course, former presidential candidate/current Fox News host/future presidential candidate/radical cleric Mike Huckabee — who actually believes that there’s ” no such thing as a Palestinian ” — has made numerous trips to Israel sponsored by the radical group Friends of Ateret Cohanim, voicing his support for the continued growth of settlements and the expulsion of the Palestinians, stating that they should be made to find a homeland ” elsewhere .” A new report from Israeli human rights group B’Tselem makes clear what it is that these people really support, and what is really at stake : The cloak of legality that Israel has sought to give to the settlement enterprise is aimed at covering the ongoing theft of West Bank land, thereby removing the basic values of legality and justice from Israel’s system of law enforcement in the West Bank. The report exposes the system Israel has adopted as a tool to advance political objectives, enabling the systematic infringement of the Palestinians’ human rights . The extensive geographic-spatial changes that Israel has made in the landscape of the West Bank undermine the negotiations that Israel has conducted for eighteen years with the Palestinians and breach its international obligations. The settlement enterprise, being based on discrimination against the Palestinians living in the West Bank , also weakens the pillars of the State of Israel as a democratic country and diminishes its status among the nations of the world. The bottom line here is that we shouldn’t be surprised that private American citizens can support the settlements with impunity, given that much of the American conservative movement is institutionally –and, in regard to key leaders, personally — also committed to the Israeli settlement enterprise. Whatever talking points they may issue, these people simply do not support the goal of a two-state solution, at least not in any way that genuinely merits the term. The question is whether they’ll ever have to pay political price for it, and whether they’ll have to answer for the damage they’ve done to American security and interests in the region, as well as to Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state. Cross-posted from Wonk Room .

The rest is here: 
Matthew Duss: The Reality Is That Many In GOP Support Israeli Settlements And Oppose Two-State Solution

We claim to live sustainably if we can harvest or extract the earth’s resources without depleting or permanently damaging them. By that standard, no one in a country that devours coal, oil and water — and uses up a quarter of the earth’s resources — can live sustainably. Our collective footprint is just too huge. To live sustainably, we first need to be part of a greater, systemic transformation toward a culture that regards that as a worthy goal. According to green marketers, 10 percent of the U.S. population believes we will always have enough resources, so we’re not going to engage them in the sustainability conversation. Twenty percent are very sincerely trying to minimize their massive American footprints, but their reducing and recycling efforts are futile if they can’t convince the other 70 percent that sustainable living is a better way. Recent events, from the BP oil spill to the banking meltdown, have begun to tip the balance. Unsustainable consumption has come to a screeching halt (no credit, no stuff), and Americans are nesting as they haven’t in decades. “It’s the end of the era of conspicuous displays of wealth,” historian Steve Fraser told The New York Times in October 2008. “We are entering a new chapter in our history.” For the first time in decades, Americans are building smaller homes and requesting green-built certification because they understand that energy efficiency and durable, nontoxic materials will save them money over time. They’re growing their own food, in backyards and as part of urban community gardens, passing up high fructose corn syrup and flavorless strawberries sprayed with pesticides by poorly paid workers 1,500 miles away. This new chapter has sustainability written into its DNA. We celebrate small steps because they move the collective balance. “Change happens not by attacking what we do not find pleasing, but by living the example of what we ourselves believe,” architect Sarah Susanka, who launched the small-is-better housing movement with her Not So Big House books, wrote in Natural Home magazine in 2002. Sarah’s message that building smaller, better homes is both more sustainable and more satisfying was prophetic a decade ago and right on target today. Change happens. Sustainable living in America is an attainable dream. More on Gulf Oil Spill

See more here:
Robyn Griggs Lawrence: Is Sustainability an Impossible Dream?

July 6, 2010 - Today’s most interesting stories in technology, media and entertainment: Apple App Store Accounts Get Hacked: It looks like one or more hackers broke into an unknown number of Apple accounts and purchased hundreds of applications in the Apple App Store. Want to protect yourself, make sure you have and use a strong password. If you need help making one check out my password tips. USB Devices Can Be Dangerous: A study by the Royal Military College of Canada notes that any USB connected device can be used to steal data from your computer because most people don’t lock down their plug n play port. The counter-hack? Learn to lock down your plug n play port and, for added security, find a nice old fish bowl in your house to use as a USB graveyard. LG & Samsung Announce Android-Based Tablets: LG and Samsung both confirmed they will have new Android-based tablets by the end of the year. The new tablets are expected to come equipped with Android 3.0, which may be tailored to tablet computers rather than smart phones. Today’s Video –Shelly checks out some cool websites If you are having trouble viewing our video player, view on YouTube More on Apple

Go here to see the original: 
Shelly Palmer: Apple App Store Accounts Get Hacked

NEW YORK — The heat wasn’t going to keep Jerryll Freels inside on his vacation. The 28-year-old made his way through Times Square on Monday, combating the hot weather with a wet white washcloth over his head and a water bottle in hand. “It’s hot, but I know how to stay cool,” said Freels, visiting from Minneapolis. A string of hot days were expected this week, with temperatures en route to 100-plus degrees in some places. Temperatures reached into at least the 90s Monday from Maine to Texas, into the Southwest and Death Valley. In the East, warm air is “sitting over the top of us, and it’s not really going to budge much for the next day or two,” said Brian Korty, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service in Camp Springs, Md. He said after that, a system coming in off the Atlantic Ocean would bring in cooler temperatures. Monday was a day off for many to mark Sunday’s Independence Day holiday. The extended weekend aided utilities by lowering demand for power, said Lissette Santana, a spokeswoman for PPL Electric Utilities in Allentown, Pa. For others, though, there was no getting away from the heat. Richard Willis, 52, was one of a few dozen homeless men in Franklin Square, a small park in downtown Washington. He spent his day drinking water and staying in the shade. “That’s all you can do, really,” said Willis, who wore jeans and a long-sleeve shirt and sat under a tall tree near a fountain. “I’ve been through many summers. I’m experienced.” In New York, Yasser Badr manned his steel food cart in the sun outside Penn Station. Surrounded by the grill, fryer and gyro rotisserie all going full throttle, he was already covered in sweat. A question about the heat elicited only a resigned laugh. “This kind of metal, it makes everything more hot,” he said, patting the wall of the cart. The long weekend had more people out seeking relief. Five Connecticut state parks had to stop admitting people because they had reached capacity. A major utility restricted water use on the New Jersey shore, forbidding residents from watering lawns and washing cars. About 17,000 customers in northern New Jersey lost power for more than four hours Monday, though Jersey Central Power and Light spokesman Jim Markey said it wasn’t clear whether the outage was related to the heat. While some tried to stay inside, others chose to brave the heat, including tourists who wanted to make the most of their holiday trips. In Washington, people were out exploring the city on the final day of the Smithsonian Folklife Festival on the National Mall. Ben Mullen just returned from Iraq, “so he’s really used to it,” said his wife, Stephanie Mullen. The couple from upstate New York planned to walk by the White House and visit the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. “We just told each other we’ll go slow, and if we get too tired, we’ll go back to the hotel and go sit by the pool,” she said. In Philadelphia where the high-90s heat was rising from the sidewalk, Yvette Valiente, 40, of Baltimore walked nearly a mile round-trip to try to sample Jim’s Steaks – with four young sons and a niece in tow. But with the line wrapped around the building, they went elsewhere for the Philly specialties. The family was sightseeing in the city after some of the children visited on a class trip. “We just got our cheesesteaks, so we’re doing OK,” said Valiente, who said the family could not reschedule the trip despite the heat. “It’s the last day off before we go back to work.” In the mid-Atlantic, the heat was expected to get worse Tuesday, with highs of up to 102 degrees. Wednesday was forecast to be the most humid day of the stretch. Santana, the Pennsylvania utility spokeswoman, cautioned consumers to conserve energy on hot days. “Tomorrow’s another day, and you never really know with the weather,” she said. Demand is anticipated to increase when offices reopen, said Bob McGee, spokesman for Consolidated Edison in New York. He said Con Ed was preparing for peak usage to break the record set on Aug. 2, 2006. Korty reiterated that danger from increasing temperatures is likely to grow. “As the temperature and humidity both get higher, the stress it can put on the human body increases,” he said, “and therefore the higher the temperature and higher the humidity, the greater the chance of people having problems.” ___ Associated Press writers Eva Dou and Samantha Gross in New York, Maryclaire Dale in Philadelphia, and David Melendy and Sarah Karush in Washington contributed to this report.

See the original post here: 
Coming Heat Wave Threatens East Coast

As a foreign affairs columnist, it feels a bit odd to be writing about the Black Sea when so much is going on at home:: the overdue firing of US general Stanley McChrystal, Britain’s impressive attack on its debts, new US bank regulation, and the hugely expensive and mostly unnecessary G20 jamboree in Toronto, which has turned that normally sedate metropolis into a version of “Escape from New York.” More on McChrystal and his Crusaders next week. To me as a military historian, Yalta is a nexus of history, the site of events that continue to affect our world to this day. It will be studied long after the latest Afghan War and the run amok Wall Street bankers are forgotten. As Russian imperial residences go, Livadia is a rather small palace, even modest. Czar Nicholas II had this pretty palace of white limestone built as a family vacation residence in the sunny Crimea. Livadia overlooks one of the Crimea’s amazingly lush sub-tropical forests and the shimmering Black Sea. The last Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, had a summer residence just down the coast, at the ancient Greek trading post of Foros. Josef Stalin, who loved the Black Sea coast, had dachas (villas) scattered from Crimea to Georgia. During the 1980’s, I somehow managed to get down to Sochi, Abkhazia and Georgia when Americans were not allowed beyond Moscow city limits. I was flabbergasted to discover north of Sochi a Soviet version of Acapulco, complete with a pyramid hotel, all-night discos, riotous bars and throngs of vodka-fueled merrymakers. Back to Livadia. Like so many things Russian, the palace wrenches one’s emotions. So many ghosts pace its somber halls. The palace’s upstairs walls are hung with intimate photos of the Czar, Empress Alexandra, and their lovely children. The doting Nicholas often neglected state duty to spend time with his family. There were sad pictures of his son, who suffered from the family’s curse, hemophilia - but no pictures of the sinister monk Rasputin who turned the people against the Czarina. We see Nicholas’ weary face, the frightened eyes staring out from behind his beard of a weak ruler overwhelmed by a tempest of problems, lacking will or ferocity to rule a Russia seething with revolution. Photos show the imperial family grouped together at Livadia much as they must have appeared when they were later murdered in 1918 by Communist gunmen in a dingy basement in the Urals. One mourns this family so filled with deep love for one another, and their tragic end. But as l studied these melancholy mementos of Russia’s last czar, I was struck by how much Nicholas bore heavy responsibility for the ensuing disasters of the 20th century. He held in his hands the chance to change the flow of history, but failed to do so. We see similar strains of indecisiveness in the character of another unproven leader caught up in fraught times, Barack Obama. In 1914, Serbia sought to provoke a war between Russia and its enemy, the Austro-Hungarian Empire over Bosnia-Herzegovina, by assassinating Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Habsburg throne, at Sarajevo. As expected, Austria mobilized its armies to exact revenge on Serbia. Serbia was a close Russian ally, as it remains today, and the primary tool of Russian expansion into post-Ottoman Eastern Europe, as it also remains today. In a fatal act that would end Europe’s golden age, Nicholas ordered his huge armies to mobilize against Austria in support of Serbia. Russia’s mobilization forced Austria-Hungary’s ally, Germany, to mobilize its force. France mobilized in response to German mobilization. Facing Russia and France in a two-front, Germany was forced to attack France before Russia’s vast armies could take the field. The Czar’s decision to mobilize lit the fuse of World War I, which then led to WWII. Nicholas should instead have rushed to Berlin on his private train to meet with his “cousin Willy,” Germany’s Kaiser, to avert the oncoming cataclysm. But Nicholas unleashed the dogs of war. He ended up losing Russia’s empire and his family - and plunging Europe into three decades of war. On Livadia’s main floor, one feels no melancholy, but anger. There, in February, 1945, US President Franklin Roosevelt, Britain’s Winston Churchill, and Soviet ruler Josef Stalin met to decide postwar Europe’s future. In modern history’s greatest betrayal, the Allied war leaders handed half of Europe to Soviet rule, betraying tens of millions of its people to the gulag, dictatorship, and confiscation of all their property. The late KGB general Pavel Sudoplatov, who led the team that killed Trotsky and later observed Yalta, aptly calls the pact in his memoirs, “as cynical as the Hitler-Stalin Pact of 1939″ that carved up parts of Eastern Europe between Germany and the USSR. But in that case, Hitler and Stalin made a two-sided deal, restoring lands their nations had lost during and after World War I. Yalta was a shameful, one-sided sell-out of half the European continent. It was a far more egregious betrayal than the oft-cited Munich Pact. The left-leaning, likely senile Roosevelt kept hailing Stalin, who had murdered over 20 million people, “our Uncle Joe.” Ironically, last week, Georgia’s pro-western government just blew up a towering statue of Stalin in his birthplace of Gori, outraging many Georgians and Russians at a time when the Soviet dictator’s memory is being rehabilitated across Russia. The heavy machinery used by Stalin to industrialize the USSR and build its arms factories was largely bought from the United States. Moscow confiscated grains from its farmers to finance industrialization, leaving some ten million of them to starve. Mao Zedong would later pay for China’s industrialization in the same merciless manner during the 1950’s. Recall Lenin’s prediction that the capitalists would sell the communist the rope with which to hang them. It has generally been forgotten that Stalin’s concentration camps and mass murder peaked in the mid-1930’s, at least five years before Hitler began his mass murder. Yet America rushed to the Soviet Union’s aid when it was attacked by Germany, supplying huge amounts of material aid, arms, fuel and cash. As Churchill so aptly remarked, when Stalin came to power, Russians were using wooden plows. When his rule ended, the Soviet Union had nuclear weapons. Amazingly, at the Yalta Conference, the naive Roosevelt and the American delegation actually stayed at the Livadia Palace. The NKVD, the Soviet secret police, bugged every nook and cranny at Livadia, and overheard everything that was said by the president and his aides. The British stayed at the nearby gloomy Vorontzov Palace, also heavily bugged. Sarah Churchill remarked to a British delegation member that it would be nice to taste chicken Kiev. It was delivered an hour later. Another British diplomat remarked that he wanted lemon for his tea. An entire lemon tree was quickly delivered. NKVD and military intelligence, GRU, knew almost everything on the minds of the Americans and British. There were two Soviet agents in Roosevelt’s entourage: Asst. Treasury Secretary Harry Dexter White and Alger Hiss. Sudoplatov says he heard from GRU there was a third highly placed Soviet agent in the White House, and another who was a famous financier and scion of one of America’s most famous families. Harry Dexter White worked for Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, who had developed a plan to de-industrialize Germany and carve it up into little rural cantons. How could warlords Roosevelt and Churchill been so foolish and cowardly? Stalin had 12 million soldiers moving into Eastern Europe. Stalin’s might intimidated Roosevelt and Churchill, causing them to replace one totalitarian dictator, Adolf Hitler, by appeasing an even more dangerous one, Stalin. The Soviet Union had done the lion’s share of fighting in Europe, destroying 75% of all German land and air forces, and naturally expected the lion’s share of the spoils. When the Americans, British and Canadians landed at Normandy, facing them was the ghost of the once invincible Wehrmacht, fatally crippled by shortages of fuel, munitions, and armor, and without any air cover. It was amazing the Germans held out as long as they did on the Western Front After German forces surrendered, US general George Patton was ready to turn his famed 3rd Army against the Russians in Eastern Europe. The US had the atomic bomb, Russia did not. But the US and bankrupt Britain decided to buy off Stalin. Eastern Europe paid the terrible price. Patton was relieved and subsequently killed in a still mysterious road accident. In 1905, Germany’s Kaiser Wilhelm predicted that fifty years hence, the British Empire, that then controlled a quarter of the globe, would vanish into dust and be replaced by two new empires, America and Russia. I thought about this, in one of Stalin’s sinister, green-painted villas on the Russia coast near Sochi. I sat at Stalin’s desk, imagining how after Yalta his yellow eyes must have glinted with malice and triumph as he puffed his pipe as he sneered at the foolish Roosevelt and the helpless Churchill.

View original post here:
Eric Margolis: The Ghosts Of Yalta Haunt Us Today

Newsweek offers a glimpse into the decision-making process inside Palin-land ( via Ben Smith): The campaign received a call from Sarah Palin’s husband, Todd, who said she’d seen a video of Haley at a Tea Party rally and liked what she saw. Sarah was in North Carolina for a National Rifle Association convention and wanted to come down the next day to endorse Haley. The event drew about 1,000 people, many of whom knew nothing about Haley. Her campaign caught fire, and she surged in the polls. I guess Sarah Palin deserves a little credit: at least she seems to have spent more time thinking about her endorsement of Nikki Haley than John McCain did in picking her to be his vice presidential running mate.

The rest is here: 
SC-Gov: How Sarah Palin decided to endorse Nikki Haley

OK, write-it-on-the-palm-of-your-hand Tea Party darling Sarah Palin has issued a major foreign policy statement on her Facebook page taking a generally hawkish neocon line. She wants, for example, to eliminate the withdrawal timetable for US troops in Afghanistan and presses for support of that war, along with other aggressive measures. This puts her with Liz Cheney and Bill Kristol and other conservatives who are demanding Michael Steele’s resignation for knocking the war. In the meantime, Rand Paul, that other darling of the Tea Party, has come out defending Michael Steele’s criticism of the war and urging Republicans to rally around Steele’s position. He says, “I have to ask myself, what is the agenda of the harsh critics demanding this resignation? Why do they support Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama’s war?” So unless I am reading this wrong, Rand Paul is questioning Sarah Palin’s agenda and accusing her of supporting (gasp!) Pelosi and Obama. Michael Steele is already backtracking as fast as his feet can carry him and unnumbered numbers of smart operatives on the right have no doubt noticed the potential problem here and are looking for ways to airbrush it. But it is pretty stark. I hope unnumbered numbers of smart progressive operatives have noticed it too and are, even as I write, figuring out ways to highlight this division for voters in November. Make this split last, give it legs. More on Afghanistan

Here is the original:
Thomas de Zengotita: Tea Party Darlings Split on The War in Afghanistan: Sarah Palin vs. Rand Paul

If Michael Steele did what the pack of GOP conservatives are screaming for, namely tender his resignation as Republican National Committee chair, it would be a catastrophe for President Obama and the Democrats. The gaffe-prone Steele has bungled money and staff, regularly mugs and grandstands on network talk shows, brags about being hip, a street guy, and even complains that he, as President Obama, is also subject to a racial double standard. He has more detractors than any GOP leader this side of W. Bush, and that includes legions of Republican leaders. For now though the RNC still needs Steele for the very reason he was plucked for the lead role in the first place. In the wake of Obama’s smash White House win, he was the best hope to prevent a battered, beaten, and demoralized GOP had from being shoved to the netherworld of national politics. The GOP is still widely sneered at and dismissed as an insular party of unreconstructed bigots, Deep South, rural and, non-college educated blue collar whites. Steele gives the party an image sheen that is anything but white, rural and Deep South. Steele has had dual value to the GOP. In addition to being the moderate, free-wheeling, shoot from the lip, non-traditional Republican, that excites many and give the party a different look and feel, he’s comfortable at tea party rallies, and aggressively courts tea party leaders. GOP mainstream leaders may shrink in red faced embarrassment at Steele (and in a poll by the National Journal earlier this year seventy percent want him out), the RNC sex club fiasco, its high living, jet setting ways, and feign even more embarrassment at the borderline racial antics and slurs, digs from some tea baggers, and ultra conservatives. But they know that the GOP would fall flat on its face without them. Their passionate belief in God, country and patriotism, little to no government, passionate defense of personal freedoms, is the political oil that has fueled the GOP’s machine for four decades, and assured the White House for Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr. and W. Bush. But looking ahead that may not mean much in the run-up to the 2012 presidential elections. Outside of Palin, Steele is the most polarizing Republican since Lincoln. This makes him the perfect distraction, foil, and ultimately, perfect perverse Obama ally. Steele is the butt of SNL laugh lines, giddily mocked and ridiculed by Democrats and the pundits, groaned at by the GOP regulars long before his initial knock against the Afghan war. Most agree that he’s not fit to head the RNC. But this only makes him even more bizarrely appealing. Steele on the loose in the run-up to the 2012 presidential elections would potentially render invaluable aid to Obama. He would confuse, rile up, and split Republicans. That could translate out into millions of disgruntled, frustrated voters who would be so disgusted with the party that they would be sorely tempted to stay at home. This would be tantamount to a vote for Obama. A mesmerized media, titillated public, and legions of Steele loathers, have made him the butt of derision and the talk of the land. That talk is just fine for Obama. But this dream scenario for the Democrats is likely to be just that a dream. If Steele weathers the current storm, and he probably will, almost certainly he will be toast in January. That’s when his tenure as RNC chair ends. For now the Democrats love every minute of Steele and the GOP’s arm wrestle, and they should. Enjoy it while it lasts, because it won’t. Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. He hosts a nationally broadcast political affairs radio talk shows on Pacifica and KTYM Radio Los Angeles. Follow Earl Ofari Hutchinson on Twitter: http://twitter.com/earlhutchinson More on Sarah Palin

See the original post here: 
Earl Ofari Hutchinson: Steele’s resignation would be a Catastrophe for Obama

Sarah Palin dropped her lengthy foreign policy manifesto on Facebook last week and we’d like to recap some of the former vice presidential candidate’s key points. Building on a speech that she gave at ” Freedom Fest ” in Norfolk, Virginia last week, Sarah Palin expressed a hawkish doctrine outlining her sharp disagreement with the Obama Administration on nine key areas of foreign policy. Palin calls for expanding the nation’s naval fleet, eliminating the current withdrawal timetable in Afghanistan, reinforcing unconditional ties with Israel, taking a stronger stance on human rights in countries like Iran and China (while stepping back from diplomacy with “some of the world’s worst regimes”), as well as embracing “American exceptionalism” and America’s position as “the dominant military superpower.” Some see Palin’s manifesto as a sign that she is trying incorporate these positions into the Tea Party platform and perhaps take the lead on foreign policy heading into the 2012 elections. “In the conservative ranks and within the party, she’s really quite a crucial piece in this puzzle,” Tom Donnelly, defense fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, told Josh Rogin of Foreign Policy . “She’s got both political and Tea Party/small government bona fides, but she also has a lot of credibility in advocating for military strength.” Here are the key points from Palin’s Facebook post on foreign policy: More on Photo Galleries

See the original post here:
Sarah Palin’s Foreign Policy Manifesto: Brought To You By Facebook

For the second year in a row, Time has dropped Daily Kos onto their list of most overrated blogs (actually they’ve listed a blog called “The Daily Kos,” so perhaps I’m wrong to be offended). The complaint the real-deal journalists at Time have with DK? …nothing, not even the oil spill or the faltering war in Afghanistan, has really catapulted anything on the Daily Kos into the national consciousness. It’s nice that traditional outlets can simultaneously complain about those ill-informed bloggers in their PJs , and moan that the same bloggers are failing to drive the national conversation. However, there’s a very good reason that these outlets are now rarely featuring ideas that originate on this site. It’s not because the writing here is any less consequential. I can say without any doubt that the writing on Daily Kos over the last two years has been better, sharper, more insightful, better researched, and more important than at any time in the history of the site. The decline has not been on this side of the aisle. The difference is that much of the “mainstream” media has become so severely self-censoring that they wet their collective pants at the thought of offending conservatives. Once upon a time they used to at least hint that maybe, just maybe, there was something wrong in Dick Cheney’s confident statements that he knew where the weapons of mass destruction were located. There was an occasional rumor that wearing a snug flight suit might possibly not mean the war was over. Sure, the slightest challenge was enough to cause them to retreat behind the false objectivity of “showing both sides.” For example, when the New York Times was faced with those who defended the use of torture, their decision is not to call them on it, but to dodge the issue by displaying all the backbone of a sponge . It’s no wonder that anti-science forces shout that we should “teach the controversy” between reason and nonsense, when this is the official position of the most influential paper in the nation. These days, even that level of discourse would seem daring. Why has nothing that surfaced on DK in the last couple of years really “launched” into the big media? Because the big media has decided that conservatives must be treated like mountain gorillas : give the silverbacks plenty of room, try to fit in with the troop, don’t look them in the eyes. Above all, don’t make any moves that might get them even the slightest bit upset. These days there’s no such thing as too conservative. It’s a media where a lifelong conservative and former editor-in-chief of a conservative paper can immediately be fired from the Washington Post for daring to point out that the current crop of conservatives are completely disconnected from reality. And a media where the “consumer ombudsman” at the Post reacts to aggression by the right by suggesting that the proper thing to do is replace their conservative-but-not-blind writer with a couple of even more conservative writers who will do a better job of picking lice, being differential, and grunting along with the troop. Every outlet might not be privy to Roger Ailes’ morning talking points, but they’re following the script just the same. Fox creates a faux-movement, down to scheduling the time and date for events, advertises their little wingding for weeks, provides the banners and secures the location. And then Fox posts a complaint that other media isn’t celebrating the event they created. Results? Rather than telling Rupert to faux off, the rest of the media scurries to prove that they are too giving this extra-special episode of Blossom Beck all the attention it so richly deserves. Look at us, Mr. Murdoch. See how we’re devoting far, far, far more time and ink to your skit than to genuine grass roots events of vastly greater import? See how well we pretend that this is a “populist uprising,” rather than the most extreme members of the Republican right driven completely off their already fragile rockers by fantasies bawled out between ads for gold schemes and luxury doomsday bunkers? It’s a media where, confronted with the uncomfortable proof that Sarah Palin is a buffoon incapable of answering a question more complex than “what’s your favorite color,” Time solves the problem by just not asking her any more questions and snapping lots of pictures instead. That way the media can take two word snippets from her latest paid appearance (here’s a guess for next week: some toothy animal + “moms”) act as if her statement makes sense, and carry on with the story on how inspirational Palin is to other women. Presumably other women who would also like to command a six figure payday for showing up, grinning, and babbling like a deranged Chatty Kathy. It’s a media that can dutifully report on John Boehner’s dismissal of the May jobs report because “it included too many census workers,” and then cover Boehner’s claim that the June job’s report spells doom, without mentioning the minority leader’s earlier statements. Where Republicans can blast Obama for “dithering” in Afghanistan, then hit him again for moving too precipitously, and know they won’t be called on it. They rest confident in the knowledge that the media will treat the public as if we have the short term memory of the main character in Memento . Obama has always been responsible for the massive cost run up by two wars, the stock market crash, the bailout of the banks, and the massive national debt, signed Teddy. To keep these stories intact, the media has to avoid any substance whatsoever. They can’t so much as demand one actual fact from Palin, or Rove, or Cheney, or (God help us) Liz Cheney, or any other brilliant light of the right. They have to ignore their own writing to hold out any pretense of consistency. They can’t possibly point out the daily — hourly — contradiction between conservatives railing against every watered-down action of the government as socialism, and conservatives railing against the government’s inability to right every wrong. Hell, Bobby Jindal is rewriting himself so fast he has to carry a pencil in one hand and an eraser in the other. But don’t worry, folks, you can still make him look good if you keep your story short and hope that no one watching recalls what was said at breakfast. By next year, you’ll still figure out a way to get together that “doesn’t he look presidential” highlight reel. Time surely has all the pictures ready of Jindal looking highly concerned and serious . Why does the media so chastely tiptoe around the absolute, incontrovertible fact that the GOP is daily peddling bullshit to the American public? Because they fell down and can’t figure out how to get up again. News media from television to newspapers saw that the audience being generated by drooling pundits was out-pulling straight news, so between bouts of blaming bloggers for media’s misfortune, they gathered all the actual vipers right into their beds. Just a little. Just a few hours. Just a few columns. Just every day. And don’t you worry, a network, paper, or magazine won’t have any problem pointing out the pants-free nature of a raving lunatic once that lunatic is their biggest revenue generator. Of course they won’t. Above all, the one thing the media dare not do is demonstrate the clear link between conservative policies and the economic collapse. A media with the guts of a gnat would warn people that on our way to becoming one nation under Ayn Rand (with Ronald Reagan as her prophet) conservatism has failed in every measurable way. They’d devote the airtime and glossy pages to show that conservatism has always made things worse, always led to greater instability, always resulted in more concentration of wealth, and always brought on greater national and personal debt. They’d report on the Republican Party’s endless fight to wreck the country out of spite. Maybe they would, but we don’t have that media. We have the one that places the superficial ahead of the substantive, and values controversy over resolution. We have the one that continues to stand by, letting Roger and Rush dictate their schedule, “teaching the controversy” and wondering why they don’t get any more juicy stories from those footie-wearers in the blogs. Sadly enough, I think Daily Kos will have to go on being overrated, stuck in it’s niche of reporting facts and pointing out issues even when they don’t fit the predefined narrative. In the meantime, Newsweek goes up for sale, US News and World Report becomes a monthly, and Time sees a 35% drop in sales. All of them sinking gentle into that long night, without a drop of rage.

Read more here: 
Overrated

In what’s become an annual tradition , below are 20+ celebrities in their patriotic finery, from a multitude of American flag bikinis and thongs to body paint and flag wraps. It starts with 2009’s winnes, Cindy Crawford. There are a few additions this year, like Lady Gaga and Miley Cyrus, and a few omissions (no more Fake Sarah Palin). Scroll through and pick your favorites. More on Celebrity Skin

More:
Celebs In American Flag Bikinis (PHOTOS)

The fracas over General McChrystal departing Afghanistan is a reminder that impressive fireworks exist year round in our nation’s capital. I’m hoping everyone got a good refresher on civil-military relations out of this experience because we, as a nation, really need it. And despite what you think of the situation, McChrystal has exited gracefully. A manner of departure which, in itself, is another credit to his public service. Something we Americans often forget is that our country is widely admired for the civilian dominance in our governing DNA. Indeed, every student at West Point, Annapolis and the Air Force Academy is marinated in this belief system. Anybody who works on Afghanistan policy can understand why McChrystal’s team was frustrated. But most also understand that what the Rolling Stone article documented was wrong behavior. In the end, the professionalism of our armed services is a gratifying achievement. I hate to say it on the Fourth of July, but we civilians don’t deserve them. And I don’t mean the civilians risking their lives and serving the public both at home and overseas. (the latest person I know who was in an IED hit is a diplomat). I mean us, the American people. The larger issue that Americans must confront–at long last– is what do we want our military to be? Just a couple decades ago, the Soviet-US standoff meant that missile counts and political borders defined security. Strategically speaking, it was easy to justify a NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) worldview, bolstered by soldiers and weapons. In today’s world, you can’t just make the yucky stuff go away with a border and a gun. From BP’s mess to extremist violence, everybody is now in everybody else’s backyard. The good news is that long term survival will require more social intelligence–the ability to understand and manage people– from us and our leaders. Introverts will both dread and sympathize with the work before us. In order to be prosperous and persuasive, in order to succeed in today’s world, you have to be able to deal with people. And this is where we’ve literally fallen down a black hole when it comes to policy making. We have made our Defense Department the most socially intelligent part of our foreign policy establishment. The institutional memory of how the world has changed resides in the Pentagon. Not among our elected leaders in Congress. Not in the civilian agencies. Our diplomats at the State Department are racing to catch up, but State has decades worth of growing to do before it can match the heft of Defense. Our Agency for International Development has a heroic challenge ahead. It is the one federal agency tasked with a long term goal –and it has been pretty much outsourced or otherwise absent for many years. This dilemma is obvious today in Afghanistan. We civilians have failed to draw bright lines about use of force, to make decisions about resources and to train the kind of personnel necessary to engage with a world that now lives in our backyard and that does not like a gun in its face. The current imbalance in our government–and the infatuation in our culture with all things uniformed–is very uncomfortable for the professional military. And this thoughtless tendency is becoming conventional wisdom. This past year we have deployed the military to fight terrorists in Afghanistan while guaranteeing human rights for Afghan women, and to use its logistical magic to rescue Haiti. There have been calls to send in troops to fight the drug war in Mexico and plug the oil spill. For their sake, and for the sake of American democracy, we need to stop it. We must figure out how to be present in a different way in today’s world– where relationships have become as important as borders. As a nation, we need to adapt the characteristics of a socially successful individual– learn to anticipate, engage, prevent and take the long-term view when it comes to security. We’ve learned this backward in Afghanistan. The counterinsurgency strategy is the military’s version of being present differently. Reducing combat activities, stepping up protection activities, assuming more risk upon themselves. The question for us and the challenge for General Petraeus is whether or not this course of action matters if combat activities continue. If I were serving in Afghanistan, I’d be asking myself, What the hell do they want us to do? We’ve had decades to work on this question which is only getting its full measure of attention now, post Cold War, post 9/11 and in the midst of Iraq and Afghanistan. Neither Congress nor the Executive Branch has yet fully taken on the challenge. This president is aware of the problem, and making it a priority…Both our Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State are reforming their institutions and consistently talk publicly about the need to recalibrate. But this year’s budget again demonstrates that we’ve got a long way to go in achieving a modern notion of security. We’re spending $710 billion on Defense and it looks like International Affairs–including the State Department will come in at about $55 billion (less than 10% of what we spend on military security). Which is one of the reasons why our military has become the one stop shopping government agency for foreign policy and why we are better prepared to fight Napoleon Bonaparte than Osama bin Laden. Last week, I was walking through the Rayburn building in the House of Representatives. I stopped by the Army Liason office and picked up the Army Weapon Systems 2010 . It is a publication, paid for by taxpayers, that nicely demonstrates why we continue to yearn for the last century. State by state, each weapons platform is detailed down to components and corporate contracts. It’s basically a voting guide for Members of Congress. Unless the non-military hardware part of US foreign policy becomes similarly organized, with equally apparent political incentives, we’ll continue down this path to the past. Our security will be compromised as a result. Conservatives and even the Tea party “movement” are tuned into the realization that our current spending is unsustainable. A hard right faction is insisting on exempting the defense budget, however, from the rest of their public sector target list. Sarah Palin will be the pin-up girl for this line of reasoning. Keep in mind that anyone who insists that the defense budget is the exception to the budget austerity rule is a liability to national security and, most of all, to our military itself. Like any public institution, the military and defense budget must be part of an ongoing debate and discussion. The current dilemma presents a chance for Progressives to scoop the right wing. True conservatives loathe the use of force, electing to use it overwhelmingly or as a last resort. They are purists when it comes to risking military lives. True conservatives view the military as a good insurance policy. Pay for an excellent one and then work really hard so you never use it. What would we be doing in Afghanistan if using the military were not an option? What if we had thought about this in 1991? Barring an open and democratic dialogue about what our military is for in today’s world we’ll continue to have frustrated Generals and we’ll risk more lives. Every American can do something about this dysfunctional silence, starting at home, at the dinner table, with your relatives who have served the US Government abroad or as non governmental humanitarians. Alternatively, go to your local VFW, talk with some ROTC students, find the local chapter of retired foreign service officers, check out the peace studies program at the local college, join the World Affairs Council, the Rotary Club, the League of Women Voters. Convene a discussion with a Member of your recently returned National Guard Unit. Recalibrating US presence in the world is not a challenge that will be solved in Washington, DC. Those of us working here might have lots of answers but we don’t have the power to make the change. You do. If each of us breaks this frozen conversation, what a happy birthday for America that would be. More on Afghanistan

More here: 
Lorelei Kelly: Save Afghanistan? How About America…..

By Leonard Maltin I understand why millions of people go gaga over the new Twilight movie or Toy Story 3 , but some of the best and brightest filmmaking doesn’t come from the mainstream–and sad to say, most Americans ignore outstanding independent and foreign films right under their noses. Even smart people I know have gotten lazy about seeing these films when they open in theaters, waiting for them to turn up on cable, pay-per-view, or DVD. I get that, too: no matter how good an indie movie may be, it’s usually not the prime topic of Monday morning water-cooler conversation. As a result, there is no imperative to rush out and see Please Give or The Secret in Their Eyes . But if we don’t support these fine films they’re going to disappear from the landscape altogether. Here are five films still playing in theaters across the country that represent the cream of the current crop, with links to the reviews I posted on my site at www.leonardmaltin.com , including segments from my weekly show on ReelzChannel, Secret’s Out . PLEASE GIVE Writer-director Nicole Holofcener’s best film to date (following Walking and Talking , Lovely and Amazing , and Friends With Money ) perceptively explores middle-class angst with a light touch and a perfect cast: Catherine Keener, Oliver Platt, Amanda Peet, Rebecca Hall, Sarah Steele, and Ann Guilbert as a hilariously sour old woman. Here’s my review . CITY ISLAND The year’s most durable sleeper, this word-of-mouth success has lasted in theaters since early spring–no small feat at a time when movies’ expiration dates come faster than ever. (Rodrigo Garcia’s lovely Mother and Child came and went in the blink of an eye.) Raymond De Felitta’s smart, funny film about a dysfunctional family is a genuine original, and showcases Andy Garcia in a surprising and wonderful comedic performance. Here’s my review , and here’s my interview with Garcia . CYRUS Usually, brothers Jay and Mark Duplass make so-called mumblecore films for a minuscule budget, act in them and take turns holding the microphone boom. This time they’ve applied their offbeat sensibilities and improv style to a darkly amusing story with A-list actors: John C. Reilly, Catherine Keener, Jonah Hill, and Marisa Tomei, all of whom hit just the right notes. Here’s my review . SOLITARY MAN Michael Douglas gives one of his richest performances as a complete and utter louse–yet there’s something magnetic and appealing about the guy. He’s surrounded by a first-rate cast (including Susan Sarandon, Jesse Eisenberg, Jenna Fischer, Mary-Louise Parker, and Danny DeVito) in this sardonic social comedy from Brian Koppelman and David Levien. This is another “little movie that could,” lingering in theaters as word gets around as to how good it is. Here’s my review. THE SECRET IN THEIR EYES The winner of this year’s Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film, this Argentinian import layers a story of repressed love and a flashback framework onto a compelling murder mystery. Director and co-screenwriter Juan Jose Campanella has worked in American television, so there’s no navel-gazing here–just good, solid storytelling. Here my Secret’s Out review . Leonard Maltin edits the annual Leonard Maltin’s Movie Guide (which is also available as an iPhone app), hosts Secret’s Out on ReelzChannel, introduces movies on DirecTV, and holds court at www.leonardmaltin.com .

See the rest here: 
Leonard Maltin: The 5 Off-Hollywood Movies You Shouldn’t Miss This Month

The bombshell that’s still sending aftershocks rippling through the American political class had its epicenter near Lake Lucille on the quiet morning of July 3. On that day last year, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin summoned reporters to her lakeside home for what was billed as a surprise announcement. Some of the scribes took it as less than monumental and arrived late. They faced trouble getting to a scene carefully staged in front of TV cameras on the lake shore. There — with babies crying in the background, planes sometimes buzzing overhead, and the ducks behind Palin squawking — the governor of Alaska and former candidate for vice president began a rambling speech that praised American servicemen on the eve of Independence Day, slapped the media and “political operatives” for challenging her behavior as governor, and finally, announced that she was resigning her post to ensure there would be no more “politics as usual.” No more prescient pronouncement has ever been made by an Alaska politician. “She outsmarted everybody,” said veteran Alaska pollster Dave Dittman. “She simply removed herself from the line of fire.” In that moment, Palin — the rhetorical flame thrower of the 2008 presidential campaign — put herself back in the game in a way that fundamentally changed political discourse throughout the country. Even in Alaska, where her departure was hardly felt, there would be no more politics as usual — in fact, there would not be much of anything as usual. Read more of this story at AlaskaDispatch.com. More on Sarah Palin

Read more:
AlaskaDispatch.com: Palin quits: One year later

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is facing fire from Republicans in his home state for making critical comments about the Tea Party movement. Graham, a moderate Republican, was quoted as saying the Tea Party lacks “a coherent vision” and that the life of the coalition of conservative activists might be short-lived in a New York Times magazine profile published Thursday. Now, just one day after Graham’s criticism came to light, the Daily Caller reports that Sandra Stroman, Chairman of the Chester County GOP, is pushing back against her home state Senator’s remarks. “The Tea Party is alive and well here in South Carolina as you can see with the nomination of Nikki Haley and the popularity of Sarah
Palin,” Stroman said. “Lindsey tends to be out of touch on matters like these.” Lin Bennett, who chairs the Charleston County GOP, expressed a similar sentiment towards Graham’s take on the Tea Party. “He is totally out of touch with his base in South Carolina,” she told the Daily Caller , adding that his comments “prove he does not understand the frustrations of his voters.” But this isn’t the first time that Graham has found himself at odds with Republicans in his home state over his politics and style of legislating. Last fall, the Charleston County GOP censured the South Carolina Senator for working with Democrats on climate change legislation, while earlier this year the Lexington County GOP voted to censure Graham over his vote for the Wall Street bailout. Graham faced even more extreme reaction to his work on Capitol Hill from a conservative crowd at a South Carolina town hall meeting last year. While speaking, the Republican Senator was interrupted by angry attendees calling him a “traitor” and charging him with “going to bed with John Kerry” for working with the Democratic Senator on clean energy legislation at the time. Outside the same event, a “RHINO HUNT” activist protested against Graham with a display that imaged the South Carolina Republican being flushed down a toilet (see video below).

Here is the original post:
Lindsey Graham Called ‘Out Of Touch’ By South Carolina Republicans For Hitting Tea Party

In a conference call with reporters today, Sen. Debbie Stabenow, Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moodys.com, and Heather Boushey of the Center for American Progress discussed the Senate’s ongoing faliure to pass unemployment insurance extensions and today’s job report. Annie Lowery has a flash transcript , key excerpts of which are below: Stabenow on the jobs report: We are seeing numbers that certainly are mixed on the jobs front. We’re continuing to move in the right direction, but but certainly not as fast as I would like or any of us would like. We have a long way to go, and in the middle of this are people who were hurt because of Wall Street’s recklessness, who were hurt by other economic policies, and were hurt by companies moving jobs overseas. And they’ve done nothing but work all their lives and take care of their families and do their best to provide a quality of life for their families … In my state, 43,000 of them are beginning to lose benefits right now, in June, and 68,000 in July. And they don’t understand what’s happening, and they’re angry, particularly at Republicans in Washington who are out of touch, and fighting for the wrong people. We have a pattern here of Republicans in Washington fighting for Wall Street, and big banks,  and apologizing to BP, and leaving men and women who are middle-class Americans high and dry when they’ve lost their job….. Zandi on the importance of passing emergency unemployment insurance benefits: Let me begin by saying it would be a significant error if Congress did not extend emergency unemployment insurance benefits. The principle reason is that the economic recovery remains very fragile, you could get a sense of that in today’s jobs numbers. The job market is measurably improved from where it was a year ago, and at the beginning of this year. The economy is creating jobs. But it’s not sufficient, certainly not sufficient to bring down the unemployment rate, and as long as it remains near double digits the risks to the recovery remain significant. Not providing UI would hurt recovery at this critical juncture. There’s two key conduits through which this could occur. The first is the loss of income. The emergency unemployment insurance [benefits are] providing $8 or 9 billion in income to very stressed households, who turn around and spend that money very quickly … They would have to pull back on their spending and [that will] exacerbate the problems businesses are facing … The other conduit which is more difficult to gauge … is the impact this can have on confidence. Consumer sentiment clearly is very shaky. We saw that with the Conference Board survey numbers. Consumers are very, very nervous. And I think with so many people potentially running out of benefits, that could undermine this fragile confidence, which would have a broader impact…. Zandi on whether and how to fund the UI benefits: It would be ideal if the funds for extending UI benefits were made available, not this year, not next year, but when the economy is back in full swing, unemployment is moving lower. Then, I think it would be prudent that this would be paid for. But, I believe, given the risks, paying for it should not be a necessary condition for passing [the extension]…. The risks are just too high…. Zandi on the long-term unemployment problem, and the unprecedented lapse in extended benefits: It’s only gotten worse for the long-term unemployed…. Congress has never before not extended long term unemployment benefits when unemployment is this high. Typically, it has extended benefits even when unemployment has been much lower…. In some ways, this is uncharted economic territory…. We’ve never seen this many long-term unemployed, or seen this share of long-term unemployed [in the overall pool of unemployed persons]. All the evidence points to it not being good [for them]. Stabenow on pressuring Senators to vote for the bill over the holiday weekend: Members are going back home and we will — I certainly will be speaking about what has occurred here and the continual fight to stop this filibuster…. We have a coalition of governors, on bipartisan basis, that have urged us to pass the jobs bill in total, unemployment insurance as well as help for the states. Members will be going home and hearing from the people that they represent. I’m very hopeful…. We’re certainly disappointed to lose [Sen. Ben Nelson's (D-Neb.)] vote, but the reality is that we have the overwhelming majority of the Republican caucus, only two stepping forward, [against this] …. Stabenow on taking away from the stimulus to pay for benefits: It’s even more unhelpful because they want to pay for this by taking money away from creating jobs right now. When [Republicans] propose taking dollars from the recovery fund, which are creating jobs right now … it makes no sense. If you want the economy to improve, to take money away from job creation, to help who are out of work — that makes no sense. It’s more than a principle for us. It’s about whether or not it’s going to benefit the economy, as well as benefit families, and whether or not we’re going to be taking money out of one pocket in order to put it in the other pocket. The rest of the questions and answers are very helpful, so I recommend the whole thing, especially if you’re looking for talking points to take to your Senator (specifically Ben Nelson or Scott Brown) while they’re home for the next week. They should consider Zandi’s comments particularly–he’s not a DFH, having been economic adviser to the McCain/Palin campaign.

See the original post here:
Stabenow, economists say UI stalement is hurting families, the economy

With campaigning disappearing as we head into the 4th of July weekend, something remarkable has taken place in the race to replace term-limited Arnold Schwarzenegger as California’s governor. We’re now essentially one-fifth of the way through the general election. Billionaire Republican wannabe governor Meg Whitman has spent a record-shattering $100 million. Jerry Brown has spent virtually nothing. Yet Whitman’s campaign has failed to change anything in the overall dynamic of the race. Nearly a month ago, Whitman, who has contributed at least $93 million to her own campaign, more than any state-level candidate in American history, prevailed in the lowest turnout primary election in the history of California. Since then, she’s kept spending and spending. But she’s gaining no traction. This week’s new Reuters/Ipsos poll confirms the reputable private poll for a statewide initiative campaign that I reported on my site, New West Notes, last week. Then, Brown led Whitman, 46% to 41%. Now he leads her, 45% to 39%. Whitman has been blitzing the state with ads following a mere two-day break after her hard-fought Republican primary win. But she hasn’t gained ground on Brown, who has not spent a dime. Of course, independent expenditure committees are spending on TV and radio ads on his behalf. But those are usually not as effective as a candidate making a positive case for him or herself, not everyone loves the ads, and in any event, at a record-shattering $100 million and counting, Whitman has vastly out-spent all forces opposing her and continues to do so. And Whitman’s campaign tactics have gotten more unusual. Well, “innovative,” if you’re on the Whitman payroll. “Desperate,” if you’re a Whitman critic. I’ll go with “peculiar.” Whitman, irked about dogged at her public appearances by the California Nurses Association’s theater troupe of “Queen Meg” and her royal court, has instructed her people to take on the nurses. Which is stupid for two reasons. First, the nurses won’t back off. They didn’t back off against Arnold Schwarzenegger, so they certainly won’t back off against a corporate suit. Second, Whitman’s campaign is succeeding in elevating a sideshow into the center of the frame. But good judgment has not followed Whitman in her very brief time in public affairs, since the she decided that maybe she should bother to register to vote after all. Whitman was national co-chair of the McCain/Palin campaign in 2008, and worked very hard to make Sarah Palin vice president of the United States, just one tortured POW’s heartbeat away from the Oval Office. Whitman’s former colleague Palin, incidentally, has twice attacked Brown since the primary election. Of course, she’s not targeting Brown nearly so much as she does President Barack Obama, who carried California in 2008 with 61% of the vote against the campaign Whitman was a leader in. Another example of Whitman’s desperate, innovative, or simply peculiar tactics is her move to suddenly present herself as a great friend to the Latino community in expensive new Spanish language TV and radio advertising. The reality is that Whitman somehow managed not to hire Latino executives as CEO of eBay, something which, needless to say, is not easy to pull off in California. She made ex-Governor Pete Wilson, the bete noire of the Latino community for his promotion of the unconstitutional Proposition 187 anti-illegal immigration initiative, her campaign chairman, and touts him as the best governor California’s ever had. (Which is a low hanging fastball I’ll get to in due time.) In the heat of her primary fight with Steve Poizner, Whitman, who once said she was for comprehensive immigration reform, came out against it and presented herself as “tough as nails” on immigration, as Wilson put it in plenty of advertising for her, vowing to crack down everywhere. Now she’s flip-flopped, again, trying to spin a record that doesn’t exist. The word in Republican campaign consulting circles is that, if you can get in the door with a scheme that looks like it might alter the equation of the race, no matter how untried it is, you can make very big money. The positive TV ad that Whitman launched after a two-day post-primary advertising respite, in which she presented her corporate conservative agenda of big tax breaks for wealthy investors and corporations and rollback of regulations as evidence of her concern for the unemployed failed completely, as I expected it would. Whitman’s own research shows this. So she looked for new tactics, and also launched a derisive 60-second TV ad attacking Jerry Brown. An extremely inaccurate ad, as it happens. More about that in a moment. Whitman’s war with the nurses points up what the oddity of what she is doing to try to alter the equation. Schwarzenegger’s would-be Republican successor Whitman, is actually stumbling into an earlier major pitfall of the governator’s. With their amusing ongoing “Queen Meg” theatrical production shadowing her movements, the Whitman campaign upped the ante beyond summer stock to escalated attacks. Responding to what I’m told are the demands of a flustered and angered Whitman, her campaign first demanded that the nurses union, which is supporting Jerry Brown, turn over its membership list to the Whitman campaign so Whitman could send a letter defending herself and extolling her virtues. That was an obvious non-starter. Naturally, the nurses union countered by inviting Whitman to appear with Brown at a gubernatorial forum. Whitman’s response? She’ll only debate before non-partisan groups. Actually, she won’t debate before anybody; she’s notorious for avoiding debates and is still turning down Brown’s offer of 10 town hall debates. Whitman then had her minions attack nurses union director RoseAnn DeMoro for being paid a few times more than what the average nurse makes. Which is, needless to say, a very odd line of attack coming from a billionaire. Especially one who increased her compensation and perks at eBay as the company’s performance sharply declined. Whitman also launched an attack web site and put out a poll purportedly taken from a sampling of nurses indicating greater sympathy for Whitman. The nurses union then upped the ante, scheduling a large forum near Whitman’s home later this month in leafy Atherton and announcing a coming advertising campaign on the theme that “Nurses Won’t Be Pushed Around.” And yes, that is a pointed reference to Whitman’s very expensive physical altercation with one of her employees not long before she announced her departure from the firm. Whitman’s chief strategist is Mike Murphy, who was Schwarzenegger’s chief strategist in 2005 when the nurses union bedeviled Schwarzenegger during his disastrous special election initiatives campaign. He can’t really think these are good moves, can he? You can check things during the day on my site, New West Notes … www.newwestnotes.com. More on Sarah Palin

Read more from the original source: 
William Bradley: Meg Whitman Spins and Spends: Mrs. Harsh Faces A Harsh Reality

There must have been some major high-fiving when CNN announced that Eliot Spitzer and Kathleen Parker would be taking over Campbell Brown’s 8 p.m. slot. High-fives between Bill O’Reilly and his producers, and Keith Olbermann and his producers. By featuring these two individuals, CNN appears to be a network that has lost track of the sensitivities and sensibilities of its female audience. And, on the back of the bevy of female departures from CNN this year, one has to wonder if CNN has a woman problem? As a New Yorker and head of a women’s organization , I received scores of emails from enraged women when word got out that CNN was considering hiring the disgraced former governor. The network couldn’t possibly be serious ? After all, we had witnessed the very public humiliation of Silda Wall Spitzer, the brilliant, talented spouse who gave up the prospect of a high-powered career to play the supporting role and raise the children. Silda was and is a tireless advocate for causes related to women and children. In fact, I was on the Planning Committee for My Sister’s Place where Silda was scheduled to deliver the keynote address on March 11, 2008 on the subject of reducing domestic violence. Many of us had months before heard Silda’s inspiring speech about the importance of getting more women into government. Tragically, on March 10th, we learned that then Governor Spitzer had been caught on a federal wiretap arranging a rendezvous with a high-priced prostitute. New York women will never forget Silda’s demeanor days later when she dutifully emerged alongside her disgraced husband for a news conference. As detail after detail of Spitzer indiscretions surfaced, the normally vibrant and vivacious first lady of New York looked like a broken women. Many of us cried for her. Many discussed on the schoolyard how their poor daughters must be devastated and humiliated. How can CNN grant this man the limelight again? To make matters worse, CNN’s next move was to give Spitzer a ” work wife ” antithetical to his real wife. Whereas Silda fought tirelessly for women and women’s issues, Kathleen Parker is one of the most anti-women woman of modern day media. While Silda stood with women politicians, Parker seems to delight in demeaning women leaders like Secretary Hillary Clinton (”… what she must have imagined sounded like passion was to mere mortals the screech of an angry woman. “) and Sarah Palin (” If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself. “). Concurrently, Parker defends misogynists, extolling us to give Larry Summers a break for his statement that girls are genetically inferior to boys in math and science (Summer’s statement has been disproved , but did immeasurable harm to women and girls’ advancement in those fields). Parker couldn’t wait to criticize President Obama for establishing the White House Council on Women and Girls , or ding women’s groups for defending Hillary Clinton (boys will be boys), or yawn over complaints that President Obama was excluding women from his inner-circle. But Parker truly outdid herself this week penning Obama: Our first female president . A true gang tackle of our gender. As a blogger Sandra describes: ” …it manages to both undermine female leaders by likening their leadership styles to Obama’s noted passivity and incompetence, and to attempt to emasculate Obama by suggesting that his communication style is feminine. It’s a masterpiece of misogyny. ” And one has to wonder. The New Agenda received emails concerned about legion of female departures from CNN: Campbell Brown, Christiane Amanpour, Erica Hill, Betty Nguyen, Heidi Collins and so on. Our assumption has been that the departures were the economic consequence of the loss of viewers. After all, men have been leaving too. The public will likely never know the inner workings at CNN. But we do know this: CNN would have better served their audience by selecting Silda Wall Spitzer and a “work husband” for that 8 p.m. slot. Pass the clicker! More on Eliot Spitzer

Read the original: 
Amy Siskind: CNN’s Tilt Towards Misogyny

Each day in this (still young) summer, it grows harder for many of us to read the front page of the newspaper, listen to the top stories on television or scroll through the links on an Internet news site. The prospect of almost 1000 barrels of oil seeping into the Gulf of Mexico every second of every day–for some 63 days now–has become a kind of “shock and awe” from which we instinctively turn away. So, too, has the buying and selling of Congress on the Wall Street reform bill. If this was not bad enough in this season of our discontent, this week brought news that June 2010 is now the deadliest month in the nine years of the Afghanistan war with over 100 NATO troops killed. This statistic comes hard on the heels of General Stanley McChrystal being relieved of his command after he and his aides made unflattering remarks about the current administration. Although the world around us seems to be spiraling out of control, there is great assurance in knowing that we’ve been here before and can learn from the experiences and great leaders of the past. Seen from a historical perspective, this is a very turbulent moment rife with looming, high-stakes issues that have large-scale consequences for the future. In this sense, it is comparable to the years immediately following World War II or, if we look farther back, to the last eighteen months of the Civil War. What sets our moment apart from the postwar period is the widespread doubt–if not, at times, despair and frustration–about the ability of established institutions and existing systems to deal with the pressing issues before us. Americans have lost confidence in many of the most important potential roadways up and out of the canyon we now find ourselves in. The most recent data on public trust underscore such diffidence. According to a Pew Research Center survey from April, only 22% of Americans say they can trust government in Washington almost always or most of the time, one of the lowest marks in 50 years. As trust has fallen, rancor has risen. Three out of every four people surveyed by the Pew Research Center earlier this year said they were frustrated or angry with the federal government. A range of ambitious actors, including Glen Beck, Sarah Palin and Mark Williams, chairman of the Tea Party, have ridden this anger to new heights along their own respective political paths. If history is any guide, almost none of the collective anger and the responses it has engendered on the part of many public leaders will serve the long-run interests of American society and our polity. It was certainly not frustration or a retreat from civic engagement that powered America’s recovery at the end of World War II. Rather, it was a sustained confidence married to sense of shared purpose that proved critical to rebuilding (and helping the world rebuild) after the conflict. Now, more than six decades hence, it is much more likely that the current diverseness and disengagement are compounding our problems and circumscribing our possibilities–possibilities for rebuilding our economy, resetting our relationship with the world’s environment, and rebooting ourselves for a brand new moment, in which entrepreneurial innovation, effective leadership at every level of our society, and vigilant attention to the interdependence we all share in this global village will determine our prospects for survival. What this moment demands–and what we are all seeking so ardently now on the larger public stage–is leaders who help each of us unleash what Abraham Lincoln called “the better angels of our nature.” Men and women who by virtue of what they do, as well as what they say, point (or prod) us along the higher road of human enterprise. What all these people have in common is a palpable sense of a worthy end or purpose to the journey they are on and hope to take others on–a purpose that is broader and more compelling than their own immediate interest in power and plenty. “A real leader,” the American novelist David Foster Wallace wrote, “is somebody who can help us overcome the limitations of our own laziness and selfishness and weakness and fear and get us to do better, harder things than we can get ourselves to do on our own.” Lincoln grew into this kind of leader as president, helping Americans see the purpose and gravity of mind-boggling bloodshed as he called on their perseverance, sense of service, and ultimately, forgiveness in order to win the Civil War and then to begin to rebuild the country. So here we are, scanning the horizon of public power for credible inspiration, guidance and a call to good action. We do not find it in the comportment of BP CEO Tony Hayward or the words of banking executives testifying before Congress or in the loose-lipped observations of a dedicated soldier such as General Stanley McChrystal. But just because we do not see scores of real leaders in the headlines does not mean they are not there. Leaders of the kind Wallace describes come in many shapes and sizes–from dedicated school principals, to empathic nurses, to thoughtful CEOs, tireless relief workers, and conscientious government officials. These individuals are all round. Because they are who we all have the capacity to be. When we move beyond our first instincts of withdrawal and anger. Nancy Koehn is a historian at Harvard Business School and noted authority for providing analysis on the social and economic impact of entrepreneurship and on leadership in turbulent times.

Read the original: 
Nancy F. Koehn: Beyond Disengagement and Anger

What a strange time it is to be Indian in America. First we hear South Carolina might soon have an Indian American governor. (One endorsed by Sarah Palin!) Then a Californian company, Zazzle, popped up selling s kateboards with Hindu gods on them. And then Joel Stein decided to make a joke about Dotbusters in Time Magazine . No wonder our Gods have multiple heads. This is a mindboggling lot to keep up with. (And I’m not even pondering if Ganesha mousepads violates any sacred cows.) Dotbusters, for those who missed the 80s, were street gangs who attacked South Asians in places like Jersey City where many immigrants had moved. Their goal was simple - kick the immigrants out. Literally. One of those immigrants, Navroze Mody died after being bashed with bricks. Another, Kaushal Saran, a doctor, was beaten and left unconscious on a busy street corner. Homes were robbed. Women were harassed. Joel Stein, in his essay about his old hometown of Edison, New Jersey, has this to say about that little bit of history. “In retrospect, I question just how good our schools were if “dot heads” was the best racist insult we could come up with for a group of people whose gods have multiple arms and an elephant nose.” Of course, Stein will plead satire. And ask Indians not to be so thin-skinned. And anyway Ganesh has an elephant head, not just a nose. And anyway what are Indian Americans going to do if they don’t like it? Challenge him to a spelling bee? Of course, Stein doesn’t mean he is in any way in favor of Indians having their heads bashed in. Why, in the piece he says he actually liked some of the Indians that moved in. At least the smart ones, the dorky ones who liked to play Dungeons and Dragons. The problem was the smart ones brought in their less smart cousins (”merchants”) and the merchants brought in “their even-less-bright cousins, and we started to understand why India is so damn poor.” This is immigration reform in a nutshell. Give us your engineers, but not your cabbies and Dunkin Donut-wallas. Except those cabbies and 7/11 owners and motel proprietors work damn hard for their little piece of the American dream. I think in a way the Indian community is also so obsessed with its presidential scholars and spelling bee champs, with its Indra Nooyis (Pepsico head) and Dr. Sanjay Guptas, it give short shrift to the little guys, the ones that run gas stations on baking highways in the middle of nowhere, take classes during the day and work graveyard shift at the 7/11. They are the muscle and sinew of our community. But to Joel Stein, they are just so much litter strewn all over his old hometown. That’s his problem - too many Indians. His Pizza Hut is an Indian sweets shop. His old multiplex shows Bollywood films. The town is now “a maze of cheerless Indian strip malls.” I thought he had a point there. Indian restaurants are not known for their décor. Tacky Omar Khaiyyam style prints and bad Taj Mahal replicas do not substitute for interior decoration. And those all-Indian strip malls do look rather dreary. (But I’ve seen a lot strip malls, in New Jersey, with nary an Indian shop that look just as dreary. Come on Joel, it’s a strip mall!) The problem is not really the strip mall. The problem is the foreignness of the strip mall. “Whenever I go back, I feel what people in Arizona talk about: a sense of loss and anomie and disbelief that anyone can eat food that spicy.” Whoa, Stein, are you saying the road to SB 1070 is paved with too many lunch buffets? Perhaps it’s good he said that. Indians, cosseted by stories about their own success in America, often think they are the golden immigrants, the good ones, the guests who can come for dinner. And stay. When SB 1070 passed many Indian Americans in Arizona welcomed it . For them it was a way of drawing a shining line between the good immigrant and the bad (or at least undocumented) one. Perhaps now the blinders will come off. I wonder what Nikki Haley, South Carolina’s front runner for governor, and a rdent supporter of Arizona’s SB 1070 makes of this. For Edison’s old timers brown is brown. Too many curry shacks is not that different from too many taquerias. We are all Mexicans now. When Joel Stein goes to Edison, he “feels” what people in Arizona talk about. It’s not about the papers you carry inasmuch as the “I-am-not-against-immigration-just-illegal-immigration” folks would have you believe. It is about the way you look, the food you eat, the accent you have. It is about the sense that you are taking over the strip mall. And this American anxiety about its browning will not change. A recent study said white birthrates in California were declining faster than expected. Expect the backlash to rise. There’ll be no chai served at this Tea Party. At one level I can understand. It does hurt to feel not that the old neighborhood is gone but that a huge extended family has moved into it, and they all know each other and have loud boisterous potlucks you are not invited to while you are hunkered down at home, watching the History Channel. I will always remember the New York Times story about an old lady in a little town that turned on immigrants saying when the Mexicans moved in next door, she had no one to play canasta with any more. But you know what Joel Stein, if you’d talked a little more to the parents of those kids with whom you’d played Dungeons and Dragons, they’d have told you the simple truth long ago. You are just learning it now. But every immigrant knows it. It’s the first axiom of immigration - a painfully self-evident truth. You can’t go home again. More on Arizona Politics

See the rest here: 
Sandip Roy: Joel Stein and the Curry Problem

This weekend we celebrate July 4 with rounds of festivities marking our nation’s 234 years of independence. But this country’s need to showcase her indomitable spirit of heroism continues to come at the expense of basic freedoms and protections denied to us lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer Americans. While it is true that the House of Representatives voted to repeal former President Bill Clinton’s 1993 “Don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT) policy that bars LGBTQ servicemembers from serving openly in the military last month, and on the same day last month the House passed to repeal DADT, as did the Senate Armed Services Committee, the plight of our LGBTQ servicemembers remained unchanged. While it is true that the U.S. comprises of fifty states, only five states have legalized same-sex marriages since 2004 — Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, and Iowa, in addition to the District of Columbia. These marriages have yet to be recognized federally. Thirty-six states have statutes on the books prohibiting same-sex marriage, including some that also have constitutional bans. States like New York only recognize marriages between same-sex couples legally performed elsewhere. This year does not, however, mark the first time our Independence Day celebrations have overlooked a sector of the population. I am reminded, for example, of the African-American abolitionist Frederick Douglas (1818 - 1895) and his historic speech, “What, to the slave, is the Fourth of July?” To a country in the throes of slavery, he said, “What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? I am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary. Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. …This Fourth of July is yours, not mine.” As LGBTQ Americans, our patriotism is not recognized. But one of our community’s greatest moments of patriotism was the Stonewall Riots of June 27 - 29, 1969, in New York City’s Greenwich Village. We celebrate their heroism every day as out-of-the-closet LGBTQ people who are intentionally visible in various facets of American life. And because of our continued acts of social protest against heterosexist and homophobic oppressions, we are tied to an illustrious history of fighting for freedom in this country. As we celebrate our nation, we must not allow its core principles — independence, freedom, and justice — to become desecrated by bigotry and hatred. True patriots from Patrick Henry to Martin Luther King, Jr. have always embraced difference and dissent. The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. said in his Montgomery Bus Boycott speech on December 5, 1955: “The great glory of American democracy is the right to protest for right.” When patriotism is narrowly defined, however, it can only be accepted and exhibited within the constraints of its own intolerance, like the passing of the “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism,” also known as the U.S.A. Patriot Act, which has us all living in a police state. With this form of patriotism, demagogues emerge as patriots espousing an unconditional love for a democratic America. But their love is thwarted, if not contradicted, by their homophobic actions toward LGBTQ Americans, like the military’s belief that openly queer servicemembers endanger “unit cohesion.” When the demagogues’ model of patriotism is infused with conservative or fundamentalist tenets of Christianity, this form of patriotism functions like a religion with its litanies of dos and don’ts. So Fourth of July celebrations have their commandments that must be upheld in the name of patriotism in the same manner that Sunday worship must be upheld in the name of God. And when people meld religion with patriotism, like the deceased Reverend Jerry Falwell did and Sarah Palin now does, you have a form of hyperpatriotism where the concepts of “God, guns, and glory” sadly shape the American landscape. One of our most famous American heroes is Patrick Henry, who we all know for his famous words, “Give me liberty or give me death,” in his speech on March 23, 1775, in which he explained how he views himself as the “other.” “No man thinks more highly than I do of patriotism. …But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve.” And like Henry, we must speak our sentiments freely and without reserve. Our patriotism, shown in the form of pride celebrations and social protests, is no less American than Fourth of July extravaganzas. In fact, all acts of celebrating the United States by way of fighting for civil rights and equal justice are indeed American and are inextricably linked to our core values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. More on Gay Marriage

Continued here:
Irene Monroe: Are we not patriots, too?