malarkynews

Abbreviated Pundit Round-Up

BarbinMD — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:32:02 +0000

Your one stop pundit shop.

Eugene Robinson on the shooting at Fort Hood:

Any soldier who seemed as if he might be falling apart -- and it seems that Hasan gave a lot of people that impression -- should have been given more scrutiny. In Hasan's case, a closer look would have revealed his growing religiosity and his feeling that his faith was under assault. That Hasan had worshiped at a Virginia mosque whose spiritual leader was a radical named Anwar al-Aulaqi might also have come to light. The Post reported Monday that Aulaqi, who now lives in Yemen, has posted a message on his Web site calling Hasan a "hero" for what he allegedly did at Fort Hood.

Had authorities learned in advance of any link between Hasan and radical Islam -- as opposed to the mainstream Islam practiced by more than a billion people worldwide -- they could have moved immediately to ensure that Hasan could not hurt others or himself. That wouldn't have been an act of bigotry, it would have been an act of prudence, even compassion.

How is the Pentagon supposed to tell the difference between reasonable caution and blatant discrimination? There are thousands of Muslims in uniform, serving their country at home and abroad. Ask them.

Naseem Rakha on the upcoming execution of "Beltway sniper" John Allen Muhammad and whether his death will provide closure to the families of his victims.

Richard Cohen proves the old adage that even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while:

There are many good reasons to put as much as we can in Afghanistan. But America has been at war there since 2001, at war in Iraq since 2003, and like Britain between the world wars, is out of both treasure and patience. Leave Afghanistan to the drones and the Special Forces. It's no way to win, but it's a good way not to lose.

William McGurn just loves Bart Stupak.

Dorothy Rabinowitz joins the large body of conservatives who are shamelessly politicizing the murderous rampage at Fort Hood.

Bob Herbert agrees that reforming health care is important, but:

... in terms of pressing national priorities, the most important are the need to find solutions to a catastrophic employment environment that is devastating American families and to end the folly of an 8-year-old war that is both extremely debilitating and ultimately unwinnable.

Cal Thomas seems to finds a freakish bright side in his twisted little brain to the shooting at Fort Hood:

Suddenly, the issue of gays in the military doesn't seem as important as jihadists in the military.

Frank Gaffney somehow manages to connect the shooting at Fort Hood to Congress' low approval ratings.

Steve Almond on the Fairness Doctrine:

The Fairness Doctrine would not stop talk radio hosts from spewing the invective that has made them so fabulously wealthy. All it would do is subject their invective to a real-time reality check.

Predictably, the abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 spurred a talk radio revolution. Why? Because talk radio’s business model is predicated on silencing all opposing viewpoints. If Rush Limbaugh and his ilk were forced to engage in a reasonable debate, rather than ad hominems, they would forfeit the moral surety - and the seductive rage - that is the central appeal of all demagogues.

Would talk radio’s bullies freak out? Absolutely. They know the Fairness Doctrine would spell the end to their ongoing cultural flim-flam. Besides, there’s nothing so intoxicating to a fraudulent moralist as the perfume of fraudulent martyrdom.

The real shock is that journalists haven’t supported the Fairness Doctrine. Then again, consider the state of “mainstream media’’ outlets. Increasingly, they dine on the same fears and ginned-up wrath as talk radio. Rather than wondering, “Does this story serve the public good?’’ they ask, “Will it get ratings?’’

This is how fake controversies (death panels, the birther movement, etc.) have pushed aside real issues, such as how to fix health care, or address climate change. It’s quite a racket. Talk radio hosts foment ignorant rage, then their “mainstream’’ brethren cover this ignorant rage as news.

White House: No Decision Yet on Afghanistan

BarbinMD — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 05:23:55 +0000

In the past two days, several news reports have indicated that President Obama plans to add tens of thousands of new U.S. troops to the 67,000-member contingent that is already in the country. McClatchy first reported the supposed decision on Saturday and other media outlets, including CBS News, the Associated Press and others.

But a chief White House advisor said absolutely no decision has yet been made.

"Reports that President Obama has made a decision about Afghanistan are absolutely false," James Jones, US national security adviser, said in a statement.

"He has not received final options for his consideration, he has not reviewed those options with his national security team, and he has not made any decisions about resources," said Jones, a retired general.

"Any reports to the contrary are completely untrue and come from uninformed sources."

Reporters for McClatchy Newspapers with a solid record for accurate reporting on the Iraq war wrote the decision had been all but made to send three army brigades and a marine brigade for a total of 23,000 combat troops, 7000 troops to run the operations at the new Regional Command South in Kandahar, the heart of the original Taliban's stronghold, and 4000 additional trainers for the Afghanistan National Army. If that turned out to be true, it would put the combined U.S. and NATO forces at 143,000.

Republicans have pressed for a decision, and many at the Pentagon and in conservative political circles argue that Obama, who has little experience in military affairs, should back his commander and send him whatever troops he's requested. The president, they note, called McChrystal the best general the military had to tackle Afghanistan when he appointed him to his post last summer.

Other military officers, particularly in the Army, warn that committing more troops to Afghanistan could risk "breaking" the force by reducing the time soldiers can spend at home between deployments, overtaxing equipment and destroying families. Those problems could worsen if Iraq's January elections are delayed or disrupted, and with them the administration's timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces from that country.

Many Democrats, meanwhile, are urging Obama not to send more troops to Afghanistan. Some in his own administration, notably Vice President Joe Biden, aren't convinced that more troops would guarantee success and advocate instead more drone attacks and more training for Afghan forces.

Obama told ABC News in an interview today:

"I have gained confidence that there’s not an important question out there that has not been asked, and that we haven’t asked -- that we haven’t answered to the best of our abilities."

No announcement of his decision - which will include details about far more than how many more troops will be added, according to several sources - is likely to be made until the President returns from his eight-day trip to Asia, which begins Thursday.

Meanwhile, on Sunday, The Independent reported that General Stanley McChrystal wants to keep UK troops in Afghanistan out of harm's way so that casualties there do not inflame the British public in the run-up to the election there.

Senior defence strategists fear that the death toll of British soldiers, currently 230, could be as high as 400 by the time of the election in six months, as Taliban fighters try to exploit UK public concerns about the war.

The McChrystal plan would be welcomed by those arguing for a phased withdrawal in the face of rising British casualties. But it could be seen as a humiliating downgrading of Britain's status. A senior military source said: "Given the risks of a UK strategic withdrawal prompted by the high casualty rate over the summer, McChrystal feels the need to keep Britain 'in the fight' by withdrawing British forces from harm's way, by firstly pulling them back into a smaller area of operations commensurate with their resources; and secondly by transferring them to a 'capacity-building' rather than a 'frontline mission'."

Such a move, of course, if it is part of McChrystal's plan, would mean more American troops in harm's way. So far, 916 American military personnel have been killed in Afghanistan since 2001, 286 of them since January.

Whether or not a decision about a precise number of troops has been chosen, it seems increasingly clear that a general decision - the generals' decision has, in fact, been made. And that decision is to initiate a second surge in Afghanistan to match the one begun last spring. If the increase is what McClatchy and others have suggested, at some point, sometime around late January, the number of U.S. troops remaining in Iraq will match the number by then in Afghanistan.

All of them to continue an occupation in favor of a tainted government that is corrupted by drug money at the highest levels and in league with war criminals such as the warlord Adbul Rashid Dostum. The counterinsurgency fight that General David Petraeus and General McChrystal have signed off on requires many times as many troops as Obama will announce he is sending no matter how many that is. The back-up plan of holding the cities and the major roads with occasional strikes against the Taliban in the countryside is an upgraded Soviet model, another loser.

As for Iraq in 2003 (and years afterward), there is no timetable, no exit plan, just the endless grind of civilian casualties and a stream of flag-draped coffins flying into Dover Air Force Base. To what end? With what hope of success?

• • • • •

jlms qkw has posted the Overnight News Digest.

Open Thread and Diary Rescue

BarbinMD — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:16:03 +0000

Tonight's Diary Rescue is brought to you by Louisiana 1976, grog, vcmvo2, dopper0189, BentLiberal, and jennyjem, with vcmvo2 editing.

The diaries up for rescue are:

mangelwurzel gives a detailed account of his personal experience twenty years ago in Berlin when "the Wall" came down: Partying at the Wall 20 yrs ago (w/ CNN interview & pics). (vcmvo2)

dreaminonempty presents a compilation of data and analysis on Latino voters in 2008: Latino Electorate - Increasing Influence. (dopper0189)

Muskegon Critic argues that stimulus plan money should be used solely for creating American jobs, not allocating some for overseas green technology in And Here I Thought There Was a Blue/Green Alliance. (BentLiberal)

jimluce describes the inspirational work that Orphans International does to help children in crisis via an interview with Jacques Africot: Haitian NGO Leader on Orphan Care. (vcmvo2)

Avenging Angel studies the past and predicts that For Midterms, Republicans Hope to Party Like It's 1966. (jennyjem)

LiberatedClownwrites about citizen activism in TX Residents fight against gas drilling next to a hospital. (BentLiberal)

The Red Pen digs through the rubble, finds some choice tidbits, and quickly calls "B.S." in RedState Morning B.S., Nov. 9, 2009: Fall Like a Wall. (jennyjem)

What are the hidden environmental, health, and economic costs of eating beef? Eddie C gives us plenty of food for thought in This Ecological Action Diary is Not As Dull As You Think. (Louisiana 1976)

jotter has High Impact Diaries: November 8, 2009.

virgomusic brings tonight's Top Comments - Musically Verklempt Edition.

Enjoy and please promote your own favorite diaries from the past twenty-four hours in this Open Thread!

Polling and Political Wrap-Up, 11/9/09

BarbinMD — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:30:04 +0000

As expected, the new week brings a smattering of polling data (mostly of the primary election variety), as people start finally boxing up all of their 2009 Election decorations and moving onward to the next trip to the ballot box.

CA-Gov/CA-Sen: New LA Times/USC Poll Shows Intriguing '10 Landscape
There is no shortage of things to ponder in the new numbers coming out this week from the new poll sponsored by the Los Angeles Times and USC. In the survey, which was actually conducted by the D/R combo plate of GQR (the pollsters behind Democracy Corps) and Public Opinion Strategies, the presumptive GOP frontrunner to face Barbara Boxer, former tech exec Carly Fiorina, finds herself in fairly deep trouble. Not only does she have a reasonably strong incumbent (Boxer stands at +13 net favorable--49/36--which the Times notes is about where she was for each of her three Senate wins to date), but Fiorina herself has weak numbers. Her favorability spread is net negative (9/12), and she finds herself in a tie in the GOP primary against little-known state legislator Chuck DeVore, a favorite of the right-wing.

On the gubernatorial side, likely Democratic nominee Jerry Brown, the former governor and current state Attorney General, has a fairly strong +17 spread in his favorabilities (44/27), which is considerably better than his less popular (though also less well-known) potential GOP rivals. In a trial heat of the GOP gubernatorial primary, former E-Bay executive Meg Whitman leads the field with 35%, but former Congressman Tom Campbell looms not far behind at 27%. As with other polls, state Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner lags well behind, at 10% in this particular poll.

RI-Gov: Chafee Poll Hints 2010 Could Be Independent's Day
With the traditional and necessary caveat that this IS an internal poll, and thus should be taken with several grains of salt, we get the first real set of numbers out of what promises to be a very interesting gubernatorial race in the state of Rhode Island. Former Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee, who was often at odds with his party and only barely survived a Club for Growth fueled primary challenge for his Senate seat in 2006, has a poll from Alpha Associates taken late in October. Against either of the likely Democratic candidates (state Attorney General Patrick Lynch or state Treasurer Frank Caprio) and newly minted GOP candidate Rory Smith, Chafee holds a lead. Against the more conservative Democratic candidate (Caprio), Chafee's lead is well within the margin of error (36-34-8). Against Lynch, Chafee takes a bigger lead as social conservatives edge over to the little-known GOP candidate (37-24-15).

NV-Gov: Is Gibbons Dead Meat in GOP Primary? New Poll Says "Yes"
A new poll sponsored by conservative Nevada political strategist Chuck Muth, and conducted by a mystery pollster of sorts called PMI, Inc., shows that incumbent Republican Governor Jim Gibbons would be the underdog in a potential GOP primary with former state Attorney General (and federal judge) Brian Sandoval. The poll, which for some reason felt the need to poll nearly 5000 Nevada Republicans (hello, overkill!), gave Sandoval a 36-24 lead over Gibbons, with North Las Vegas Mayor Mike Mantandon well back at 7%. The assumption, of course, is that Gibbons would make a much easier general election target than Sandoval, given that (a) Gibbons has been an incumbent governor in trying times for state executives (look at the poll numbers for incumbent Governors. Unless your name is Mike Beebe or Brian Schweitzer, they're pretty dismal) and (b) Gibbons' tenure in office had already been something of a train wreck.

2009 Post-Mortem: So Did Turnout Matter...Or Not?
Two fairly prominent polling entities are out today with intriguing reads on what led to the Republican victories in New Jersey and Virginia's gubernatorial races last week. The pollsters at Greenberg Quinlan Rosner (GQR) used post-election survey data to reveal that a core group of Democratic-friendly voters (which they refer to as the RAE--Rising American Electorate) chose not to participate in 2009, to the detriment of Democratic candidates. On the other hand, Pollster's Charles Franklin chimes in, as well. His thesis--changes in vote preference played a much greater role in the outcomes on November 3rd than a mere selective reduction in turnout.

IN OTHER NEWS....

Quite a bit of breaking news from late in this afternoon. The biggest news comes out of the land of the Nutmeggers, where incumbent Republican Governor Jodi Rell is retiring, rather than seeking re-election. There are several Democrats already in the field (with 2006 Senate nominee Ned Lamont being the most recent entrant). As for Republicans, the best bet is that Rell's Lt. Governor, Michael Fedele, will carry the banner for the GOP.

In other late breaking Monday news, it looks like Colorado Governor Bill Ritter will not benefit from watching the GOP candidates bash each other into oblivion--state legislator Josh Penry is backing out of a gubernatorial bid, in all likelihood leaving the nomination to former Congressman Scott McInnis.

Today was the day for Illinois Democratic Congressman Danny Davis, who filed for both re-election to Congress and for the Presidency of the Cook County Board of Commissioners, to pick one. Davis did: he is seeking re-election to Congress.

Absolutely no one will be surprised to hear or see this, but the Club For Growth, having clubbed DeDe Scozzafava (and costing the GOP a House seat in the bargain), has picked their next victim: Florida Governor Charlie Crist. They officially endorsed insurgent candidate Marco Rubio.

Speaking of potential targets for the Club for Growth, here is one: once anyone can figure out what New Hampshire Republican frontrunner Kelly Ayotte stands for, that is. A conservative alternative candidate, 1996 gubernatorial nominee Ovide Lamontagne, announced today that he is in.

Conservative Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff's decision to back off of a primary challenge to US Senator Bob Bennett only bought the incumbent a temporary reprieve. Two other Republicans are now sounding out possible bids. Both lack Shurtleff's name recognition, but both have some official GOP pedigree: one was a 2004 gubernatorial nominee, the other a lawyer in former Governor Jon Huntsman's counsel's office.

Speaking of the Nevada Governor's race, here is a bit of potentially dispiriting news. It looks like Rory Reid, whose polling numbers have been a disappointment, is the only game in town for Democrats. Oscar Goodman, while still not committed to a gubernatorial bid, has apparently decided that if he goes, it will be as an Independent, rather than a Democrat.

A quick hit in the Burlington Free Press blog, VT Buzz, makes a potentially game-saving point for the Democrats in the open-seat contest to replace Republican Governor Jim Douglas--if Anthony Pollina, who has scored major percentages in the past as the Progressive Party candidate in the past, elects to run for Governor, it appears it will be as a Democrat.

Wow...here is a shocker, a potentially serious candidate who is not running for Governor of Minnesota next year.

Maddow MTP highlights

BarbinMD — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:46:04 +0000

Rachel Maddow once again made the Meet the Press panel discussion worth watching yesterday, putting the 2009 elections in context, making the case against the Stupak Amendment, and arguing that Democrats and President Obama shouldn't try to please the GOP on jobs and Afghanistan because no matter what we do, Republicans will fight us.

Here's a highlight reel:

Abortion, Lieberman, and Reid

BarbinMD — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:00:04 +0000

So Joe's at it again, being with us on everything that matters, except the war and comprehensive healthcare reform. BTW, he's still lying about it. Ezra's much nicer about it, saying that maybe Lieberman has some special knowledge about how the public really will increase the deficit, while every economic analysis complete says the exact opposite. Ezra gives him the benefit of the doubt, probably because he's trying to get an interview from him, and can't that Joe knows he's lying about this and doesn't care because he's an unprincipled sack of shit.

Which leads us to Harry Reid, as the ball is now firmly in his court, if the CBO ever finishes.

Just after the House vote at 11 p.m. on Nov. 7, Obama released a statement urging the Senate to act. He repeated that message Sunday, telling reporters: "Now it falls on the United States Senate to take the baton and bring this effort to the finish line on behalf of the American people. And I’m absolutely confident that they will."

However, the Senate has been in a holding pattern on its overhaul, with Reid and other Democrats saying Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates have been the biggest holdup. Reid has not released the Democrats’ bill, which will combine measures produced by the Finance Committee and the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee....

Even with the absence of CBO scores, Senate Democrats are still working to get the 60 votes they will need to move past a cloture vote on their bill. To that end, Reid and Durbin are likely to spend this week meeting with their colleagues.

Forget 60, Harry. Any compromise you have to make with Lieberman (and now Nelson and Casey on abortion) ain't gonna be worth it. Get serious about this and start, at the very least, making reconciliation a real threat. Go back to the Schumer split bill plan from this summer before Kennedy's seat was filled:

Are you planning on having an interim appointment from Massachusetts?

No, I don’t know. That would be up to the Massachusetts state legislature but I know they’re considering it. Ah, so, so the bottom line is that even with 60 or even if Olympia Snowe comes to some kind of agreement, it’s going to be hard, and I’ve always favored using reconciliation for good parts of the bill. I think that will get you the best bill, the strongest bill and the bill that will have the greatest positive effect on the American people. Ultimately, we’ll be judged not by whether we pass the bill, but ultimately we’ll be judged by whether it works. Leaving the bill as something that doesn’t work, even if we pass it, leading to hurting both the country and the party.

Is it possible that using reconciliation will produce an ineffective bill, because of procedural problems like the Byrd rule?

We’ve looked at it and you can’t use reconciliation for everything, [but] you can use it for a good number of things. There’s nothing wrong with using it for the places where you can use it and then trying to get the 60 votes on the places where when you can’t. You’d be surprised — the number of places where you can use it is larger than we first thought.

Use it. Use reconciliation for the good parts of hte bill and pass the other critical insurance reforms, which are not controversial (despite the fact that Boehner forgot to include them in his bill) through the regular 60 vote process. We have a better chance of getting a strong public option and killing the Stupak Coathanger amendment this way.

But Reid's got to have the spine to do it. And once he does that, the spine to get the caucus to do what it needed to do months ago--cut Lieberman loose.

Why This Economic Recovery is Destined for Disaster

The Agonist - thoughtful, global, timely — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:48:15 +0000

A most revealing comment was made today by The Maestro, Alan Greenspan, speaking at a conference in Alberta on energy and the global economy:

We have been very fortunate that the stock markets moved back and are re-liquifying the whole process.

He pointed to the “wealth effect” created by a rising stock market, especially when investors cash in their capital gains.

In olden times, before Alan Greenspan spent over a decade as Federal Reserve Chairman, Fed officials worried about the growth in money supply, the level of prices in the economy, unemployment, and the strength of the dollar overseas. In fact, if you read the enabling legislation for the Fed, these are the things the Board of Governors should be concentrating on.

Greenspan of course is no longer the Chairman of the Federal Reserve – his protégé Ben Bernanke is. For the most part, when he was Chairman he never spoke about the stock market for fear of influencing its direction. Now that he is a private citizen, he can blurt out whatever he wants to say, and how illuminating it is to hear him talk about the stock market “re-liquifying” the economy.

Not for nothing was he given the sobriquet “Bubbles Greenspan” when he was in office. Economists, Fed watchers, traders, investors – all sorts of people suspected Greenspan never met a financial bubble he didn’t like. He cheered on the 1990s tech bubble as an example of a paradigm shift in the economy. He sat back idly while the housing bubble in this decade blew out of all proportions. The best he could say was that central bankers were helpless in the face of growing financial market distortions, and all they could do was clean up the mess afterwards.

The reality was that he encouraged these bubbles through deliberate inaction. After the end of the tech bubble he was terrified of deflation, pushed interest rates to 1%, and kept them there long enough for a housing bubble to ignite. He gave speeches encouraging home buyers to take out adjustable rate mortgages – the type that have blown up disastrously in the face of thousands of homeowners. He wanted the explosion in consumer spending that resulted from the housing bubble. He didn’t care if he caused asset inflation, as long as it didn’t seep into the general price levels of the economy.

Were he still at the Fed, he’d obviously be very pleased with the stock market recovery this year, because it makes people more confident, it gives them the illusion of being wealthier, and in some cases if they cash in their gains, it gives them real money to spend. Maybe he’d be happy with the weak dollar, and the fact that the infamous “carry trade” has moved from Japan to the U.S. Now the speculators of the world borrow dollars at 0%, driving the exchange rate down for the dollar, and they invest in the hottest commodities, like gold, Chinese real estate, oil, equity markets everywhere, high yield bonds, and even mortgage backed securities.

Does Ben Bernanke believe in the re-liquifying dreams of The Maestro? In the infamous words of Sarah Palin, “You Betcha!” Just look at his actions. He has pushed interest rates to zero and said they will stay there for a long, long time. He is knowingly encouraging the carry trade and devaluing the dollar. Neither the Fed nor the Treasury has lifted a finger to support the dollar on the exchange markets. He has thrown trillions of dollars at the banks and encouraged them to revive their speculative practices from a few years ago before the crash. He is trying desperately to get the securitization business up and running again, and he would love the hedge fund and leveraged buyout boys to get back into the equity extraction game.

Of course, he would also love to see more controls on leverage this time, smaller bonuses being paid to bankers, and less swagger emanating from Wall Street, but he’s not pressing too hard on these points. The important thing is to get the economy back to where it was before 2007. Nor is he alone in this desire; the G-20 countries this weekend said the same thing – it is way too early to remove the excessive liquidity that has been pumped into the global economy.

This stock market rally is therefore both welcome and engineered by our financial masters. So is the bubble in gold, the collapse of the dollar, and in Asia, the construction of even more high rises and industrial parks that are destined to remain empty.

Not a single lesson has been learned from the market collapse last year. Every effort is being made to avoid letting anyone suffer any pain for their mistakes. The great global reflation that is underway is nothing but a repeat of the bubble-inducing liquidity push that occurred at the start of this decade. The whole effort is a tremendous gamble – a hope that real and substantive economic activity will be ignited by all this speculative activity.

But remember what Greenspan said is the end result of the stock market rally – a “wealth effect” – spending on vacations, McMansions, luxury automobiles, and other goodies for the wealthy who happen to own an equity portfolio. You yourself won’t be getting a decent raise in your salary; it certainly didn’t happen during the last two bubbles. The cost of education or medical care isn’t going down. In short, the real economy is not going to rebound based on the most recent bubbles.

Inevitably these bubbles too must burst. Where will we be then? For one thing, there will be a lot of embarrassed economists, almost all of whom now are predicting a slow but steady recovery, because that’s what the Leading Economic Indicators say, along with the stock market, credit spreads, and all the usual auguries. Few people are willing to say “this time is different”, but it really is different. The old tools of the past don’t work anymore. We are not suffering through a typical recession caused by overinvestment, excess inventories, and so on. This is much rarer – a recession caused by the collapse of credit, by too much outstanding debt that must now be paid or defaulted on, by deflation, and by a government that won’t be there this time to lift us up.

Perhaps then our central bankers will learn that asset bubbles are just another form of inflation, one that benefits a few of the wealthiest in the world, and hardly anyone else. Unfortunately, when an asset bubble bursts, we all share the pain.

Obama: Hyde Is the Limit

BarbinMD — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:30:03 +0000

The key passage in the Obama-Tapper interview, in which Obama said that Congress needs to change the Stupak Coathanger amendment, is this:

"I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill," Obama said. "And we're not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions."

Saying the bill cannot change the status quo regarding the ban on federally funding abortions, the President said "there are strong feelings on both sides" about an amendment passed on Saturday and added to the legislation, "and what that tells me is that there needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we're not changing the status quo."
...

"I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test -- that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, but, on the other hand, that we're not restricting women's insurance choices," he said.

I hope he follows up those remarks with phone calls to Ben Nelson and Bob Casey, because they're working on their own version of Stupak as we speak. Stupak goes well beyond Hyde, as President Obama iterates in this interview--this bill is not intended to change Hyde.

The House bill already had Hyde language established, this amendment was superfluous and little more than attempt to make political hay off of a critical issue, to either try to kill healthcare reform altogether, or to set up a vote where a handful can still brag about how conservative they are back home, but not to have to vote against a highly popular bill.

Both Senate reform bills contain Hyde language as well, with the SFC creating a firewall between the financing and the HELP committee leaving it up to the HHS Secretary to determine the policy within the confines of Hyde. It remains to be seen if Obama's warning will be enough to keep the Senate from following the House's lead, but if they're paying attention to their President, and if they're paying attention to their base, they'll leave well enough alone on this one.

What’s Really Pissing Me Off

BarbinMD — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:01:29 +0000

(Promoted from the diaries - SusanG)

"Irrational." "Hypersensitive." "Overreacting." "Hysterical."

Women recognize these words all too well. They're put-downs many of them have had thrown at them all their lives anytime they raise issues about their treatment in relationships, school, the workplace or society at large.

These words and others of similar ilk have found their way into diaries and comments here at Daily Kos yesterday and today around the abomination known as the Stupak-Pitts Amendment. Calm down, little lady, is the tone. Get real. Be adults. Doncha know how politics really works?

Pffffffft.

Many of these sexist critiques are then followed up by a distortion of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment itself, all of which amounts to the view that this is no big deal, that it does nothing more than the Hyde Amendment, the sexist, classist abomination that has been on the books in one form or another since 1976. In fact, as mcjoan pointed out earlier today, the Stupak-Pitts coathanger amendment goes a good deal further than Hyde.

So besides engaging in put-downs, the patronizers have it dead wrong. This isn't a tempest in a teapot. It matters. And it matters big time, as at least 40 members of Congress led by Colorado Rep. Diana DeGette have made pretty damn clear. If the Democratic leadership doesn't come to grips with this, they're heading the party for big trouble next November, an election month that already may be a difficult time for the party given the state of an economy that may be getting better on paper but is, at best, many months away from even beginning to trickle down to where people actually live their lives.

Even those who aren't willing to back off from their cries of "irrational" and "too much emo" ought to recognize the anti-utilitarian nature of their views that Stupak-Pitts is a no-consequence blip. Money, organizing time, phone bank participation, precinct walking and, on election day, votes are going to be in much shorter supply in November than would otherwise be the case unless something is done to strip this amendment in the Senate-House conference. Right now, the prospects for that are dicey.

About five minutes after the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade, the anti-abortion forces began a war on the rights confirmed by that decision. But their molester-enabling, coathanger-selling, health-shattering, woman-hating, forced-pregnancy campaign was two-pronged, a direct assault but also an asymmetrical war, a nibble here, a nibble there.

And at every step of the way, some people who claimed they were pro-choice said that this little nibble or that little nibble wasn't such a big deal. It only affected a small group of people or it was only the case rarely, we were told. The activists who challenged these nibbles were characterized as "hypersensitive," "irrational," and "over-reacting." Not by their enemies. But by their supposed allies.

Over the decades, while engaging in a campaign of intimidation, harassment and murder, the anti-abortion movement has managed, nibble by nibble, to get ever-more restrictive legislation into place. Ultimately, the right of affluent women to obtain an abortion hasn't been much affected - except in the case of late-term procedures. But affluent women always had options even when abortion was illegal in every state. They could fly to Puerto Rico or Japan and get a safe abortion there without having to risk potentially lethal chemicals or abortions at the hands of unlicensed doctors or other providers operating on somebody's kitchen table in less than sterile conditions.

Thanks to Hyde, low-income women in most states are still at a disadvantage when it comes to getting an abortion. Stupak-Pitts, if it survives the conference process, will not only reinforce this classist attack on women, it will also broaden it.

Being ferociously opposed to it is, therefore, not irrational or hypersensitive or over-reactive. It's called standing up for progressive values.

Thirty-six years ago, just a couple of months after Roe v. Wade was decided, Dr. Bob MacFarland and 14 more of us got together in Boulder County, Colorado, to set up the Boulder Valley Clinic, now the Boulder Valley Women's Health Clinic. It was the state's first standalone abortion clinic, and one of the first nonprofit abortion clinics in the United States.

We came from various walks of life - physicians, a nurse, two lawyers, a journalist, a professor, a librarian, a minister, two graduate students. Three of us were Republican women, veteran volunteers of Planned Parenthood. Our common goal: to provide women with a place to obtain the safe abortions the Supreme Court had ruled was their constitutional right.

Abortion foes attacked us immediately, incessantly, from the Op-Ed pages of the local newspapers to the halls of the state legislature. Some legislators and city councilmembers, numerous doctors, and, of course, fanatics of the not-yet-named "right-to-life" community did their worst to shut us down.

We were slandered and libeled repeatedly. Aborted fetuses, it was ridiculously claimed, were being dumped in cans in the alley behind the clinic, to be hauled away once a week by garbage trucks. Every member of the board received phoned and written death threats. Tires were slashed. Rocks were thrown through windows. Graffiti was sprayed. In early 1975, the clinic was the first of scores in the nation to be fire-bombed, with a Molotov cocktail. The terrorists struck at night, and either through bad aim or some other miscalculation in the darkness, set our garage on fire, which was quickly extinguished.

Many a day one or more of us stood sentinel while sometimes aggressive foes of the clinic picketed, shouted Bible verses or epithets at patients and staff, or jostled and grabbed women in an attempt to persuade or intimidate them not to follow through on the choice they had made. We filled out dozens of police-incident reports.

Across the nation, similar tactics were adopted. And far worse, of course, as abortion providers were gunned down, just as Dr. George Tiller was last May. The only doctor who openly does late-term abortions now won't sit in a window with the shades open because he's been threatened by some fanatic who told him a bulletproof vest won't do any good because his killer will aim for a head shot.

Over time the number of America's hospitals that perform abortions has dropped to less than 10% and the percentage of counties with abortion providers has dropped to 13%.

In the past decade, nearly 500 state laws have been enacted to restrict choice. Every state has passed at least one such law. More than 2800 abortion-restricting bills have been introduced at the state level, and more than 200 have passed.

For those who might suggest this is one of those damned "social issues" that gets the Democrats in trouble on election day, let's not forget that it's at its core a class war, as Stupak-Pitts makes quite clear. Affluent women will always find a way to find a safe and legal abortion. Insurance or no insurance.

Stupak-Pitts may only be another nibble, but it is the cumulative effect that matters. Eventually, lots of little nibbles equal the entire pie. Those who say our vigorous, uncompromising opposition to it is an irrational overreaction ought to be ashamed of themselves.

‘Muslim Mafia’ author ordered to remove documents from Web

mcclatchydc.com: Latest headlines — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:57:00 +0000

WASHINGTON — A federal judge has taken the rare step of ordering self-described anti-terrorism investigator Paul David Gaubatz to remove from his Web site some of the 12,000 documents that his son allegedly stole from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Late afternoon/early evening open thread

BarbinMD — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:40:03 +0000

What you missed on Sunday Kos ....

In The Case for Karen Armstrong, Devilstower reviewed The Case for God, which is "entertaining and informative" theological analysis--and a post, incidentally, that had (ahem) spirited discussion in the 1,000+ comments.

In Interview with Elon Musk, DarkSyde discussed technology, innovation, space exploration and energy with Musk, who cofounded PayPal, SpaceX and Tesla Motors.

In H1N1: More Illness, A Bit More Vaccine, Bruised Intentions, DemFromCT reviewed the controversy swirling around vaccine availability (particularly on Wall Street).

In The Kids Are Alright: Some Thoughts About Same-Sex Marriage, Steve Singiser reflected on discussions with his children about the meaning of marriage and found reason to hope for the prospect of acceptance of gay marriage in the future.

In The Future of Marriage Equality in New Hampshire, Laura Clawson laid out all the reasons why the future of gay marriage in the Granite State faces a much different probable outcome than what happened in Maine last week.

Nancy Garrido’s defense attorney removed from Dugard case

mcclatchydc.com: Latest headlines — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:22:00 +0000

Nancy Garrido's court-appointed attorney has been removed from the case, pending a possible appeal later this month, court records indicate.

Republicans hope for influence in Senate health debate

mcclatchydc.com: Latest headlines — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:16:00 +0000

WASHINGTON — Republicans Monday had new hope that they could influence health care deliberations — influence that's so far eluded them — as the debate moves to the Senate, where the rules and the politics can work to their advantage.

Iran charges strayed U.S. hikers with spying

mcclatchydc.com: Latest headlines — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:14:00 +0000

ISTANBUL, Turkey - Iran has charged three Americans with espionage, after they strayed during a hiking trip in northern Iraq this past July, in a move likely to complicate U.S. overtures toward Iran.

Obama: “This is a health care bill, not an abortion bill”

BarbinMD — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:08:47 +0000

The President throws down the gauntlet:

President Obama said today that Congress needs to change abortion-related language in the health care bill passed by the House of Representatives this weekend.

President tells Jake Tapper he's working to overcome "tough hand" he was dealt.

"I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill," Obama said. "And we're not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions.

Now it's up to the Democratic leadership to remember why we've been fighting for health care reform for more than forty years -- and it wasn't to appease a handful of Blue Dogs by restricting women's reproductive rights.

Kudos, President Obama.

For more discussion, see Drdemocrat's diary.

Murdoch: Glenn Beck Was ‘Right’ To Say Obama Is ‘A Racist’ With ‘A Deep-Seated Hatred For White People’

Matt Corley — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:00:37 +0000

After President Obama inserted himself into the July spat between Prof. Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and Officer Jim Crowley, Glenn Beck infamously declared on Fox & Friends that Obama “exposed himself” with the incident “as a guy, over and over and over again, who has a deep-seated hatred for white people, or white culture.” Challenged [...]

Life without parole unconstitutional for teens, Supreme Court told

mcclatchydc.com: Latest headlines — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000

WASHINGTON — Florida's tough prison sentences for juveniles came under scrutiny Monday at the U.S. Supreme Court, as the justices appeared divided over whether locking up teenagers for life constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

One More Reason to Kill this Bill – 40 Million “Health” Criminals

The Agonist - thoughtful, global, timely — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:44:43 +0000

At least two provisions in the House health reform bill are very troubling, the de facto repeal of Roe v. Wade and this. In a powerful post on the Welcome Back to Pottersville, poster Jurassicpork laid it out. This is as clear and logical a statement as I've seen on the utter contempt that Congress has for the people. We're creating a new criminal class, people who can't afford health insurance. The solution - fines and prison. All thanks to the Money Party which has reached depths previously unimaginable. Well worth a read. Michael Collins

Congress Pulls the Trigger

From: Welcome Back to Pottersville blog. Posted by jurassicpork

In the dead of Saturday night, the House passed their version of a health reform bill that, frankly, makes Max Baucus’ first health care proposal look like a bleeding heart liberal/socialist piece of legislation by conspicuous relief. One of the most alarming aspects of HR 3962, that passed 220-215 (219 Democrats and one Republican voted for it) are the purely evil sections 7203 and 7201. The less evil of these sections, 7203, calls for $25,000 in fines and up to a year imprisonment for “defying” the federal mandate for getting insurance. That's the misdemeanor. The felony? A quarter of a million dollars in fines and up to five years in prison.

And those of you who are actually found guilty of the crime of not buying over $100 of health insurance every week will lose their jobs and earning potential. For up to five years, we will not be contributing to anything other than a prison economy. We will not be paying taxes. We will not be paying child support if we already are. And when we get thrown into the prison system, who gets to foot the bill for the health care that we'd defiantly refused to get?
Entire post

Steele against rebuilding America’s infrastracture: “That’s not creating jobs!”

BarbinMD — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:20:03 +0000

On This Week with George Stephanopoulos, RNC Chairman Michael Steele came out swinging against the most popular aspect of the stimulus bill: massive spending to put people to work rebuilding America's crumbling infrastructure.

Even though continuing to invest in infrastructure work has the potential to create millions of private sector jobs, literally paving the way to economic recovery, Steele said he's against it because it is "government contract work" and "that's not creating jobs." Steele was responding to DNC Chairman and Virginia governor Tim Kaine.

Watch:

Transcript:

KAINE: OK, I’m going to answer. George, I’m a governor.

STEELE: The reality of it is...

KAINE: I am a governor, and we have got small businesses all over...

(CROSSTALK)

KAINE: ... small businesses all over Virginia that are doing infrastructure projects because of this stimulus bill. Water and treatment, water and sewage treatment plants, roads. A great example...

STEELE: A government contract work. That’s not creating jobs!

KAINE: Are you kidding me?

STEELE: That’s not...

KAINE: Innovation and construction is very, very important to the economy.

In February, Steele made the same convoluted argument, also on Stephanopolous' show.

Fred Hiatt employs fuzzy math to claim House health bill would bring ‘America a step closer to bankruptcy.’

Igor — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:10:48 +0000

In this morning’s Washington Post, editorial page editor Fred Hiatt argues that the House health care bill “could take America a step closer to bankruptcy” and harm “the poor and vulnerable.” But since the CBO’s analysis of the House health care bill doesn’t support Hiatt’s contention that it would bring America to the brink [...]

Policies for LGBT community quietly pass in health reform bill

Andy Birkey — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:51:19 +0000

While abortion politics dominated conservative opposition to the health care reform package that barely passed the U.S. House on Saturday evening, several measures in the bill that are beneficial to LGBT Americans largely went unnoticed -- especially by conservatives.

Anti-reform doctors seeking to rescind AMA endorsement are led by front group with insurer, GOP ties.

Lee Fang — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:35:29 +0000

The House passed historic comprehensive health insurance reform on Saturday with the help of endorsements from hundreds of community organizations, including the American Medical Association. However, the Wall Street Journal is reporting that former AMA president Donald Palmisano is leading an effort to force the AMA to rescind its endorsement of the bill. As ThinkProgress [...]

FL-Sen: Wasn’t the Club already backing Rubio?

BarbinMD — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:32:03 +0000

From the folks who gave us an extra public option vote in NY-23:

The Club for Growth’s political action committee announced Monday it is endorsing former Florida state House Speaker Marco Rubio (R) in the state’s open Senate race.

The Club has been sharply critical of the race’s frontrunner, Republican Gov. Charlie Crist, from the outset, and last week debuted an advertisement against him.

I thought they had done this months ago.

Gov. Charlie Crist has more money than god, but is getting trounced by Rubio in conservative media and grassroots straw polls. As I've said ever since this picture was taken, this race won't even be close:

It's their version of our own Lieberman-Bush "kiss", and no way Crist survives it. And unlike many of its other efforts, this isn't a bad call for the Club. The Democrats don't have much of a candidate, and while Rubio is a teabagger, he's still within electability bounds in Florida. So while Crist would be a guaranteed lock on the seat (absent any skeletons coming out during the race -- pun not intended), Rubio would still be favored if he emerges from the primary, and that makes it a smart play for conservatives.

Franken speaks out on employment discrimination

Andy Birkey — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:10:39 +0000

Sen. Al Franken spoke at a Senate hearing on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) on Thursday. ENDA, which is vociferously opposed by the religious right, would make it illegal to fire somebody because of their sexual orientation. Franken sits on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee which held the first hearing the bill has [...]

Will Norm Coleman be next victim of guv-race ‘buzz’ kill?

Chris Steller — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:07:06 +0000

There’s the well-known Sports Illustrated curse that has seen athletes as mighty as Joe Mauer struggle soon after they appear on the magazine’s cover. Now for the bevy of Minnesota politicians hovering around the soon-to-be-open governor’s seat, a hex seems to descend once a “buzz” is detected. The first to fall was St. Paul Mayor Chris [...]