Thank you, Paul Krugman, who has brought the danger of this rhetoric into sharp focus.
[via Avedon at Atrios' place]
My blog has moved!
You should be automatically redirected in 6 seconds. If not, visit
http://madamab.wordpress.com
and update your bookmarks.
My first blog! My title comes from a response to one of my comments at Eschaton. I thought it was a great compliment, and will endeavor to live up to it by posting as thoughtfully as I can. Of course, every now and then a rant may appear. But it will be a nuanced rant!
RAWALPINDI, Pakistan - Pakistan opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was assassinated Thursday in a suicide attack that also killed at least 20 others at the end of a campaign rally, aides said.So much for the only leader who could challenge Musharraf's power in Pakistan.
"The surgeons confirmed that she has been martyred," Bhutto's lawyer Babar Awan said.
After the Democratic Party regained control of Congress, many – myself included – thought that it might be possible to meet President Bush half-way on the large issues facing our nation. Unfortunately, Bush has been nothing more than an ideological obstacle. He has vetoed stem cell research. He has vetoed efforts to bring our troops home from Iraq. He vetoed children's health care. So, the idea that we are somehow inhibiting Congress from passing our agenda by holding impeachment hearings – unfortunately – is a false argument.
Instead, I believe that we can both live up to our Constitutional obligation by holding hearings and pass a Democratic agenda. If President Bush perceives that the Democratic Congress is weak and unwilling to aggressively push our agenda – he will continue to veto legislation, such as children's health care – that is supported by a majority of Americans. The only way to move a progressive Democratic agenda is by acting through strength and following through on our core principles. A Congress willing to stand up to the abuses of the Bush Administration through impeachment hearings will demonstrate a strength of will that will more likely convince Bush to accommodate on issues such as Iraq, health care, and energy and environmental issues.
EC: But should his conciliatory tone really be the basis to this extent of our evaluation of him? Some, including Matthew Yglesias, have argued that this focus on Obama's conciliatory rhetoric obscures the fact that Obama would still more likely prove a genuinely progressive president than Hillary would be.You mean, someone's actually reading her policy proposals and comparing them to Obama's? What is this, fact-based journamalism or something?
PK: What evidence is there that she would be especially bad for the progressive movement? For what it's worth, Hillary's actual policy proposals are more aggressive than Obama's.
EC: What about on foreign policy? You could argue that Hillary is less willing to challenge old rhetorical frames on foreign policy, and that with her rhetoric and stuff like her Kyl-Lieberman vote, she's ceding turf at the outset on foreign policy the same way Obama is on health care.
PK: I guess I've been going on the view that no Democrat is not going to end this war, and no Democrat is going to start another war. I have not felt that foreign policy is the defining issue in the race to the nomination. Whether we're going to get universal health care is much more of a question.
EC: But surely there's something to the argument that the skills to build coalitions, to win over moderates on the other side, aren't without any importance. Should we really take tone and rhetorical skills out of the equation entirely?Damn, freaking, 100% right, and points I've made on this blog many times.
PK: No, but there aren't any moderates on the other side. And as far as sounding moderate goes, the reality is that if the Democrats nominated Joe Lieberman, a month into the general election Republicans would be portraying him as Josef Stalin. Obama's actually been positioning himself to the right of both Clinton and Edwards on domestic policy and has been attacking them from the right. [emphasis added]
The Democratic nominee is still going to be running on a platform that is substantially to the left of how Bill Clinton governed, and the Republican is going to nominate someone to the right of Attila the Hun. You want the Dem who's going to make that difference clear and not say things that will be used by Republicans to say, "Well, even their candidate says..."
And after the election, if you come in after having opposed mandates and having said Social Security is in a crisis, then you're going to have some problems fending off Republican attacks on health care and The Washington Post's demands that you make Social Security a top priority. Mostly it's a question of what happens after the election.
While the rest of the pack talks and panders and bickers and poses, Chris Dodd takes the time to step away from the Iowa circus and actually work for the good of the people. And who is he working against? George W. Bush and Harry Reid. Now that, Mr. Lieberman, is non-partisan. Something for Connecticut to be proud of.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
O.K., more seriously, it’s actually Mr. Obama who’s being unrealistic here, believing that the insurance and drug industries — which are, in large part, the cause of our health care problems — will be willing to play a constructive role in health reform. The fact is that there’s no way to reduce the gross wastefulness of our health system without also reducing the profits of the industries that generate the waste.Bingo! That is exactly the problem with Senator Obama's "new kind of politics." The corporations have a stranglehold on our government, Barack, and they're not giving it up for the sake of your smile, as charming as it is.
As a result, drug and insurance companies — backed by the conservative movement as a whole — will be implacably opposed to any significant reforms. And what would Mr. Obama do then? “I’ll get on television and say Harry and Louise are lying,” he says. I’m sure the lobbyists are terrified.
As health care goes, so goes the rest of the progressive agenda. Anyone who thinks that the next president can achieve real change without bitter confrontation is living in a fantasy world. [emphasis added]
Which brings me to a big worry about Mr. Obama: in an important sense, he has in effect become the anti-change candidate.
Numbers like this have to really hurt Rudy Giuliani's strategy, as Florida has been one of the few January contests where he was polling well recently. In addition, it says a lot about Huckabee's fellow Southern candidate, Fred Thompson — he used to lead or come in a close second here, but is now down to 9%.For a long time, the press has completely ignored the fact that despite his strong national poll numbers, Rudy simply is not a good fit for today's Republic party. Granted, his authoritarianism is attractive to people who still support Bush, and certainly he is a foreign policy neocon like Cheney who would love to bomb something just to watch it die. But clearly, he fails the religious test. Giuliani is on the wrong side of the issues where the evangelicals are concerned; Gays, God and Guns are where he is the most liberal. Ditto for Mitt Romney, who was the governor of liberal Taxachussetts, tortured his dog, and is more of a flip-flopper than a dolphin at Sea World on the triple G's.
The mind, so easily distracted by things mauve and lemon yellow, strays from more pressing concerns to ponder the sartorial: How many pantsuits does Hillary Clinton have in her closet? And does she ever wear them in the same combination more than once?I would comment on this, but I just saw some bright shiny colors....lalalalalalala....
The pantsuit is Clinton's uniform. Hers is a mix-and-match world, a grown-up land of Garanimals: black pants with gray jacket, tan jacket with black pants, tan jacket with tan pants. There are a host of reasons to explain Clinton's attachment to pantsuits. They are comfortable. They can be flattering, although not when the jacket hem aligns with the widest part of the hips (hypothetically speaking, of course). Does she even have hips?Now that is some fantastic stuff. First, the writer infantilizes the Senator by saying she wears Garanimals. And in drab colors, yet - she's so unwomanly, she can't even match tan and tan! (Never mind that Ms. Givhan was just fulminating about the Senator's overly bright colors three sentences before.) The piece de resistance is the last two sentences, though. Her pantsuits are cut unflatteringly over Hillary's hips, which apparently she doesn't have! Dizzyingly brilliant!
And because Clinton seems to prefer crossing her legs at the ankle -- in the way girls were taught when girls were still sent to finishing school -- there is less likelihood of any embarrassing straight-to-YouTube video.Let's not even talk about the fact that these three paragraphs don't seem to be linked, although they follow each other directly in the "article." Help me out with what she is trying to say. Is there something wrong with making sure that your crotch is not plastered all over YouTube? I mean, not that Hillary has one anyone would want to look at, since she's hardly even a woman, and besides which, she's fricking old as the hills, mmmmmkay? Ewwwwwww, how can Bill sleep with a Garanimal-wearing, pants-loving, colorblind, hipless, ancient crone like Hillary?
moar funny pictures
At least there's pretty snow on the ground..."I have said I won't even wait until I'm inaugurated, but as soon as I'm elected I'm going to be asking distinguished Americans of both parties -- people like Colin Powell, for example -- and others who can represent our country well, including someone I know very well," Clinton told the predominantly black audience after receiving the endorsement of dozens of South Carolina ministers.As usual, Senator Clinton is looking ahead to the general election. She knows that, despite the fact that Republics have almost completely destroyed America by being loyal only to their party, Americans still want to believe that our existing two parties can get along and accomplish great things together. Hence, the great success of Barack Obama's campaign, based on the "Can't we all just get along?" concept.
Contacted by ABC News' Teddy Davis, Gen. Colin Powell was tight-lipped Tuesday when asked if he is open to Clinton's invitation.
"I have not seen what she has said. I don't know the context of it," Powell told ABC News. "I have admiration for Mrs. Clinton but I have no comment."
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, intends to resign by the end of the year and join the private sector, sources tell CNN.The Fascists are not even trying to hide what they're all about any more. If you can't benefit from Conservative Cronyism, why bother to be in the government?
Lott is expected to make the announcement Monday in Pascagoula, Mississippi.
A senior Republican source close to Lott said one reason for the decision is the new lobbying restrictions on former lawmakers.
A law kicks in on January 1 that forbids lawmakers from lobbying for two years after leaving office. Those who leave by the end of 2007 are covered by the previous law, which demands a wait of only one year.
Lott, the Republican whip, was elected last year to a fourth term in the Senate. His term lasts until 2012.
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Republican Rudy Giuliani vows to be tough on terror, chooses advisers who want to bomb Iran and doesn't think pretending to drown prisoners is torture.
Add to those views a reputation for being combative, and Giuliani often evokes the word "scary" from opponents who find the tough-guy image that served him so well after the September 11 attacks now a cause for concern as he seeks the U.S. presidency.
Type the word "scary" and names of Republican candidates for president into a leading database of articles. The name of the former New York mayor will get the most hits.
"He is a scary guy," said Jerome Hauer, who ran the city's Office of Emergency Management for Giuliani. "He was probably one of the more divisive mayors the city has ever seen.
"People in this country should be very frightened of Rudy because he is not going to bring the country together," Hauer added. "Who knows who he'd pick wars with?"
As they say ... Breaking News from the Senate.There is nothing more important to me than restoring the Constitution. Chris Dodd is the one who will do it.
Forgive me if some of this is in the weeds, I'll try and make the parliamentary process as painless as possible.
1. Within the last hour, the Senate Judiciary Committee just reported out a FISA bill that DOES NOT include retroactive immunity for the telecom companies that helped the Bush Administration spy on Americans.
2. This means the Judiciary bill moves to the full Senate WITHOUT the dangerous language included.
3. Retroactive immunity will, however, surely be introduced as an amendment to the FISA bill.
4. If needed Senator Dodd will filibuster any amendment seeking to add retroactive immunity to the underlying bill. By filibustering, he will force the opposition to find 60 votes to pass the provision.
It will be a lot more difficult for those who would enable the erosion of our Constitution to find the 60 votes necessary to stop immunity on its own than it would be for us to find the 40 needed to sustain a filibuster of the bill as a whole if it included immunity.
Today is a great victory for all of us -- and another example of Chris Dodd's leadership.
If it wasn't for our efforts, together, retroactive immunity would be well on its way to sailing through the Senate ... largely unnoticed.
The Justice Department has reopened a long-dormant inquiry into the government's warrantless wiretapping program, a major policy shift only days into the tenure of Attorney General Michael Mukasey.
The investigation by the department's Office of Professional Responsibility was shut down last year, after the investigators were denied security clearances. Gonzales told Congress that President Bush, not he, denied the clearances.
"We recently received the necessary security clearances and are now able to proceed with our investigation," H. Marshall Jarrett, counsel for the OPR, wrote to Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y. A copy of the letter, dated Tuesday, was obtained by The Associated Press.
Hinchey and other Democrats have long sought an investigation into the spying program to see if it complies with the law. Efforts to investigate the program have been rebuffed by the Bush administration.
"I am happily surprised," Hinchey said. "It now seems because we have a new attorney general the situation has changed. Maybe this attorney general understands that his obligation is not to be the private counsel to the president but the chief law enforcement officer for the entire country."
WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Sunday she does not believe a Senate resolution authorizes President Bush to take military action against Iran.Now, I'm not saying that I believe Condi Rice, or any of these lying Fascists. Jeebus forbid! There could be many nefarious motives behind this statement. Who knows - maybe the Bushies are trying to spike Senator Clinton's campaign by drawing parallels between what Hillary is saying and what Rice is saying about Iran.
"There is nothing in this particular resolution that would suggest that from our point of view. And, clearly, the president has also made very clear that he's on a diplomatic path where Iran comes into focus," Rice said.
The Senate in late September voted 76-22 in favor of a resolution urging the State Department to designate Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization.
While the resolution, by Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., attracted overwhelming bipartisan support, a small group of Democrats said they feared labeling the state-sponsored organization a terrorist group could be interpreted as a congressional authorization of military force in Iran.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was the only Senate Democrat running for president to support the measure. Her rivals have argued that Bush could use it to justify war with Iran. Clinton insists her vote would not support military strikes and instead was a vote for stepped-up diplomacy.
On Sunday, Rice echoed that view. She said Bush was focused on diplomatic options - not waging war.
WASHINGTON - Barack Obama sparked a generational fight Wednesday by trashing White House rival Hillary Clinton for being too old to unite America, saying she and others her age have fought the same tired fights for too long.
"I think there's no doubt that we represent the kind of change that Sen. Clinton can't deliver on, and part of it is generational," Obama, 46, said on Fox News. "Sen. Clinton and others, they've been fighting some of the same fights since the '60s, and it makes it very difficult for them to bring the country together to get things done."
Experts and opponents pounced, saying Obama's remarks could offend the most reliable voters, people older than 50 - especially in early-voting Iowa. "You are counting precisely on an older group of Democrats in Iowa," said Iowa State University's Steffen Schmidt. "You can't tell them they're backward-looking. Somebody should be fired in his campaign."
To the Chairman and Members of the Judiciary Committee,If you are so inclined, click here to write your own letter or call the Committee. Do whatever you can - just let them know that there is no more important business than removing Dick Cheney from office.
If you are really interested in stopping the bombing of Iran, you will consider this impeachment resolution without delay. There is nothing more important than stopping the lawless warmongering of this out-of-control Executive.
Thank you.
Democrats wrested control of the Senate from the Republicans in yesterday's legislative elections, picking up the four seats they needed to give them a majority of at least 21 to 19 and end a decade of GOP dominance in the chamber.
Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) claimed victory in a celebration at Tysons Corner. The Republicans retained control of the House, but the Democrats also gained seats there. The party's surge will help the governor advance much of his agenda during his last two years in office, including investing more in education, health and the environment.
"It's an exciting time," Kaine said in interview. "It enables me to get even more done."
Politically wounded and unable to find a compelling message to voters, Gov. Ernie Fletcher failed to win a second four-year term as Kentuckians overwhelmingly swept Democrat Steve Beshear into office Tuesday.The Fascists, thanks to their oh-so-brilliant strategy of playing only to their extreme rightwing base, are finally starting to achieve the permanent minority status they so richly deserve.
Beshear, a lieutenant governor and attorney general in the 1980s, completed an unlikely political comeback by winning the governor’s office — a position he sought unsuccessfully 20 years ago.
He defeated Fletcher by about 17 percentage points, according to unofficial returns.
Thirty US senators wrote to President George W. Bush Thursday, warning he had no authority to launch military action against Iran, and expressing concern about the administration's "provocative" rhetoric.My feelings on this are mixed. I'm very happy that these Senators are now on record opposing Bush and his insane warmongering. But why did they give Bush the slightest encouragement in the first place? And what will they do if he bombs Iran anyway?
The senators, 29 Democrats and one independent, urged the resolution of disputes with the Islamic Republic through diplomacy.
"We wish to emphasize that no congressional authority exists for unilateral military action against Iran," the letter signed by senators including presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Joseph Biden said.
The letter warned that a resolution passed by the Senate in September, calling for the designation of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist group, should not be used as a pretext for war.
It hit out at "provocative statements and actions" by the administration on Iran, after Bush last month warned Tehran must be barred from nuclear weapons to avoid the prospect of "World War III."
"These comments are counterproductive and undermine efforts to resolve tensions with Iran through diplomacy," the letter, coordinated by Virginia Senator Jim Webb, said.
The White House plans to try implementing as much new policy as it can by administrative order while stepping up its confrontational rhetoric with Congress after concluding that President Bush cannot do much business with the Democratic leadership, administration officials said.
[snip]
White House aides say the only way Bush seems to be able to influence the process is by vetoing legislation or by issuing administrative orders, as he has in recent weeks on veterans' health care, air-traffic congestion, protecting endangered fish and immigration. They say they expect Bush to issue more of such orders in the next several months, even as he speaks out on the need to limit spending and resist any tax increases.
DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff has called for disciplinary action for the fake news event, which was held last Tuesday at the height of the California fires. But Philbin’s departure from FEMA is not related to any disciplinary action within DHS.As for the other FEMA employees involved in the faux-news-fest, I can't find any information on what happened to them, if anything. But Mr. Philbin appears to be the Fall Lackey for this particular attempt at catapulting the propaganda.
Philbin had long-standing plans to retire last Friday and begin a new position today at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. But the ODNI is distancing itself from Philbin and said in a statement today, “We do not normally comment on personnel matters. However, we can confirm that Mr. Philbin is not, nor is he scheduled to be, the Director of Public Affairs for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence."
Asked specifically if he planned to fire anyone at FEMA, which is part of his department, Chertoff declined to say, citing personnel rules.Ah yes, the buck stops at the Lackey level.
"There will be appropriate discipline," he told reporters at a news conference with New York's governor where they announced an agreement on a driver's license plan.
Chertoff said he knew nothing about the matter until after it happened and that he "can't explain why it happened."
FEMA stages fake news conference with P.R. people playing the role of journalistsThis has been a horrible, horrible week for the victims of the wildfires in San Diego and the surrounding areas. How must they feel, knowing that their government is so disingenous, so terrified of its own constituents, that it feels it can't even face the milquetoast, cowed traditional media at a press conference? That its incompetence would blaze so bright that even Fox News Channel might be forced to point it out?
Those weren't reporters questioning the deputy chief of FEMA earlier this week, they were federal employees playing the role of journalists during a televised briefing on the wildfires in southern California.
An agency spokesman tells The Washington Post that they didn't have time to wait for real reporters to come to their office near the U.S. Capitol. "We had been getting mobbed with phone calls from reporters, and this was thrown together at the last minute," Mike Widomski, FEMA's deputy director of public affairs, tells the paper.
"We've got a big problem out here," the president said near the end of his quick, four-hour visit. "We want the people to know there's a better day ahead - that today your life may look dismal, but tomorrow life's going to be better," Mr. Bush said. "And to the extent that the federal government can help you, we want to do so."To the extent that the federal government can help you? We WANT to do so? Talk about parsing. Talk about the "meaning of 'is'." Gee, is it me, or does it seem that Bush actually promised NO HELP WHATSOEVER?
In response to Michael Mukasey's professed ignorance as to what waterboarding is, all eight Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have sent Mukasey a detailed primer on the centuries-old torture technique. It includes some surprising historical details: did you know, for instance, that during the occupation of Japan, the U.S. prosecuted Japanese soldiers who waterboarded U.S. POWs?Apparently, Mr. Mukasey will not be confirmed as Attorney General without answering that question. And it's a very important one, because Darth Cheney has famously claimed that using waterboarding in questioning suspected terrorists is a "no-brainer."
[snip]
The Senators write, "Please respond to the following question: Is the use of waterboarding, or inducing the misperception of drowning, as an interrogation technique illegal under U.S. law, including treaty obligations?"
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is scheduled to appear before the House Oversight and Goverment Reform Committee Thursday to answer questions about corruption within the Iraqi government, the possibility of political reconciliation in that war-ravaged country and the department's controversial security contract with Blackwater USA, according to a release from the committee.It appears that the last Bushies may be starting to waver and fall.
Oversight Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) has been pressing Rice and other agency officials for months to testify about corruption and the department's contract with Blackwater. According to the release, committee members will also be asking about allegations of misconduct in the construction of the U.S. embassy compound in Baghdad.
[Mohammed] ElBaradei said force should be used only when all diplomatic options have failed, adding there was plenty of time for diplomacy, sanctions, dialogue and incentives to bear fruit.
"I want to get people away from the idea that Iran will be a threat from tomorrow, and that we are faced right now with the issue of whether Iran should be bombed or allowed to have the bomb," the Nobel peace prize winner said.
"We are not at all in that situation. Iraq is a glaring example of how, in many cases, the use of force exacerbates the problem rather than solving it."
"I hope," said Plame, "that the American people have learned the lesson to pay close attention to what their leaders are saying and try to educate themselves and get as much information before we rush heading again into a disastrous war based on twisted intelligence."
Dear Senator Reid,
I am extremely disappointed that you would wish to circumvent Senator Dodd's hold on the reprehensible Senate version of the FISA bill. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should the telecom companies be given immunity for their lawbreaking actions. Senator Dodd is right and you are simply wrong on this issue.
The American people do not like lawbreakers. By giving Bush what he wants in this bill, you are directly sanctioning lawbreaking. Is that truly the position you want the Democratic leadership to take?
Thank you,
madamab