From the AP:
The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan is ordering an investigation into charges that an army unit trained in psychological operations was improperly told to manipulate American senators to get more money and troops for the war...
The staff of Lt. Gen. William Caldwell, head of the effort to train Afghan security forces, ordered the information operations unit to compile profiles, voting records and other information on visiting lawmakers to leverage in a campaign to get more assistance, said a story Thursday on Rolling Stone's website. It says the campaign also improperly targeted the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, and others...
The military cell devoted to what is known as "information operations" believed their mission on arriving in Afghanistan in November 2009 was to assess the effects of U.S. propaganda on the Taliban and local Afghan population, Rolling Stone said, quoting Lt. Col. Michael Holmes, whom it identified as the leader of the five-man team.
Holmes said they resisted the order to compile information on congressional delegations that were visiting there and think of what information "to plant inside their heads." He said they were subjected to retaliation for resisting.
"My job in psy-ops is to play with people's heads, to get the enemy to behave the way we want them to behave," Holmes is quoted as saying. "When you ask me to try to use these skills on senators and congressman, you're crossing a line."
Those singled out in the campaign included Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., Jack Reed, D-R.I., Al Franken, D-Minn., and Carl Levin, D-Mich. Rep. Steve Israel, D-N.Y., of the House Appropriations Committee; the Czech ambassador to Afghanistan; the German interior minister, and a host of influential think-tank analysts, the story said, without identifying the international figures by name...
General ordering probe into report of mind tricks
Pauline Jelinek And Lolita C. Baldo
Thu Feb 24, 2011
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110224/ap_on_re_us/us_pentagon_general_investigated
Showing posts with label Joe Lieberman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Joe Lieberman. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
The warped platitude of DC "centrism"
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/13/centrism/index.html
Saturday, Mar 13, 2010
The warped platitude of DC "centrism"
Glenn Greenwald
The Washington Post's Dana Milbank dresses up in idiotic costumes, and the overriding attribute of his commentary is adolescent, above-it-all snideness, and he's thus deemed a wild, unpredictable, creative "contrarian" in Beltway media circles. In reality, he's one of the most cliché-ridden purveyors of conventional Washington widsom one can find, as he demonstrates yet again in his column today, where he venerates Lindsey Graham and his quest to statutorily implement a system of military commissions and indefinite detention:
But Graham's latest offer should still be taken seriously by Obama's White House, which needs a way to recover from its self-inflicted wounds over Gitmo. Obama goofed twice, missing his deadline for closing the prison and then making the ruinous choice to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a criminal trial in New York.
This took an eight-year-old dispute to a new level of rage. On one side, there's now Liz Cheney's absurd accusation that Justice Department lawyers are al-Qaeda sympathizers. On the other side is the ACLU, which, in demanding civilian trials for 9/11 conspirators, ran an ad morphing Obama's face into George W. Bush's. . . . [T]the ideological purists on both sides need to compromise.
Liz Cheney advocates torture and indefinite detention with no charges, and just launched a repulsive McCarthyite smear campaign equating all detainee lawyers with Al Qaeda. The ACLU has steadfastly opposed Bush's torture policies as early as anyone, advocates due process for all, and ran a newspaper advertisement pointing out the indisputable fact that military commissions and indefinite detention were the crux of the Bush/Cheney Terrorism template and urging Obama not to embrace it. But they're on opposite sides of these issues and thus are equivalent: they're the extremists and purists who need to be rejected by those in the Glorious Middle (embodied by Lindsey Graham). As long both of them are against what you're doing, it means you're right. Could a false equivalency be any more trite or vapid than that?
Far worse is the specific, Graham-endorsed policy which Milbank endorses -- not by making any substantive arguments in its favor, but simply by declaring it to be in between Liz Cheney and the ACLU, at the center of the two "purist" extremes (which, in Washington, means, by definition, that it's superior regardless of content):
Graham has provided Obama a way out of this standoff: Send KSM to a military tribunal in exchange for Congress abandoning legislation that would deny funding to close Gitmo. Next, the administration would work with Congress to create a "national security court," which would govern how other current and future terrorism suspects can be held in preventive detention.
This is the so-called "centrist compromise" -- the one Graham (along with the Brookings Institution) is pushing, Milbank is endorsing, and the administration may be heading towards adopting. But just think about what it actually is. According to its advocates, there is and will continue to be a group of people whom we deem Too Dangerous to allow to be free, yet who have committed no crime and/or against whom there is no evidence of actual wrongdoing. Therefore, we want to imprison them even though we can't prove they did anything wrong. Thus, we're going to create new, special courts -- and christen them with the Orwellian title "National Security Courts" -- and empower them to approve the President's decision to imprison human beings in cages even though they've committed no crime (not even the extremely broad criminal offense of "providing material support to Terrorist organizations," of which anyone who even gets near an actual Terrorist group is easily convicted).
This new judicial system will be devoted to imprisoning people "preventively" -- for being Dangerous. In other words, we're dispensing with the idea that the Government can only imprison those who we can prove have committed crimes, and are instead creating by statute a new category of human beings -- people who have committed no crimes but belong in prison anyway -- along with courts to keep them imprisoned (this idea was unveiled in Barack Obama's "civil liberties" speech last May when he described the so-called "fifth category" of people, and I wrote about everything wrong with that proposal here). But why stop with accused Terrorists? Why not dispense with this "due process" annoyance entirely, and imprison all people who we know deep down are guilty of something really bad, or at least will be in the future -- such as those we know murdered someone or raped children but can't find the evidence to prove it (or those we believe likely will in the future)? What decent person would possibly allow such monsters to go free just because we can't convict them in court?
That's the "centrist compromise" which Graham and Milbank advocate, and which the ACLU -- by virtue of its opposition -- is deemed by Milbank guilty of being the "purist" equivalent of Liz Cheney. Aside from how radical such a proposal is on its face, it's actually a more extreme version of what George Bush and Dick Cheney did. As a result of the Supreme Court's Boumediene ruling, detainees imprisoned by Bush/Cheney with no charges are now are entitled to habeas review by federal courts, and the vast majority have won their cases and been ordered released on the ground of insufficient evidence. Notably, it was the "centrist" Graham, to his eternal disgrace, who led the way in trying to deny those innocent detainees the right of habeas review -- and thus tried to keep innocent people imprisoned indefinitely with no judicial review -- by sponsoring the habeas-denying section of the Military Commissions Act which the Boumediene Court invalidated as unconstitutional.
Now, Graham (echoing Obama's May speech) wants to statutorily institutionalize this power of indefinite detention -- making it a permanent fixture of our political system and solidifying it as the bipartisan policy of all three branches. As demonstrated by the truly dangerous, extremist bill just introduced by John McCain and Joe Lieberman (the "Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010") -- which, among other atrocities, would allow the President to indefinitely imprison even American citizens arrested on U.S. soil -- it's almost certain that having this fear-mongering Congress write an indefinite detention bill would result in a much broader and farther-reaching detention scheme than even what we've had under Bush/Cheney and now Obama. But hey: Liz Cheney and the ACLU (with whom I consult) are both against it (Cheney's opposition is due only to the fact that the "compromise" would lead to the re-location of Guantanamo to Illinois) -- and one can find some Democrats and some Republicans who favor it -- and, therefore, it is, by definition, the sensible "centrist" solution which all non-purist-extremists favor. That's the warped, childish, substance-free definition of "centrism" which Washington media drones like Dana Milbank constantly embrace, and nothing has led to more damaging policies than that.
* * * * *
The Washington Post Op-Ed page deserves some credit for publishing this excellent Op-Ed yesterday by Georgetown Professor Gary Solis, who points out that, under international law, CIA agents who operate lethal drone attacks are every bit as much "unlawful combatants" as the Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters we have imprisoned, rendered, tortured and killed, because "they are fighters without uniforms or insignia, directly participating in hostilities, employing armed force contrary to the laws and customs of war." He also points out that CIA officials involved in such activities are legitimate military targets of the enemy. The same is true, of course, for the vast number of private mercenaries the U.S. uses to engage in war-fighting and related activities. By the warped reasoning that has prevailed in our country, it would be perfectly legal and proper for these unlawful American combatants to be imprisoned indefinitely with no charges and even tortured. If you advocate and practice lawlessness, it's only a matter of time before you're subjected to your own deranged standards.
Saturday, Mar 13, 2010
The warped platitude of DC "centrism"
Glenn Greenwald
The Washington Post's Dana Milbank dresses up in idiotic costumes, and the overriding attribute of his commentary is adolescent, above-it-all snideness, and he's thus deemed a wild, unpredictable, creative "contrarian" in Beltway media circles. In reality, he's one of the most cliché-ridden purveyors of conventional Washington widsom one can find, as he demonstrates yet again in his column today, where he venerates Lindsey Graham and his quest to statutorily implement a system of military commissions and indefinite detention:
But Graham's latest offer should still be taken seriously by Obama's White House, which needs a way to recover from its self-inflicted wounds over Gitmo. Obama goofed twice, missing his deadline for closing the prison and then making the ruinous choice to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a criminal trial in New York.
This took an eight-year-old dispute to a new level of rage. On one side, there's now Liz Cheney's absurd accusation that Justice Department lawyers are al-Qaeda sympathizers. On the other side is the ACLU, which, in demanding civilian trials for 9/11 conspirators, ran an ad morphing Obama's face into George W. Bush's. . . . [T]the ideological purists on both sides need to compromise.
Liz Cheney advocates torture and indefinite detention with no charges, and just launched a repulsive McCarthyite smear campaign equating all detainee lawyers with Al Qaeda. The ACLU has steadfastly opposed Bush's torture policies as early as anyone, advocates due process for all, and ran a newspaper advertisement pointing out the indisputable fact that military commissions and indefinite detention were the crux of the Bush/Cheney Terrorism template and urging Obama not to embrace it. But they're on opposite sides of these issues and thus are equivalent: they're the extremists and purists who need to be rejected by those in the Glorious Middle (embodied by Lindsey Graham). As long both of them are against what you're doing, it means you're right. Could a false equivalency be any more trite or vapid than that?
Far worse is the specific, Graham-endorsed policy which Milbank endorses -- not by making any substantive arguments in its favor, but simply by declaring it to be in between Liz Cheney and the ACLU, at the center of the two "purist" extremes (which, in Washington, means, by definition, that it's superior regardless of content):
Graham has provided Obama a way out of this standoff: Send KSM to a military tribunal in exchange for Congress abandoning legislation that would deny funding to close Gitmo. Next, the administration would work with Congress to create a "national security court," which would govern how other current and future terrorism suspects can be held in preventive detention.
This is the so-called "centrist compromise" -- the one Graham (along with the Brookings Institution) is pushing, Milbank is endorsing, and the administration may be heading towards adopting. But just think about what it actually is. According to its advocates, there is and will continue to be a group of people whom we deem Too Dangerous to allow to be free, yet who have committed no crime and/or against whom there is no evidence of actual wrongdoing. Therefore, we want to imprison them even though we can't prove they did anything wrong. Thus, we're going to create new, special courts -- and christen them with the Orwellian title "National Security Courts" -- and empower them to approve the President's decision to imprison human beings in cages even though they've committed no crime (not even the extremely broad criminal offense of "providing material support to Terrorist organizations," of which anyone who even gets near an actual Terrorist group is easily convicted).
This new judicial system will be devoted to imprisoning people "preventively" -- for being Dangerous. In other words, we're dispensing with the idea that the Government can only imprison those who we can prove have committed crimes, and are instead creating by statute a new category of human beings -- people who have committed no crimes but belong in prison anyway -- along with courts to keep them imprisoned (this idea was unveiled in Barack Obama's "civil liberties" speech last May when he described the so-called "fifth category" of people, and I wrote about everything wrong with that proposal here). But why stop with accused Terrorists? Why not dispense with this "due process" annoyance entirely, and imprison all people who we know deep down are guilty of something really bad, or at least will be in the future -- such as those we know murdered someone or raped children but can't find the evidence to prove it (or those we believe likely will in the future)? What decent person would possibly allow such monsters to go free just because we can't convict them in court?
That's the "centrist compromise" which Graham and Milbank advocate, and which the ACLU -- by virtue of its opposition -- is deemed by Milbank guilty of being the "purist" equivalent of Liz Cheney. Aside from how radical such a proposal is on its face, it's actually a more extreme version of what George Bush and Dick Cheney did. As a result of the Supreme Court's Boumediene ruling, detainees imprisoned by Bush/Cheney with no charges are now are entitled to habeas review by federal courts, and the vast majority have won their cases and been ordered released on the ground of insufficient evidence. Notably, it was the "centrist" Graham, to his eternal disgrace, who led the way in trying to deny those innocent detainees the right of habeas review -- and thus tried to keep innocent people imprisoned indefinitely with no judicial review -- by sponsoring the habeas-denying section of the Military Commissions Act which the Boumediene Court invalidated as unconstitutional.
Now, Graham (echoing Obama's May speech) wants to statutorily institutionalize this power of indefinite detention -- making it a permanent fixture of our political system and solidifying it as the bipartisan policy of all three branches. As demonstrated by the truly dangerous, extremist bill just introduced by John McCain and Joe Lieberman (the "Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010") -- which, among other atrocities, would allow the President to indefinitely imprison even American citizens arrested on U.S. soil -- it's almost certain that having this fear-mongering Congress write an indefinite detention bill would result in a much broader and farther-reaching detention scheme than even what we've had under Bush/Cheney and now Obama. But hey: Liz Cheney and the ACLU (with whom I consult) are both against it (Cheney's opposition is due only to the fact that the "compromise" would lead to the re-location of Guantanamo to Illinois) -- and one can find some Democrats and some Republicans who favor it -- and, therefore, it is, by definition, the sensible "centrist" solution which all non-purist-extremists favor. That's the warped, childish, substance-free definition of "centrism" which Washington media drones like Dana Milbank constantly embrace, and nothing has led to more damaging policies than that.
* * * * *
The Washington Post Op-Ed page deserves some credit for publishing this excellent Op-Ed yesterday by Georgetown Professor Gary Solis, who points out that, under international law, CIA agents who operate lethal drone attacks are every bit as much "unlawful combatants" as the Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters we have imprisoned, rendered, tortured and killed, because "they are fighters without uniforms or insignia, directly participating in hostilities, employing armed force contrary to the laws and customs of war." He also points out that CIA officials involved in such activities are legitimate military targets of the enemy. The same is true, of course, for the vast number of private mercenaries the U.S. uses to engage in war-fighting and related activities. By the warped reasoning that has prevailed in our country, it would be perfectly legal and proper for these unlawful American combatants to be imprisoned indefinitely with no charges and even tortured. If you advocate and practice lawlessness, it's only a matter of time before you're subjected to your own deranged standards.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Harry Reid, and What Happened to the Public Option
THE CENTER FOR RESPONSIBLE PUBLIC RELATIONS
Press Contact: Ilene Proctor
Direct Line: (310) 858 6643
E-mail: proctor@artnet.net
Ilene Proctor & Associates :: International Public Relations Services
Harry Reid, and What Happened to the Public Option
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-ersatz-public-option_b_364396.html
First there was Medicare for all 300 million of us. But that was a non-starter because private insurers and Big Pharma wouldn't hear of it, and Republicans and "centrists" thought it was too much like what they have up in Canada -- which, by the way, cost Canadians only 10 percent of their GDP and covers every Canadian. (Our current system of private for-profit insurers costs 16 percent of GDP and leaves out 45 million people.)
So the compromise was to give all Americans the option of buying into a "Medicare-like plan" that competed with private insurers. Who could be against freedom of choice? Fully 70 percent of Americans polled supported the idea. Open to all Americans, such a plan would have the scale and authority to negotiate low prices with drug companies and other providers, and force private insurers to provide better service at lower costs. But private insurers and Big Pharma wouldn't hear of it, and Republicans and "centrists" thought it would end up too much like what they have up in Canada.
So the compromise was to give the public option only to Americans who wouldn't be covered either by their employers or by Medicaid. And give them coverage pegged to Medicare rates. But private insurers and ... you know the rest.
So the compromise that ended up in the House bill is to have a mere public option, open only to the 6 million Americans not otherwise covered. The Congressional Budget Office warns this shrunken public option will have no real bargaining leverage and would attract mainly people who need lots of medical care to begin with. So it will actually cost more than it saves.
But even the House's shrunken and costly little public option is too much for private insurers, Big Pharma, Republicans, and "centrists" in the Senate. So Harry Reid has proposed an even tinier public option, which states can decide not to offer their citizens. According to the CBO, it would attract no more than 4 million Americans.
It's a token public option, an ersatz public option, a fleeting gesture toward the idea of a public option, so small and desiccated as to be barely worth mentioning except for the fact that it still (gasp) contains the word "public."
And yet Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson mumble darkly that they may not even vote to allow debate on the floor of the Senate about the bill if it contains this paltry public option. And Republicans predict a "holy war."
But what more can possibly be compromised? Take away the word "public?" Make it available to only twelve people?
Our private, for-profit health insurance system, designed to fatten the profits of private health insurers and Big Pharma, is about to be turned over to ... our private, for-profit health care system. Except that now private health insurers and Big Pharma will be getting some 30 million additional customers, paid for by the rest of us.
Upbeat policy wonks and political spinners who tend to see only portions of cups that are full will point out some good things: no pre-existing conditions, insurance exchanges, 30 million more Americans covered. But in reality, the cup is 90 percent empty. Most of us will remain stuck with little or no choice -- dependent on private insurers who care only about the bottom line, who deny our claims, who charge us more and more for co-payments and deductibles, who bury us in forms, who don't take our calls.
I'm still not giving up. I want every Senator who's not in the pocket of the private insurers or Big Pharma to introduce and vote for a "Ted Kennedy Medicare for All" amendment to whatever bill Reid takes to the floor. And if this fails, a "Ted Kennedy Real Public Option for All" amendment. Let every Senate Democratic who doesn't have the guts to vote for either of them be known and counted.
For more News From Underground, visit http://markcrispinmiller.com
Press Contact: Ilene Proctor
Direct Line: (310) 858 6643
E-mail: proctor@artnet.net
Ilene Proctor & Associates :: International Public Relations Services
Harry Reid, and What Happened to the Public Option
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-ersatz-public-option_b_364396.html
First there was Medicare for all 300 million of us. But that was a non-starter because private insurers and Big Pharma wouldn't hear of it, and Republicans and "centrists" thought it was too much like what they have up in Canada -- which, by the way, cost Canadians only 10 percent of their GDP and covers every Canadian. (Our current system of private for-profit insurers costs 16 percent of GDP and leaves out 45 million people.)
So the compromise was to give all Americans the option of buying into a "Medicare-like plan" that competed with private insurers. Who could be against freedom of choice? Fully 70 percent of Americans polled supported the idea. Open to all Americans, such a plan would have the scale and authority to negotiate low prices with drug companies and other providers, and force private insurers to provide better service at lower costs. But private insurers and Big Pharma wouldn't hear of it, and Republicans and "centrists" thought it would end up too much like what they have up in Canada.
So the compromise was to give the public option only to Americans who wouldn't be covered either by their employers or by Medicaid. And give them coverage pegged to Medicare rates. But private insurers and ... you know the rest.
So the compromise that ended up in the House bill is to have a mere public option, open only to the 6 million Americans not otherwise covered. The Congressional Budget Office warns this shrunken public option will have no real bargaining leverage and would attract mainly people who need lots of medical care to begin with. So it will actually cost more than it saves.
But even the House's shrunken and costly little public option is too much for private insurers, Big Pharma, Republicans, and "centrists" in the Senate. So Harry Reid has proposed an even tinier public option, which states can decide not to offer their citizens. According to the CBO, it would attract no more than 4 million Americans.
It's a token public option, an ersatz public option, a fleeting gesture toward the idea of a public option, so small and desiccated as to be barely worth mentioning except for the fact that it still (gasp) contains the word "public."
And yet Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson mumble darkly that they may not even vote to allow debate on the floor of the Senate about the bill if it contains this paltry public option. And Republicans predict a "holy war."
But what more can possibly be compromised? Take away the word "public?" Make it available to only twelve people?
Our private, for-profit health insurance system, designed to fatten the profits of private health insurers and Big Pharma, is about to be turned over to ... our private, for-profit health care system. Except that now private health insurers and Big Pharma will be getting some 30 million additional customers, paid for by the rest of us.
Upbeat policy wonks and political spinners who tend to see only portions of cups that are full will point out some good things: no pre-existing conditions, insurance exchanges, 30 million more Americans covered. But in reality, the cup is 90 percent empty. Most of us will remain stuck with little or no choice -- dependent on private insurers who care only about the bottom line, who deny our claims, who charge us more and more for co-payments and deductibles, who bury us in forms, who don't take our calls.
I'm still not giving up. I want every Senator who's not in the pocket of the private insurers or Big Pharma to introduce and vote for a "Ted Kennedy Medicare for All" amendment to whatever bill Reid takes to the floor. And if this fails, a "Ted Kennedy Real Public Option for All" amendment. Let every Senate Democratic who doesn't have the guts to vote for either of them be known and counted.
For more News From Underground, visit http://markcrispinmiller.com
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
What Specter's switch says about him...
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/28/specter/
Glenn Greenwald
Tuesday April 28, 2009
What Specter's switch says about him, the Democrats and our political spectrum
(1) The idea that Specter is a "liberal" Republican or even a "moderate" reflects how far to the Right both the GOP and our overall political spectrum has shifted.
Consider Specter’s most significant votes over the last eight years, ones cast in favor of such definitive right-wing measures as: the war on Iraq, the Military Commissions Act, Patriot Act renewal, confirmation of virtually every controversial Bush appointee, retroactive telecom immunity, warrantless eavesdropping expansions, and Bush tax cuts (several times). Time and again during the Bush era, Specter stood with Republicans on the most controversial and consequential issues.
(2) Democrats will understandably celebrate today’s announcement, but beyond the questions of raw political power, it is mystifying why they would want to build their majority by embracing politicians who reject most of their ostensible views.
Reports today suggest that Democratic officials promised Specter that the party establishment would support him, rather than a real Democrat, in a primary. If true, few events more vividly illustrate the complete lack of core beliefs of Democratic leaders, as well as the rapidly diminishing differences between the parties. Why would Democrats want a full-blooded Republican representing them in the blue state of Pennsylvania? Specter is highly likely to reprise the Joe Lieberman role for Democrats: a “Democrat” who leads the way in criticizing and blocking Democratic initiatives, forcing the party still further towards Republican policies.
(3) Arlen Specter is one of the worst, most soul-less, most belief-free individuals in politics. The moment most vividly illustrating what Specter is: prior to the vote on the Military Commissions Act of 2006, he went to the floor of the Senate and said what the bill "seeks to do is set back basic rights by some 900 years" and is "patently unconstitutional on its face." He then proceeded to vote YES on the bill's passage.
(4) Today is the best day to watch Fox News since the election -- mass grieving flavored by impotent bitterness.
Glenn Greenwald
Tuesday April 28, 2009
What Specter's switch says about him, the Democrats and our political spectrum
(1) The idea that Specter is a "liberal" Republican or even a "moderate" reflects how far to the Right both the GOP and our overall political spectrum has shifted.
Consider Specter’s most significant votes over the last eight years, ones cast in favor of such definitive right-wing measures as: the war on Iraq, the Military Commissions Act, Patriot Act renewal, confirmation of virtually every controversial Bush appointee, retroactive telecom immunity, warrantless eavesdropping expansions, and Bush tax cuts (several times). Time and again during the Bush era, Specter stood with Republicans on the most controversial and consequential issues.
(2) Democrats will understandably celebrate today’s announcement, but beyond the questions of raw political power, it is mystifying why they would want to build their majority by embracing politicians who reject most of their ostensible views.
Reports today suggest that Democratic officials promised Specter that the party establishment would support him, rather than a real Democrat, in a primary. If true, few events more vividly illustrate the complete lack of core beliefs of Democratic leaders, as well as the rapidly diminishing differences between the parties. Why would Democrats want a full-blooded Republican representing them in the blue state of Pennsylvania? Specter is highly likely to reprise the Joe Lieberman role for Democrats: a “Democrat” who leads the way in criticizing and blocking Democratic initiatives, forcing the party still further towards Republican policies.
(3) Arlen Specter is one of the worst, most soul-less, most belief-free individuals in politics. The moment most vividly illustrating what Specter is: prior to the vote on the Military Commissions Act of 2006, he went to the floor of the Senate and said what the bill "seeks to do is set back basic rights by some 900 years" and is "patently unconstitutional on its face." He then proceeded to vote YES on the bill's passage.
(4) Today is the best day to watch Fox News since the election -- mass grieving flavored by impotent bitterness.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Selfish Lieberman The "Barry Bonds" Of D.C.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/20/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4366634.shtml
Dems: Selfish Lieberman The "Barry Bonds" Of D.C.
Aug 20, 2008
(The Politico) Sure, Democrats are furious with Joe Lieberman's decision to salute John McCain from the podium of the Republican National Convention -- but his tie-breaking role in the Senate means they can't exact revenge anytime soon.
"If you've been in Washington too long like he has the world gets turned upside down -- your opinions become firm but your principles become flexible," said Illinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the architect of the 2006 Democratic takeback of the House, speaking of Lieberman.
"Hey, I'll for having friendships regardless of party labels, but I'm also for my principles," he added. "And Joe has fundamental differences with McCain on the environment, a woman's right to choose... What you can't do anymore is roll your eyes and say, 'Oh, that's just Joe.' Lieberman knows what he's doing and there are consequences."
Endorsing McCain was one thing, Emanuel said, but accepting a hero's welcome in the belly of the GOP beast is "something different."
Democrats stopped just short of slapping the traitor tag on Lieberman, who was forced to run as an independent after being bested in the 2006 Democratic primary by anti-war candidate Ned Lamont.
"Ned Lamont was right," quipped Howard Wolfson, Hillary Clinton's former communications director and top strategist.
"Joe will be very happy in the Republican party where the dominant ethic is selfishness -- He's just like Barry Bonds when it comes to selfishness," Begala added. "If you're hanging off the edge of a cliff by a rope, you don't want to look up and see Joe Lieberman."
Yet despite widespread disdain for Lieberman's decision to endorse McCain -- Senate Democrats have been reluctant to strip Lieberman of his position as chairman of the homeland security committee or even say anything too nasty about him in public. The Obama campaign declined comment.
James Carville, Begala's compadre on the 1992 Clinton campaign, say's he not "shocked or angry" -- and was more upset at Lieberman for his oversight of the Hurricane Katrina cleanup first as ranking member of the committee, then as its head.
"I just wish he had been as passionate about FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers as he is about John McCain," said the Lousiana native, speaking from New Orleans. "Hopefully he'll tell the convention wat a great job he did on overseeing [former FEMA cheif] Michael Brown."
Still, Carville ruefully admitted there was nothing Democrats could do to punish Lieberman without huge wins in November that render Lieberman less relevant.
"They are being smart, they can't touch him yet, It's just arithmetic, buy a calculator," he added.
"Everybody's pissed at him," said one staffer for a top Senate Democrat, "but we need him."
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Top ten McCain Vice Presidential picks
http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2008/05/a-heartbeat-awa.html
May 16, 2008
Top ten McCain Vice Presidential picks
Daniel Finkelstein
McCain needs to pick his partner very carefully. A heartbeat away from the Presidency matters more when the heart in question will be 72 at the time of the inauguration. Here are some of the suggestions:
1) Tim Pawlenty
The Governor of Minnesota is at the top of many pundit's lists. The Springsteen fan likes to emphasise his working class roots and has managed to win twice in a traditionally Democratic state. He's renowned for his personal and rhetorical skills and liked by left and right. The one to watch.
2) Joe Lieberman
Connecticut Senator Lieberman bridges the political divide. A former Democrat, he still supports most of their policies but is also in favour of the Iraq war. He's made presidential and vice-presidential runs before and is an old friend of John McCain. The two Senators were together on the recent UK trip of McCain's and were frequently see yukking it up. But age is a big, big issue. Lieberman is 66. Together the ticket will add up to 138 years of experience.
3) Mitt Romney
McCain and Romney fell out several times during the Republican nomination race. But they've been cozying up of late and Romney has been spotted fundraising with McCain in the west. The worse the economy gets, the higher his chances. His impeccable financial credentials are his strongest card. He would make McCain seem more conservative (probably - Romney is, ahem, flexible). This would help with the base but would it put off independents?
4) Condoleezza Rice
The dream ticket for some. The nightmare for others. The Secretary of State's race and gender would boost the Republican argument that they're not just a party for white men. Condi speaks five languages and would provide some much-needed foreign policy clout. The odds of selecting her might have been higher if Clinton had wrapped up the Democratic nomination. But no-one would sneeze at this option. So what's not to like (if you are a Republican)? In a word - Bush. McCain's presidential bid won't fly if he is tethered to the President. And wouldn't Condi do just that?
5) Charlie Crist
Also a popular option. The popular Governor of Florida might bring the swing-state with him, and he's not even a Bush. The Times has written before about the likelihood of him making VP. He appeals to both independents and more conservative Republicans. A possible snag? He's single and has been forced to repeatedly defend his sexuality. Or is that a snag?
6) Bobby Jindal
The Governor of Louisiana, his name's cropped up several times recently. He's made waves with ethics reform in his homestate. The child of Indian immigrants, he'd add some diversity to the ticket and, at just 36, years old, he's half McCain's age. He also has a strong background in healthcare.
7) Sarah Palin
A former Miss Congeniality, the young Alaska senator has made quite a splash. The first female governor of her state, she might help bring women into the fold. And her strong support of family values and pro-life views will appeal to Republican voters who might be alienated by McCain's more maverick opinions.
8) Colin Powell
The former Secretary of State is a much-loved and well-respected moderate. But his denouncement of the Iraq mission may make him less appealing to McCain. Another catch? He's advised Barack Obama on foreign policy and praised him heavily in the past. An endorsement isn't out of the question.
9) Haley Barbour
The Governor of Mississippi would help secure the South. He's been head of the RNC and no-one could quibble with his conservatism. Knows everyone in politics but there is one large cloud hanging over his head. A series of Katrina-related ethics violations were alleged last summer. McCain might decide to steer clear.
10) Mike Huckabee:
If he really wants to propitiate the base, McCain should go with Huckabee. The former Arkansas Governor scored surprisingly well during the nomination campaign, taking Ohio, Kansas, Louisiana and West Virginia. And McCain would get two for one. Huckabee's bound to bring celebrity endorser Chuck Norris along for the ride. On the other hand, the guy doesn't even believe in the theory of evolution.
May 16, 2008
Top ten McCain Vice Presidential picks
Daniel Finkelstein
McCain needs to pick his partner very carefully. A heartbeat away from the Presidency matters more when the heart in question will be 72 at the time of the inauguration. Here are some of the suggestions:
1) Tim Pawlenty
The Governor of Minnesota is at the top of many pundit's lists. The Springsteen fan likes to emphasise his working class roots and has managed to win twice in a traditionally Democratic state. He's renowned for his personal and rhetorical skills and liked by left and right. The one to watch.
2) Joe Lieberman
Connecticut Senator Lieberman bridges the political divide. A former Democrat, he still supports most of their policies but is also in favour of the Iraq war. He's made presidential and vice-presidential runs before and is an old friend of John McCain. The two Senators were together on the recent UK trip of McCain's and were frequently see yukking it up. But age is a big, big issue. Lieberman is 66. Together the ticket will add up to 138 years of experience.
3) Mitt Romney
McCain and Romney fell out several times during the Republican nomination race. But they've been cozying up of late and Romney has been spotted fundraising with McCain in the west. The worse the economy gets, the higher his chances. His impeccable financial credentials are his strongest card. He would make McCain seem more conservative (probably - Romney is, ahem, flexible). This would help with the base but would it put off independents?
4) Condoleezza Rice
The dream ticket for some. The nightmare for others. The Secretary of State's race and gender would boost the Republican argument that they're not just a party for white men. Condi speaks five languages and would provide some much-needed foreign policy clout. The odds of selecting her might have been higher if Clinton had wrapped up the Democratic nomination. But no-one would sneeze at this option. So what's not to like (if you are a Republican)? In a word - Bush. McCain's presidential bid won't fly if he is tethered to the President. And wouldn't Condi do just that?
5) Charlie Crist
Also a popular option. The popular Governor of Florida might bring the swing-state with him, and he's not even a Bush. The Times has written before about the likelihood of him making VP. He appeals to both independents and more conservative Republicans. A possible snag? He's single and has been forced to repeatedly defend his sexuality. Or is that a snag?
6) Bobby Jindal
The Governor of Louisiana, his name's cropped up several times recently. He's made waves with ethics reform in his homestate. The child of Indian immigrants, he'd add some diversity to the ticket and, at just 36, years old, he's half McCain's age. He also has a strong background in healthcare.
7) Sarah Palin
A former Miss Congeniality, the young Alaska senator has made quite a splash. The first female governor of her state, she might help bring women into the fold. And her strong support of family values and pro-life views will appeal to Republican voters who might be alienated by McCain's more maverick opinions.
8) Colin Powell
The former Secretary of State is a much-loved and well-respected moderate. But his denouncement of the Iraq mission may make him less appealing to McCain. Another catch? He's advised Barack Obama on foreign policy and praised him heavily in the past. An endorsement isn't out of the question.
9) Haley Barbour
The Governor of Mississippi would help secure the South. He's been head of the RNC and no-one could quibble with his conservatism. Knows everyone in politics but there is one large cloud hanging over his head. A series of Katrina-related ethics violations were alleged last summer. McCain might decide to steer clear.
10) Mike Huckabee:
If he really wants to propitiate the base, McCain should go with Huckabee. The former Arkansas Governor scored surprisingly well during the nomination campaign, taking Ohio, Kansas, Louisiana and West Virginia. And McCain would get two for one. Huckabee's bound to bring celebrity endorser Chuck Norris along for the ride. On the other hand, the guy doesn't even believe in the theory of evolution.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Clinton-Obama: A Democratic Dream Ticket?
http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/Vote2008/story?id=4420155
Clinton-Obama: A Democratic Dream Ticket?
Tight Race Leaves Growing Chatter of a Fusion Ticket
By JAKE TAPPER
Mar. 10, 2008 — While Republican presidential nominee John McCain can take his time in choosing his vice presidential candidate, a tight race on the Democratic side is resulting in some chatter of a fusion ticket between Democratic Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
In particular the suggestions keep coming from the Clintons - and it's a notion Obama does not take as a compliment.
It's become a frequent Clinton talking point: Maybe Democratic voters who are torn don't have to choose after all.
Last Friday in Mississippi, stumping for the Magnolia State's Tuesday primary, Sen. Clinton told voters, "You've got to make a choice. A lot of people wish they didn't have to. A lot of people say 'I wish I could vote for both of you.' Well that might be possible some day. But first I need your help on Tuesday."
This weekend on the trail, Bill Clinton went further, calling a Clinton-Obama ticket an "almost unstoppable force."
"I know that she has always been open to it," the former president said, "Because she believes that if you can unite the energy and the new people that he's brought in and the people in these vast swaths of small town and rural America that she's carried overwhelmingly, if you had those two things together she thinks it'd be hard to beat."
Citing their demographic strengths, Clinton said of Sen. Obama and his wife, "he would win the urban areas and the upscale voters, and she wins the traditional rural areas that we lost when President Reagan was president."
As Al Gore joked on Saturday Night Live years ago, picking a vice president can be like an episode of "The Bachelor."
"I respect all of you. And I wish I could have three running mates, but it's just not constitutionally viable," Gore said, holding up a single long-stemmed rose in a skit where he selected Joe Lieberman over John Kerry and John Edwards. "I've made my decision."
But Obama and his allies feel this is more like an undesired arranged marriage, and a shotgun one at that.
Obama countered the Clintons with no uncertain terms.
"You won't see me as a vice presidential candidate - you know, I'm running for president," Obama said. "We have won twice as many states as Senator Clinton, and have a higher popular vote, and I think we can maintain our delegate count - but you know, what I'm really focused on right now, because all that stuff is premature, is winning this nomination and changing the country. And I think that's what people here are concerned about."
On Sunday's Meet the Press, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who has endorsed Obama's presidential run, called Clinton's floating of Obama as VP a "really a rare occurrence - maybe the first time in history - that the person who is running number two would offer the person who is running number one the number two position."
Plenty of former rivals have reluctantly joined to form a ticket. John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson in 1960. Or John Kerry and John Edwards in 2004. But Clinton and Obama in 2008?
Dr. James Thurber, director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University, called the pairing Bill Clinton's "dream ticket," but said that it was improbable.
Thurber says the demographic advantages of the ticket would work its magic during the general election, but that "it would very difficult for the Clintons to have Obama, a charismatic figure, as the vice president."
Unlike the "marriage of convenience" between Kennedy and Johnson, Thurber says Clinton-Obama "would be very difficult to bring together because there is not a young charismatic figure that would be number two on the ticket. It would have been like Kennedy being vice president and Johnson being the president."
Obama allies also think the Clinton trial balloons on a joint ticket are full of hot air.
This weekend on Face the Nation, Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, chastised the Clintons for using conflicting language. "On the one end, they are saying he's not prepared to be president. On the other hand, they're saying maybe he ought to be vice president."
Of course, the more bitter this fight gets, the less likely reconciliation is likely - especially if the nomination is decided after a brutal fight at the Democratic convention.
Clinton-Obama: A Democratic Dream Ticket?
Tight Race Leaves Growing Chatter of a Fusion Ticket
By JAKE TAPPER
Mar. 10, 2008 — While Republican presidential nominee John McCain can take his time in choosing his vice presidential candidate, a tight race on the Democratic side is resulting in some chatter of a fusion ticket between Democratic Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
In particular the suggestions keep coming from the Clintons - and it's a notion Obama does not take as a compliment.
It's become a frequent Clinton talking point: Maybe Democratic voters who are torn don't have to choose after all.
Last Friday in Mississippi, stumping for the Magnolia State's Tuesday primary, Sen. Clinton told voters, "You've got to make a choice. A lot of people wish they didn't have to. A lot of people say 'I wish I could vote for both of you.' Well that might be possible some day. But first I need your help on Tuesday."
This weekend on the trail, Bill Clinton went further, calling a Clinton-Obama ticket an "almost unstoppable force."
"I know that she has always been open to it," the former president said, "Because she believes that if you can unite the energy and the new people that he's brought in and the people in these vast swaths of small town and rural America that she's carried overwhelmingly, if you had those two things together she thinks it'd be hard to beat."
Citing their demographic strengths, Clinton said of Sen. Obama and his wife, "he would win the urban areas and the upscale voters, and she wins the traditional rural areas that we lost when President Reagan was president."
As Al Gore joked on Saturday Night Live years ago, picking a vice president can be like an episode of "The Bachelor."
"I respect all of you. And I wish I could have three running mates, but it's just not constitutionally viable," Gore said, holding up a single long-stemmed rose in a skit where he selected Joe Lieberman over John Kerry and John Edwards. "I've made my decision."
But Obama and his allies feel this is more like an undesired arranged marriage, and a shotgun one at that.
Obama countered the Clintons with no uncertain terms.
"You won't see me as a vice presidential candidate - you know, I'm running for president," Obama said. "We have won twice as many states as Senator Clinton, and have a higher popular vote, and I think we can maintain our delegate count - but you know, what I'm really focused on right now, because all that stuff is premature, is winning this nomination and changing the country. And I think that's what people here are concerned about."
On Sunday's Meet the Press, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who has endorsed Obama's presidential run, called Clinton's floating of Obama as VP a "really a rare occurrence - maybe the first time in history - that the person who is running number two would offer the person who is running number one the number two position."
Plenty of former rivals have reluctantly joined to form a ticket. John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson in 1960. Or John Kerry and John Edwards in 2004. But Clinton and Obama in 2008?
Dr. James Thurber, director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University, called the pairing Bill Clinton's "dream ticket," but said that it was improbable.
Thurber says the demographic advantages of the ticket would work its magic during the general election, but that "it would very difficult for the Clintons to have Obama, a charismatic figure, as the vice president."
Unlike the "marriage of convenience" between Kennedy and Johnson, Thurber says Clinton-Obama "would be very difficult to bring together because there is not a young charismatic figure that would be number two on the ticket. It would have been like Kennedy being vice president and Johnson being the president."
Obama allies also think the Clinton trial balloons on a joint ticket are full of hot air.
This weekend on Face the Nation, Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, chastised the Clintons for using conflicting language. "On the one end, they are saying he's not prepared to be president. On the other hand, they're saying maybe he ought to be vice president."
Of course, the more bitter this fight gets, the less likely reconciliation is likely - especially if the nomination is decided after a brutal fight at the Democratic convention.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
He ain’t a saint: A citizen’s guide to Barack Obama
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2948.shtml
He ain’t a saint: A citizen’s guide to Barack Obama
By Carolyn Kay
Online Journal Guest Writer
Feb 13, 2008
Why do Peggy Noonan, George Will and David Brooks favor Obama?
Because they are terrified of Hillary Clinton, that’s why . . . It is this simple: in recent decades the Clintons are the only Democrats that win elections against Republicans . . . They don’t want to ever face them again, no more complicated than that. As soon as Barack Obama is declared the official candidate of the Democratic party the voters will be treated to something similar to the old TV show, “This is your Life” . . .
And below are some of the things they’ll bring out about him. Now, to those who will surely say that I shouldn’t do the right’s work for them, I say you must have been living under a rock for the last 18 years. The information below is already in the belly of the beast, waiting for the right moment to regurgitate all over the “transformation.” And to those who say I shouldn’t “bash” Obama, I say, it’s not bashing if it’s true. How can Democratic primary voters possibly make an informed decision about which candidate to vote for, when they know almost nothing about one of the two who remain?
We Illinois progressives sent Obama to the U.S. Senate, where he promptly joined the Joe Lieberman wing of the Democratic Party. He’s not a progressive. But he’s a master at pretending to be one. “Obama is a company man.”
His economic advisers are very conservative, from the University of Chicago-Milton Friedman school of economics. My favorite economist, Paul Krugman, caught Obama using right-wing talking points on what to do about Social Security and about his health care plan.
His voting record is pro-business and pro-war. He glorifies American imperialism. He flip-flopped on the Palestinians and Israel, and now is AIPAC-approved.
He has shown repeatedly what good friends he is with anti-gay African American preachers.
He misuses history, according to a prominent historian.
He, uh, stretches the truth.
Example:
Trying to sound authentically African-American during a speech memorializing the 42nd anniversary of the 1965 Voting Rights March at the Pettis Bridge in Selma, Obama claimed that his black (Kenyan) father and white (Kansan) mother married and conceived the future Barockstar because of the great Civil Rights struggles fought in Selma and Birmingham, Alabama . . . (Obama 2007)
Wow. Too bad Barack Obama, Jr., was born in 1961, two years before the famous campaign to desegregate Birmingham, three years before the Civil Rights Act, and four years before the famous Selma march!
His chief political adviser is a Daley machine strategist.
And then there’s his Tony Rezko problem.
When are we Americans going to stop getting fooled and fooled and fooled again?
Carolyn Kay publishes Make Them Accountable where this article originally appeared.
He ain’t a saint: A citizen’s guide to Barack Obama
By Carolyn Kay
Online Journal Guest Writer
Feb 13, 2008
Why do Peggy Noonan, George Will and David Brooks favor Obama?
Because they are terrified of Hillary Clinton, that’s why . . . It is this simple: in recent decades the Clintons are the only Democrats that win elections against Republicans . . . They don’t want to ever face them again, no more complicated than that. As soon as Barack Obama is declared the official candidate of the Democratic party the voters will be treated to something similar to the old TV show, “This is your Life” . . .
And below are some of the things they’ll bring out about him. Now, to those who will surely say that I shouldn’t do the right’s work for them, I say you must have been living under a rock for the last 18 years. The information below is already in the belly of the beast, waiting for the right moment to regurgitate all over the “transformation.” And to those who say I shouldn’t “bash” Obama, I say, it’s not bashing if it’s true. How can Democratic primary voters possibly make an informed decision about which candidate to vote for, when they know almost nothing about one of the two who remain?
We Illinois progressives sent Obama to the U.S. Senate, where he promptly joined the Joe Lieberman wing of the Democratic Party. He’s not a progressive. But he’s a master at pretending to be one. “Obama is a company man.”
His economic advisers are very conservative, from the University of Chicago-Milton Friedman school of economics. My favorite economist, Paul Krugman, caught Obama using right-wing talking points on what to do about Social Security and about his health care plan.
His voting record is pro-business and pro-war. He glorifies American imperialism. He flip-flopped on the Palestinians and Israel, and now is AIPAC-approved.
He has shown repeatedly what good friends he is with anti-gay African American preachers.
He misuses history, according to a prominent historian.
He, uh, stretches the truth.
Example:
Trying to sound authentically African-American during a speech memorializing the 42nd anniversary of the 1965 Voting Rights March at the Pettis Bridge in Selma, Obama claimed that his black (Kenyan) father and white (Kansan) mother married and conceived the future Barockstar because of the great Civil Rights struggles fought in Selma and Birmingham, Alabama . . . (Obama 2007)
Wow. Too bad Barack Obama, Jr., was born in 1961, two years before the famous campaign to desegregate Birmingham, three years before the Civil Rights Act, and four years before the famous Selma march!
His chief political adviser is a Daley machine strategist.
And then there’s his Tony Rezko problem.
When are we Americans going to stop getting fooled and fooled and fooled again?
Carolyn Kay publishes Make Them Accountable where this article originally appeared.
Monday, February 4, 2008
John Edwards and the art of losing well
http://www.lastchancedemocracycafe.com/?p=1231
John Edwards and the art of losing well
With John Edwards withdrawing from the race, I think it’s important to take note of something sort of extraordinary: he’s leaving with his reputation not only intact, but actually enhanced.
When you think about it that almost never happens. Today, we tend to be a one shot society politically — hell, in every respect, really. But sticking with politics, look at the tattered bodies scattered across the field of honor: Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John Kerry, Bob Dole, Joe Lieberman (please try not to cry for poor Joe), Michael Dukakis and so many more. All were once serious presidential candidates, people given a real chance of winning, and all suffered damage to their public reputations, in some cases severe damage, as a result of running for and losing the presidency.
But not so John Edwards. Edwards leaves the race, if anything, more highly regarded by the Democratic rank and file than he was before. He remains a viable political figure.
Why? It’s about running and also losing with grace, I think. It’s about running on the side of the poor and the working class, instead of just trying to pile up huge mounds of cash from special interests. It’s about running on issues that matter, rather than personalities and negative imagery.
I’m showing my age here, but I remember reading a book (when it was new) written by Alistair Cooke 30 years ago, titled Six Men. It was made up of a series of short biographies of six men Cooke had known in his life who had a great impact on him, one of whom was Adlai Stevenson. He said at the end of the chapter on Stevenson, as I recall — and this isn’t an exact quote — that there are sometimes honorable reasons for someone not becoming the President of the United States.
John Edwards may never be president, but by conducting his campaign with honor he’s left both the Democratic Party and the nation at least a little better off for his having tried.
Thank you, John. We here at The Last Chance Democracy Café wish you and your family the very best.
This entry was posted by Steve on Wednesday, January 30th, 2008
John Edwards and the art of losing well
With John Edwards withdrawing from the race, I think it’s important to take note of something sort of extraordinary: he’s leaving with his reputation not only intact, but actually enhanced.
When you think about it that almost never happens. Today, we tend to be a one shot society politically — hell, in every respect, really. But sticking with politics, look at the tattered bodies scattered across the field of honor: Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John Kerry, Bob Dole, Joe Lieberman (please try not to cry for poor Joe), Michael Dukakis and so many more. All were once serious presidential candidates, people given a real chance of winning, and all suffered damage to their public reputations, in some cases severe damage, as a result of running for and losing the presidency.
But not so John Edwards. Edwards leaves the race, if anything, more highly regarded by the Democratic rank and file than he was before. He remains a viable political figure.
Why? It’s about running and also losing with grace, I think. It’s about running on the side of the poor and the working class, instead of just trying to pile up huge mounds of cash from special interests. It’s about running on issues that matter, rather than personalities and negative imagery.
I’m showing my age here, but I remember reading a book (when it was new) written by Alistair Cooke 30 years ago, titled Six Men. It was made up of a series of short biographies of six men Cooke had known in his life who had a great impact on him, one of whom was Adlai Stevenson. He said at the end of the chapter on Stevenson, as I recall — and this isn’t an exact quote — that there are sometimes honorable reasons for someone not becoming the President of the United States.
John Edwards may never be president, but by conducting his campaign with honor he’s left both the Democratic Party and the nation at least a little better off for his having tried.
Thank you, John. We here at The Last Chance Democracy Café wish you and your family the very best.
This entry was posted by Steve on Wednesday, January 30th, 2008
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Republicans Kill Troop-Protection Amendment
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-geiger/republicans-kill-webbs-t_b_55779.html
Republicans Kill Webb's Troop-Protection Amendment
Posted July 11, 2007
Bob Geiger
We didn't need any further proof that Congressional Republicans really don't give a damn about the troops or their families but we just got it in the United States Senate anyway.
Just moments ago, Senate Republicans succeeded in a filibuster in which they refused to end debate on Virginia Democrat Jim Webb's S. 2012, which would have placed strict limits on National Guard and reserve deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan as well as mandating more downtime at home before active-duty combat troops are returned to battle.
The vote was 56-41 to end debate, with 60 votes needed to move to a full, up-or-down vote on the Webb measure. Once again, the GOP has been successful at destroying another Democratic attempt at helping service members and their families caught in the buzzsaw of the Bush administration's lies and incompetence.
"We have an amendment before us that is critical for the strength of our military and the well-being of our troops. Regardless of where we stand on the war, I would hope that we stand as one in our commitment to keeping our military the strongest in the world," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) before the vote. "We should all agree that we can't sustain that strength if our men and women in uniform aren't given the protection and care they need. That's not a Democratic talking point or a Republican talking point - it's just common sense."
Apparently not to Republicans, who have now drawn yet another line in the sand -- this one saying that, in addition to not caring about keeping America's troops in Iraq forever, they don't even care if they have to go back four or five times with insufficient training, rest and time with their families.
Of course, the always-worthless Joe Lieberman voted with Republicans to kill Webb's troop-protection amendment to the Defense Department authorization bill, along with Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) who just showed how sincere he is in his statements about breaking ranks with George W. Bush on the Iraq occupation.
Among those joining Senate Democrats in supporting the Webb measure, were Republicans Norm Coleman, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, John Sununu, Chuck Hagel, Gordon Smith and John Warner -- all but Snowe are up for reelection next year.
"Sadly, our forces are being burned out. Many of our troops are on their third or even their fourth tour in Iraq and Afghanistan," said Patty Murray (D-WA) on the Senate floor Tuesday. "Months ago, the Department of Defense announced that their tours would be extended from 12 months to 15 months. And on top of all that, they are not receiving the necessary time at home before they are sent back to battle."
And until Democrats get past 60 votes in the Senate, it's hard to guess when relief is coming.
November 2008 can't get here fast enough.
Republicans Kill Webb's Troop-Protection Amendment
Posted July 11, 2007
Bob Geiger
We didn't need any further proof that Congressional Republicans really don't give a damn about the troops or their families but we just got it in the United States Senate anyway.
Just moments ago, Senate Republicans succeeded in a filibuster in which they refused to end debate on Virginia Democrat Jim Webb's S. 2012, which would have placed strict limits on National Guard and reserve deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan as well as mandating more downtime at home before active-duty combat troops are returned to battle.
The vote was 56-41 to end debate, with 60 votes needed to move to a full, up-or-down vote on the Webb measure. Once again, the GOP has been successful at destroying another Democratic attempt at helping service members and their families caught in the buzzsaw of the Bush administration's lies and incompetence.
"We have an amendment before us that is critical for the strength of our military and the well-being of our troops. Regardless of where we stand on the war, I would hope that we stand as one in our commitment to keeping our military the strongest in the world," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) before the vote. "We should all agree that we can't sustain that strength if our men and women in uniform aren't given the protection and care they need. That's not a Democratic talking point or a Republican talking point - it's just common sense."
Apparently not to Republicans, who have now drawn yet another line in the sand -- this one saying that, in addition to not caring about keeping America's troops in Iraq forever, they don't even care if they have to go back four or five times with insufficient training, rest and time with their families.
Of course, the always-worthless Joe Lieberman voted with Republicans to kill Webb's troop-protection amendment to the Defense Department authorization bill, along with Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) who just showed how sincere he is in his statements about breaking ranks with George W. Bush on the Iraq occupation.
Among those joining Senate Democrats in supporting the Webb measure, were Republicans Norm Coleman, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, John Sununu, Chuck Hagel, Gordon Smith and John Warner -- all but Snowe are up for reelection next year.
"Sadly, our forces are being burned out. Many of our troops are on their third or even their fourth tour in Iraq and Afghanistan," said Patty Murray (D-WA) on the Senate floor Tuesday. "Months ago, the Department of Defense announced that their tours would be extended from 12 months to 15 months. And on top of all that, they are not receiving the necessary time at home before they are sent back to battle."
And until Democrats get past 60 votes in the Senate, it's hard to guess when relief is coming.
November 2008 can't get here fast enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
