Hullabaloo

Friday, November 07, 2008

 
No, No, RFK, Jr.

by tristero

I'd like to pile on with my friends over at scienceblogs.com and say that RFK, Jr. shouldn't be running the EPA or any other agency that could benefit from a scientific background. Kennedy has written far too many factually challenged articles on vaccinations and other issues. He simply has no talent whatsoever at judging scientific data and we've already had far too much of that kind of incompetence over the past eight years.

tristero 11/07/2008 06:00:00 PM |

 
The Clinton Rules

by dday

While some conservative activists have the idea to rebuild their party by using the Obama-Dean inclusive vision of organizing and party infrastructure in service to the exclusive vision of conservatism, and others are waging jihad against anyone who dares cross Sarah Palin (by the power of Grayskull Redstate, we will purge you!!!), I think we know how this is all going to turn out, right?

HH: And I think he will be very concerned with the two issues I’m going to raise with you – national security and immigration. Now I believe the Committee On the Present Danger filled a need in the 70s which we need to reorganize an equivalent now. But what do you think, Bill Kristol?

BK: Oh, I agree, and we did a little of that in the 90s with the Project For the New American Century. And I actually think there are people talking about this. And there’s a lot of good foreign policy and defense thinking on our side, the Fred Kagans and Bob Kagans and Reuel Gerechts of the world, Victor Davis Hanson, et cetera. But a little bit of a political organization for them wouldn’t be bad. And I think we should support Obama, incidentally, if he does the right thing.

OF COURSE there will be another PNAC. As the media - and lots of Democrats - do the conservatives' dirty work for them by warning Obama not to read any kind of Democratic victory into the resounding Presidential and Congressional victory, the connected white men at the top of the party will shrink into the background, plot, seek ways to undermine the new President, and basically lie in wait. They aren't going to throw money into 50-state organizing or the Internet - that's for the little people. They are convinced that Obama's agenda will fail and they will stand ready, using their message machine to continue to feed rancid ideas into the media bloodstream. They've already got most of the Democratic Party urging for bipartisanship and restraint like the well-trained litter Grover Norquist et al. always wanted them to be. Fox News and right-wing radio and blogs will continue to work themselves into frenzies. Direct-mail groups will start sending letters to the base about how mysterious that Obama's grandmother and the Nevada state director died on the same day - they'll be added to the Obama Death List. Regnery books arguing against the radical Obama vision will fly off the shelves and into the pulping machines, with the authors all over cable news. AEI and Heritage will schedule conferences on "Why Moving The Top Tax Rate To 39% Kills Poor People" and other illuminating subjects. It will still be difficult to break a filibuster, and the minority party won't make it any easier on anything that matters.

The right doesn't have to "do" anything, I imagine is the consensus. All the structures of an opposition movement already exist, they just have to turn on the switch and sit back and wait.

Now, the question is whether our side has learned anything from 1993-94, or not.


.
dday 11/07/2008 04:00:00 PM |

 
Puppy Watch

by digby

Like millions of other Americans I am shamefully taken with the story of the Obama girls and their new puppy (and I confess that Obama's comment that he wanted to get "a mutt like me" gave me a ridiculous sense of happiness.) I admit that as much as I am cold-eyed and realistic about the political scene, I absolutely love the Obama family and any time I see them all together and think of those little girls growing up in the White House I get verklempft. So shoot me.

As to the "mutually exclusive" requirement for the pup --- the puppy needs to be hypoallergenic for Malia but they want to adopt a shelter dog --- there is a compromise. There are lots of dog rescue groups out there that have pure bred pups that have been abandoned and they need good homes too. They didn't ask to be born pure bred.

There has been some discussion about this already, apparently, with PETA and the AKC weighing in with their own agendas. (Sheesh) This blogger had a lot of good advice about how to deal with all this:

Obama’s doggie dilemma is complicated by the fact that his 10-year-old daughter Malia has allergies. She’s done the research and wants a goldendoodle, a hypoallergenic hybrid of a golden retriever and a standard poodle that often can’t be found at the pound and isn’t recognized as a breed by the AKC.

Choosing the family pet is tricky even when the eyes of the nation aren’t focused on your every move, and the Obamas have already had the high-stakes discussion (even arguing about whether their daughters are responsible enough to care for a dog) on national television.

I feel for them. Because our son Graeme is deathly allergic to cats, we gave our daughter’s beloved cat away and, to assuage her grief, promised to get her a dog.

Our search for a replacement might not pass PETA litmus tests. For PETA, every animal purchased from a breeder represents a missed opportunity for a pooch on euthanasia row. But when you have a kid with allergies, it’s not as easy as “Let’s go to the Humane Society.” I know; I tried that with Graeme. Exposure to one small hound had him huffing like a Hoover. And finding a hypoallergenic breed at the pound can be close to impossible.

We found plenty of options on the AKC’s list of hypoallergenic dogs. They’re cheaper than buying a Labradoodle puppy, which can cost upwards of $2,000, but they didn’t interest us. We’re just not toy poodle people.

Our final solution may offer the perfect political path for the Obamas. We put the word out with a group of pet rescuers that we were looking for a goldendoodle or Labradoodle.

Groups dedicated to rescuing mutts and specific breeds (the AKC maintains a list of breed rescue groups) match owners who are giving their animals away with families looking for a new pet. For us, it paid off in late July when we adopted a 7-month-old Labradoodle (pictured left) from a family relocating across the country.

We got the dog we were looking for (no wheezing in the Kelley household), kept a puppy from going to the pound, and supported the kind of organization even the AKC can get behind.

That kind of political maneuvering can win hearts and minds (at least the ones that belong to my kids). I wonder if the Obama campaign is looking for a pet consultant?

They should call him.

Here's what the new potential first puppy, if it's a goldendoodle, will look like:


digby 11/07/2008 02:30:00 PM |

 
Problems

by digby

"Democratic strategist" and uber-villager Michael Feldman appeared with Andrea Mitchell earlier and said this:

Mitchell: Let's talk about the State department and foreign policy. John Kerry, widely anticipated to be at least one of the people considered, really wants the job, although with joe Biden leaving the foreign relations committee,if he doesn't get the job, he would be the foreign relations chairman because he has the seniority.What about John Kerry as Secretary of State? How hard is it to be Secretary of State with Joe Biden as Vice President?

Feldman: What I saw the other day is the domino effect of Kerry as Secretary of State might put the Democratic caucus in a position where Senator Feingold would be the next up to chair the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and of course that poses a whole series of problems so...

Mitchell: Why does it pose a series of problems?

Feldman: Well, because of Senator Feingold's opposition to the war and I think that would immediately, his vocal opposition to the war, I think that would immediately then raise some issues for the caucus and for leader Reid..

Mitchell: But the president [elect] of the United States is opposed to the war...

Feldman: This is true, but I think they'll want in foreign relations is maybe a more even handed person. Ben (sic) Nelson's name has been floated there as a potential consensus pick...

Is Feldman saying that Democrats still believe that it's a liability to have voted against the war? (Nelson voted for it.) If so, somebody needs to tell the country because I think they just voted, in huge numbers, for a guy who won largely on the basis of his opposition to the invasion of Iraq.

The Villagers want to muzzle Feingold because they are petrified that the dirty hippies are about to trash the place. But using opposition to the war as some sort of litmus test is ridiculous. They are going to need to find a better excuse to deny him the chairmanship than that or risk one of the major rationales for Obama's presidency.

The Republicans allowed a global warming denying, knuckle dragging neanderthal to be the head of the Environmental and Public Works Committee and nobody said a word. Russ Feingold is not his doppleganger. (He's sane, for one thing.) And he has voted many times with the other side for a variety of reasons. The idea that he is going to cause "problems" because he is a war opponent only makes sense if you think withdrawing from Iraq is a problem.

These Democratic villagers are victims of Stockholm Syndrome and they need to be reprogrammed. It is not automatically a "problem" for Democrats to allow liberals to have a voice in politics when they just won a big election with a man at the top of ticket who the other side named the most liberal candidate in history. The public clearly didn't find that a disqualifier and they need to accept that.


.
digby 11/07/2008 12:30:00 PM |

 
David Brooks Has A Dream

by digby


... that Barack Obama is Nelson Rockefeller.


.
digby 11/07/2008 10:30:00 AM |

 
Negotiating With Himself

by dday

It's funny, Joe Lieberman thinks he's some kind of bonus baby who can get a luxury car and a sweet penthouse apartment overlooking the National Mall out of either caucus in the Senate. At this rate he won't be satisfied until he's Majority Leader. The only problem is that nobody wants to offer him anything.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has reached out to Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) about the prospect of joining the Republican Conference, but Lieberman is still bargaining with Democratic leaders to keep his chairmanship, according to Senate aides in both parties.

“Sen. Lieberman’s preference is to stay in the caucus, but he’s going to keep all his options open,” a Lieberman aide said. “McConnell has reached out to him, and at this stage, his position is he wants to remain in the caucus but losing the chairmanship is unacceptable.”

A Republican Senate aide said Friday morning that there was little McConnell could offer in terms of high-ranking committee slots, which is why Lieberman is resisting overtures from the Republican side [...]

Lieberman’s aide told Politico on Friday morning that “essentially what transpired is that Sen. Reid talked about taking away his position perhaps for another position, and Sen. Lieberman indicated that was unacceptable.”

A person with direct knowledge of the Reid-Lieberman meeting yesterday on Capitol Hill said Reid turned to Lieberman at one point and said, "I prefer to work this out" after Lieberman hinted he would "explore his options" with Republicans if he was stripped of the committee.

Hilarious. Like he has clout. Lieberman would end up being a headache on either side of the aisle - a mole on the Democratic side, a Judas on the increasingly extremist Republican side. What's more, Republicans don't have any committee chairmanships to hand out, either. And nobody's going to put their seniority aside for him.

Of course, his operatives have one goal - to make it look like bolting for the Republicans would make any difference whatsoever, fooling accommodationist Dems into reverting to measures of conciliation and healing. They've already snookered Evan Bayh, who's eminently snooker-able.

BAYH: And I think if Joe came before the caucus and said look, if I said some things that came as offensive, I’m sorry, but they were, you know heartfelt in my support of John McCain. I think we had to just let bygones be bygones. We’re going to need him on healthcare and energy independence and education and a whole lot of other things.

Bayh concluded that Lieberman is “strong on national security.” “And we’re going to prove that there is a place for Democrats who are strong on national security in the Democratic Party,” he said.

I hope I miss when I try to shoot myself shortly after posting this.

If we do nothing, Lieberman will be welcomed back into the party, and they'll probably throw a brunch in his honor. If we call these Senators and let them know that a mole chairing the main oversight committee in the Senate is unacceptable, maybe they won't be so keen to allow it. If after getting stripped on his chairmanship, Lieberman wants to stay in the party, I personally think that's up to him. But making sure he isn't a one-man subpoena machine is the bare minimum of accountability that we should expect.

The number for the Capitol switchboard is (202) 224-3121. Start with your own Senator, but call the more conservative members of the caucus too. Ask whether they support Lieberman remaining as Chair of the Homeland Security committee, given his unfair attacks on President-elect Obama. Be polite, and calm. The young people who answer the phones are entry-level staffers.

Post what you hear in the comments. Let's outflank Lieberman.

...since everyone's quoting it today, yeah, Michael Corleone would be a good role model for Harry Reid:

Senator, you can have my answer now, if you like. My final offer is this: nothing. Not even the fee for the gaming license, which I would appreciate if you would put up personally.

.
dday 11/07/2008 10:20:00 AM |

 
Corrupt Bastards Club

by digby


If this were coming from anywhere but the state that had legislators who proudly belong to something they called the "Corrupt Bastards Club" (with hats!) I would adopt a wait and see attitude. As it is, I have no problem saying that this stinks to high heaven and is probably exactly what it looks like:

Elections officials, party leaders and voters are wondering what happened this Tuesday in the Last Frontier, where turnout was surprisingly low and two lawmakers who have been the focus of FBI corruption investigations appear to have been reelected despite polling suggesting they would be ousted.

The final voter turnout numbers won't be available until absentee ballots are counted, which could take at least another week. But this year's total is not expected to eclipse Alaska's 66 percent turnout in 2004 or its 60 percent clip in 2000. (This is especially odd given that Alaska's Board of Elections saw a 12.4 percent hike in turnout for the August primaries, before Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was selected as the Republican Party's vice presidential nominee.)

Alaska returns (without the uncounted absentee and contested ballots) show the McCain-Palin ticket garnering 136,348 votes. In 2004, President Bush got 190,889 votes, a "significant disparity", the Anchorage Press reported. "These numbers only add to the oddity of this election in Alaska; in the run-up to Tuesday, Alaskan voters seemed energized to vote for a ticket with our governor on it, despite the barrage of criticism Palin faced."

Couple the dip in support for McCain-Palin with surprising victories for longtime Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, who was found guilty Oct. 27 on seven felony charges, and Rep. Don Young, who is under investigation by the FBI, and a lot of pollsters and voters were left stumped.

Pollster Del Ali of the Maryland firm Research 2000, which tracked the House and Senate races in Alaska, said he was "not happy" how the races -- and dead wrong polling numbers -- turned out. Research 2000 had reported in the days before the election that Democratic challenger Mark Begich, an Anchorage attorney, was leading the 84-year-old Stevens by 22 percentage points (Daily Kos apparently paid for the polls).

Other pollsters didn't fare much better. Anchorage pollster and Republican political consultant David Dittman, a Stevens supporter, predicted a "solid Begich win." The national polling firm, Rasmussen Reports, accurately predicted every Senate race in the country within the margin of error in their most recent polls -- except Alaska. Alaska pollsters Ivan Moore, Craciun Research Group and Hays Research Group all also had Stevens and Young trailing in the lead-up to the election.

I wonder when Alaskans are going to reach their limit on this stuff. Contrary to popular myth it isn't actually filled with nothing but "Wasilla Hillbillies." There are many people who love the place for its magnificent wildness and non-conformity, but this is not what they are talking about. It's got a lot of residents who are former military (hence the strong southern, religious contingent) but it is not a homogeneous culture. There are plenty of people who must be utterly disgusted and embarrassed by this.

My former state has taken a battering and the things people believe about it now are quite damaging. It used to be that I would say I was from Alaska and people would be interested and intrigued, some of them very envious. Now people think it's either a laughing stock or a corrupt hellhole. The truth is that it's become a petrostate, similar to Saudi Arabia, run by princes who are made wealthy on oil profits. They need to do something about it.

It makes absolutely no sense that there would be a low turnout in Alaska this time. It was way up everywhere and they had an extremely high profile senate race and the GOP VP nominee was their governor. It's absurd.


.
digby 11/07/2008 09:00:00 AM |

 
Hopefully, My Last Post Ever On Sarah Palin

by tristero

Despite what Kevin says, I don't care if I ever hear any dish about Sarah Palin. Why? Because as of 11:00 PM EST on November 4, 2008, I stopped caring about Sarah Palin.

I don't care to read about how she behaved. I don't care whether the stories are true. I don't care to repeat stories about her and I don't care to defend her. I simply don't care about Sarah Palin.

The only thing I care about when it comes to Sarah Palin is never having to care about her ever again.

tristero 11/07/2008 04:10:00 AM |

Thursday, November 06, 2008

 
Elections Have Consequences

by digby

There is a lot of yammering among the gasbags about the absolute necessity for a bipartisan cabinet. I agree with Stephen Hess on tonight's Lehrer News Hour who weighed in after Norman Ornstein insisted that Obama needs to not only be bipartisan, but that he has to nominate several high profile Republicans to high profile cabinet positions:

JUDY WOODRUFF: What about, Norman, naming Republicans to the administration? How important is that, both in reality and in terms of the signal that it sends?

NORMAN ORNSTEIN: It's important. I mean, you can't -- if you pick a token Republican, then, you know, nobody is going to much care. It looks good, but it doesn't have great resonance.

It's got to go a little bit deeper than that to say that your rhetoric during the campaign, that you wanted to bring the parties and people together, was more than just rhetoric.

You know, that means probably picking two or three high-profile people, including some whose political views on every issue would not be consonant with your own.

If, for example, President-elect Obama kept on Bob Gates as secretary of defense and picked Richard Lugar as secretary of state, that would send a signal that goes well beyond tokenism.

And I suspect, because he's got a number of Republican friends, including Lugar, including Chuck Hagel and others, that we're going to see more than one Republican in a high-profile post.

And sometimes those people can help you a little bit with their previous colleagues on Capitol Hill.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Steve...

STEPHEN HESS: I'm a little different on that. If he were to pick Lugar and retain Gates, he would be saying something about the talents in the Democratic Party.

After all, he was elected -- overwhelmingly elected as a Democrat. If you're going to pick a Republican in the inner cabinet, you've got to be sure that that's the best available person.

You make these token appointments in the outer cabinet if you have to. But, after all, there are a lot of very good people who are Democrats and who want to be secretary of state and secretary of defense. And this is their opportunity.

After the closest election in American history had been decided by the Supreme Court in a partisan 5-4 decision and which left the US Senate in a 50/50 tie, one might have expected the new president to appoint a bipartisan cabinet. He had run as a "Uniter Not a Divider" after all, and the country was brutally divided after the impeachment of president Clinton and the dubious election results. Among the political establishment, he was seen as a master at reaching across the aisle. Richard Cohen, villager extrordinaire, said this:

Given the present bitterness, given the angry irresponsible charges being hurled by both camps, the nation will be in dire need of a conciliator, a likable guy who will make things better and not worse. That man is not Al Gore. That man is George W. Bush."

This is what George W. Bush did:

President George W Bush has produced a cabinet team which is the most ethnically-diverse in US history, but is politically right-wing.

He promised to to take an inclusive, bi-partisan approach to government, and his cabinet nominees include four women, two African-Americans, two Hispanics an Arab-American, a Japanese-American and a Chinese-American.

But although the team includes one Democrat, the key members are hardline Republicans, and several served in George Bush senior's administration.

I don't recall the Villagers rending their garments over this. In fact, they criticized Democrats for being too partisan when they objected to Bush appointing throwbacks like John Ashcroft Justice department:

To argue too loudly that Bush's Cabinet isn't truly bipartisan risks opening Democratic critics up to the charge of indulging in post election sour grapes. Democratic leaders appear to realize that and have tempered the carping, say GOP staffers.

How dare those horrible Democrats indulge in post election sour grapes. Why couldn't they just "get over it?"

Look, I am not saying that Obama can't pick a Republican for his cabinet if he thinks he or she is the best person for the job. I can see some logic in picking one for defense, for instance, just to counter the worst impulses of the military brass who are inclined to engage in pissing contests with new Democratic presidents. (He could ask Colin Powell how that works - --- he's an expert.) But if he thinks he needs to do this in order to appease these stupid villagers and "send a message" that he is a conciliator, he should tell them to take a walk.

To paraphrase Dick Cheney: Bush proved bipartisan rhetoric doesn't matter. This is our due.


.
digby 11/06/2008 09:30:00 PM |

 
Meanwhile, Bush Is Still Preznit

by tristero

We're all understandably distracted, flying high. But back in reality, Bushism still is in high gear. Here, the subject is the bailout and the writer the great Naomi Klein:

See if any of this sounds familiar: As soon as the bailout was announced, it became clear that Treasury officials would hire outsiders to perform their jobs for them — at a profit. Private companies wanting to help manage the bailout were given just two days to apply for massive, multiyear contracts. Since it was such a mad rush — after all, the entire economy was about to implode — there was no time for an open bidding process. Nor was there time to draft rigorous rules to make sure that those applying don't have serious conflicts of interest. Instead, applicants were asked to disclose their conflicts and to explain — and this is not a joke — their "philosophy in fulfilling your duty to the Treasury and the U.S. taxpayer in light of your proprietary interests and those of other clients." In other words, an open invitation to bullshit about how much they love their country and how they can be trusted to regulate themselves.

Yes, it sounds familiar. January 20, 2009 can't come soon enough.

tristero 11/06/2008 08:00:00 PM |

 
Manly Morons

by digby

I mentioned this before, but with the cable new networks all breathlessly reporting that Sarah W. Palin is a moron --- and people like Chris Matthews now opining that anyone who isn't smart can't possible be president, I feel it's necessary to point out that being a moron is something the Republicans and the media have shown a rather remarkable tolerance for up until now:

Q: What do you think of tribal sovereignty means in the 21st century, and how can we resolve conflicts between tribes and federal and state governments?

Bush: Yeah... yeah, tribal sovereignty means that, sovereign. You're a... you're a... you've been given sovereignty and you're... viewed as a sovereign entity. (laughter) And therefore, the relationship between the federal government and the tribes is one between sovereign entities.

That man had been president for nearly four years at that point and was about to be reelected. I don't recall anyone but a bunch of scruffy bloggers having a problem with the fact that he clearly didn't have fucking clue what sovereignty even meant --- and was nation building in Iraq at that very moment.

Or how about this:

Q: You talk about the general threat toward Americans. You know, the Internet is crowded with all sorts of rumor and gossip and, kind of, urban myths. And people ask, what is it they're supposed to be on the lookout for? Other than the 22 most wanted terrorists, what are Americans supposed to look for and report to the police or to the FBI?

A: Well, Ann, you know, if you find a person that you've never seen before getting in a crop duster that doesn't belong to you -- report it.

Seriously. Entire books have been written devoted to the stupid things that this man has said as president. He's an idiot.

So is Sarah Palin, (which is why I've always called her Sarah W. Palin) but please, these gasbags helped create the myth that to be president all you need was a "gut" and an attitude and the real Americans didn't want some smarty pants, egghead for a leader. To act as though they believe that being intelligent is some sort of requirement for high officeis just bullshit.


Not so long ago:

MATTHEWS: We're proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who's physical, who's not a complicated guy like Clinton or even like Dukakis or Mondale, all those guys, McGovern. They want a guy who's president. Women like a guy who's president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. It's simple. We're not like the Brits. We don't want an indoor prime minister type, or the Danes or the Dutch or the Italians, or a Putin. Can you imagine Putin getting elected here? We want a guy as president.

I guess it's ok to be a moron if Tweety gets all hot and bothered by your manly swagger.


.
digby 11/06/2008 06:30:00 PM |

 
Is This So Hard To Say?

by dday

"Politics is not left, right or center ... It's about improving people's lives."

-Paul Wellstone, Election Night 1990 acceptance speech

We are 18 years on from that piercingly simple statement, and yet nobody in the Democratic Party has managed to use it as the antidote to this endless effort to analyze and re-analyze the election through a conservative frame, by claiming this is a center-right country and Obama had better be cautious in enacting an agenda too far to the left, which would anger the public. This is of course true if you believe the public is directly analogous to the Washington commentariat. I've had a hard time chronicling everyone who has told me that, in the wake of the largest victory for Democrats since 1964, in the wake of winning a majority of the votes cast in 4 out of the last 5 Presidential elections, in the wake of reducing the Republican Party to a regional outpost in the South and part of the Great Plains, this is a profoundly conservative nation. Here's a partial list:

Ron Brownstein, Jon Meacham, Peggy Noonan, Howard Fineman, David Broder, John Heilemann, John King, Mark Penn, Doug Schoen, Charles Krauthammer, Ruth Marcus, Marc Halperin, Dan Balz, Peter Wehner, William Galston, Bob Kerrey, Fred Barnes, Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough.

I think they call that a meme. Just for fun, here's a textbook example of the genre:

"My own hunch is that Obama is smart enough not to want to govern as a liberal," said Peter Wehner, a former Bush administration official.

(On our side we have Nina Easton. Whoop-de-damn-do.)

Most of these are movement conservatives masquerading as journalists, but of course they have a disproportionate impact on their Village buddies, who are just as fearful of any altering of the status quo and just as protective of it. So they fundamentally misread the Clinton years and concern troll Barack Obama against making the "same mistakes."

This is one of the classic myths that conservatives and establishment pundits, helped in no small part by conservative Democrats, like to flog. The reality is that we lost the 1994 elections mostly because of the disappointment from working-class Democrats and independents, especially women, who had voted for us in big numbers in 1992 but didn't show up to vote in 1994. We lost because we didn't deliver for our voters, not because we over-reached.

The first major fight was over our first federal budget. As folks may remember, Bob Rubin and other deficit hawks convinced Clinton to dramatically scale back on his campaign promises for investments in domestic programs, and to delay health care reform until we got that budget passed. While Clinton complained that we were going with an approach more like Eisenhower than like a Democrat, he went along with the green eyeshade guys. The budget got progressively more modest over the course of the legislative battle, most importantly taking out Gore's carbon tax idea. The bill that ended up passing was reasonably progressive, but way scaled back from 1992 campaign promises or what progressive members of Congress/groups had been pushing.

The next big fight was over NAFTA, a real example of lefty over-reaching. Yeah, right. And once again, those of us in the White House pushing hard for health care reform to be prioritized early were left disappointed as once more the drive to get health reform passed got delayed. Meanwhile, our allies in the labor movement who were excited about helping us pass a health care bill had to spend millions in fighting the NAFTA battle [...]

For all of our over-reaching, we didn't deliver much to those working class voters who gave us our victory in 1992. Family and Medical Leave was a great thing, and very popular, but very modest compared to bigger picture economic issues. An increase in the Earned Income Tax Credit was also terrific, but helped only a relatively small number of people.

Not delivering much is what cost us the 1994 election. I did a thorough analysis of the 1994 exit polls after the election and did a memo to my fellow White House staffers. What I found was that the key to the election were the voters that stayed home who were non-college educated, lower and middle income, younger, more women than men, and heavily Democratic. Disproportionately large among those non-voters were working class and unmarried women. Overall, there was a 22-point difference in terms of Democratic support (in the wrong direction, of course) between those who voted and those who had in 1992 but didn't in 1994, thereby sealing our fate.

It's a funny thing, the public wants you to improve their lives a bit and keep your campaign promises to do so, and they don't really seem that concerned about whether you're moving too far to "the left" or "the right."

In fact, the entire notion of "what kind of a country is America" becomes quickly tautological. This is a centrist country in the sense that the center would be the median ideology of everyone in it. The question becomes where is that center. And it's completely clear that the public agrees with Obama's agenda, which includes investments in public health, education, energy and infrastructure, an end to the war in Iraq, increased diplomacy, reproductive choice, and a more progressive tax code.



If you want to call that a progressive majority, it would be hard to argue with you. But more than anything, it's a recognition on the part of the vast majority of the public that they would rather have a government that improves people's lives instead of one that actively harms it. So while looking at self-described ideology shows that the electorate is in pretty much the same place as it has been, that's a false indicator. People want to stop being screwed, and they intuitively understand that a conservative agenda was doing that repeatedly. They don't want to be ruled by monsters anymore. The best way to show them that you're not a monster is to marginally improve their lives, fulfilling your role as a public servant to the greater good.

Obama has a difficult task. He has a Village media culture that wants him to go slow instead of looking at what's necessary for the historical moment. He hears every day to push aside those DFHs and mean ol' liberals who would run his Presidency into the ground. He hears the same thing from conservative Blue Dog members of his own party who've suddenly found their fiscally conservative backbone, and even the party leadership, fearful of a backlash and continually stuck in early 1995 mode, weighing risk and reward and gaming out the politics of it all instead of, and let me say this one more time, IMPROVING PEOPLE'S LIVES.

I actually think Nancy Pelosi tried to say this yesterday in a soundbite that Digby flagged yesterday. If you listen to the whole quote, you'll see that she says that raising the minimum wage, increasing CAFE standards, cutting student loans in half and creating the 21st-century GI Bill, all ideas that came out of the progressive wing, were embraced by both parties.

She ended up saying it in a very stunted way, when it doesn't have to be that difficult. The role of government is to improve people's lives. Through initiating projects through collective action that the individual cannot do themselves, like building roads and bridges and police and fire departments. Through equalizing opportunity for success through education programs. Through making sure the least of us doesn't slip into grinding poverty with a social safety net, rather than just socialism for the rich and connected. Through making sure that we have a health care system that provides access and treatment as a basic human right. Through defending the nation with diplomacy and international engagement instead of sending in the military at the slightest provocation. Through adhering to a Constitution that has been ignored and mocked the last eight years.

I think Obama's instincts in this regard may be decent.

The debates unnerved both candidates. When he was preparing for them during the Democratic primaries, Obama was recorded saying, "I don't consider this to be a good format for me, which makes me more cautious. I often find myself trapped by the questions and thinking to myself, 'You know, this is a stupid question, but let me … answer it.' So when Brian Williams is asking me about what's a personal thing that you've done [that's green], and I say, you know, 'Well, I planted a bunch of trees.' And he says, 'I'm talking about personal.' What I'm thinking in my head is, 'Well, the truth is, Brian, we can't solve global warming because I f---ing changed light bulbs in my house. It's because of something collective'."

But he's going to need a great deal of help, and this is where Digby was going previously. The liberal blogosphere is uniquely positioned to act as the counterweight to this large gelatinous mass tut-tutting that we mustn't rock the boat and have the candidate who ran on change actually change anything. Progressive organizations like Media Matters can attack this meme and treat it with the withering contempt it deserves. Obama is going to hear this in his ear (probably from his new Chief of Staff) every ten seconds from the moment he takes the oath of office. It's important for us to make sure he hears something else.

Improve people's lives, President-Elect.

"Any jackass can kick down a barn but it takes a good carpenter to build one."

-Lyndon Johnson

dday 11/06/2008 05:00:00 PM |

 
Cyborg Socialism

by digby

Schwarzenegger November 1st:

He also took issue with Obama's plan to roll back Bush's tax cuts for the top brackets, as well as the Democrat's statement to Joe the Plumber that he believes "when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

"I left Europe four decades ago because socialism has killed opportunities there," Schwarzenegger said. ". . . Now Sen. Obama says he wants to pursue the same 'spread the wealth' ideas that Europe had decades ago."

Schwarzenegger November 5th:

Schwarzenegger's call for tax increases puts him again at odds with legislators in his own party. Republicans, a minority in both houses but strong enough to block spending plans, were steadfastly against raising taxes in the last budget, and the state Senate's GOP caucus chairman said that won't change.

"The fact is that during this time of economic challenges is not the time to go back to California taxpayers and ask for more money from them," said Sen. George Runner, of Lancaster.

The governor often has characterized California's budget problems as being caused by runaway spending, rather than a lack of tax revenue, but he said Thursday that the severe financial crisis has flipped that.

"It is now a revenue problem rather than a spending problem," Schwarzenegger said.

I guess there's socialism and then there's socialism. Those deregulated, free market fundamentalist "opportunities" have turned our economy into a Big Shitpile™.


H/t Dover Bitch
digby 11/06/2008 03:30:00 PM |

 
Ooh That Smell

by digby

Here's some good news. People are finally realizing that reefer madness really isn't much of a threat. We have real problems.


.
digby 11/06/2008 01:30:00 PM |

 
Take A Cold Shower

by digby

... and shut up.

Ok, that's it. I agree that Sarah Palin is a disaster. She was a terrible choice for VP and undoubtedly cost McCain votes among those who couldn't believe he'd choose someone so unqualified. I hope we never see her again. I shed no tears for her loss.

But this obsession among the gasbags and the wingnut operatives with this story of her greeting these (apparently very, very delicate) male McCain advisors in a towel is just sexist crap. They are basically trying to turn her into some kind of slutty, lowlife freak and it's disgusting.

The woman had no business running for VP considering her complete lack of knowledge about national politics and current events. I think that's been amply demonstrated. But the men who chose her are now obviously the ones who are trying to destroy her in order to cover their own sorry asses:

“What about Sarah Palin?” Schmidt asked.

[...]

After that first brief meeting, Davis remained in discreet but frequent contact with Palin and her staff — gathering tapes of speeches and interviews, as he was doing with all potential vice-presidential candidates. One tape in particular struck Davis as arresting: an interview with Palin and Gov. Janet Napolitano, the Arizona Democrat, on “The Charlie Rose Show” that was shown in October 2007. Reviewing the tape, it didn’t concern Davis that Palin seemed out of her depth on health-care issues or that, when asked to name her favorite candidate among the Republican field, she said, “I’m undecided.” What he liked was how she stuck to her pet issues — energy independence and ethics reform — and thereby refused to let Rose manage the interview. This was the case throughout all of the Palin footage. Consistency. Confidence.

And . . . well, look at her. A friend had said to Davis: “The way you pick a vice president is, you get a frame of Time magazine, and you put the pictures of the people in that frame. You look at who fits that frame best — that’s your V. P.”

Those who were in charge of McCain's campaign, including the man himself, chose her for her looks and robotic, unresponsive stubbornness. They are in no position to complain about what they got. And they are pigs for trying to make something out of this towel thing.

Unless she flashed you her privates and gave one of her winks, it doesn't mean she wanted to fuck you in front of her husband, fellas. She was covered. Grow up.


.
digby 11/06/2008 12:30:00 PM |

 
Making Him Do It

by digby


I was reading through the comment section of a few posts this morning (something I rarely can bring myself to do anymore) and I realized that I need to remind people of something that's very important for successful governance:

FDR was, of course, a consummate political leader. In one situation, a group came to him urging specific actions in support of a cause in which they deeply believed. He replied: "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it."

He understood that a President does not rule by fiat and unilateral commands to a nation. He must build the political support that makes his decisions acceptable to our countrymen. He read the public opinion polls not to define who he was but to determine where the country was – and then to strategize how he could move the country to the objectives he thought had to be carried out.

If Obama wants to govern as liberally as the political circumstances allow, then we need to work to make sure that the political circumstances include a strong liberal base. Mindlessly cheerleading out of a misplaced sense of loyalty will not help him. As Roosevelt understood, politics are interlocking interests and constituencies that have to be brought to bear to achieve certain goals.

In the current political world, I believe that Obama and the Democrats need a strong left wing that is out there agitating in order that we can continue to build popular support and also give them a political excuse to do things that the political establishment finds too liberal. Being cheerleaders all the time, however enjoyable that is, is not going to help them. Leaving them out there with no left wing cripples them.

One of the problems for Democrats has been that there has not been an effective progressive voice pushing the edge of the envelope. Therefore, when they inevitably "go to the middle" as politicians often feel they must do, the middle become further and further right. It is my belief that one of the roles of the progressive movement is to keep pulling the politicians back to the left, which often means that we are not being publicly "supportive," in order that we really do end up in the middle instead of farther to the right than the country actually is.

I'm not an idiot and I know very well that Obama needs room to govern. A big historic victory, a village predisposed to at least give him a chance and a set of very serious crises to confront will give him that. My role is to make sure that the progressive agenda is pushed as well, and to make sure that the village knows that we are watching. I don't mind if they hate me, if they also have a healthy respect for the fact that I will stand up for what I believe in. I think this is necessary for successful politics. I don't expect to win all the time (or even most of the time) and I will be very, very supportive when the Democrats come through. But I believe that they need us to keep their feet to the fire.

In addition, we need to start the long process of making progressivism the default political identity of the young. That requires rhetoric that stands strong and takes pride in being liberal. Politicians may have to say that they "represent all the people" and give lip service to bipartisanship, but there is no reason that they should have to run from the progressive label or feel the need to kick their own base in the teeth in order to govern. That's bad for our politics in the long run.

So, everyone needs to relax a little bit about the blogosphere criticizing Obama and the Democrats. We are necessary. If all Obama has is the Villagers and the right defining what change means, then those are the parameters within which he will have to operate. He needs us to "make him do it."

I'm sorry if that's a buzzkill, but things move fast in politics and there's no time to waste. The mandate is being defined as we speak. We can't just sit back and bask in our glory while the villagers are busily narrowing Obama's options.



.
digby 11/06/2008 10:30:00 AM |

 
Self Interest

by digby

Reader Bill sent me an email this morning that set me to thinking about something very fundamental:

I got up early and caught some of the discussion with Lawrence O'donnell, Chrystia Freedland, and Joe Scar as to why people who make tons of money still voted for Obama.

Well, for most people, their lives are not governed by the tax code. It ignores a world view of a social compact, and a certain amount of self interest too.
Fairness, tolerance, decency are part of the human deal too.

Philosophers and political theorists have argued about this forever, so I obviously don't have any fresh insights. But I do feel that I understand this phenomenon. People who have money are like everyone else in that they come in all sizes and political persuasions. But they often have the luxury of looking beyond their immediate personal needs to the bigger picture and I think many of them realize that their comfortable life depends upon maintaining a stable society where there isn't horrible poverty, where the infrastructure is modern and working, where crime isn't rampant and where their kids can breath clean air. These are things they cannot pay for as individuals and are willing to kick in in order to insure that the nice life they have, and their children will likely have, continues.

If they are entirely rational in their thinking, they can even sit down and run a spreadsheet which gives them a cost benefit analysis of those broad social expenses and they'll realize that they come out far ahead. The more instinctive among them just know that they don't want to live in place that isn't fair, tolerant and decent and they are willing to pay a share of their comfortable incomes to make that more likely.

I've always thought this pseudo-libertarian "self-interest" argument was a crock for anyone but the most pie-in-the-sky Randian. It's in your "self-interest" to live in a well functioning society --- and that requires an organizing principle and community action like government to achieve. The only argument against taxation that really makes any sense is the one that says government is somehow intrinsically incapable of doing anything right. In a country that was founded on democracy, there's something about that which doesn't scan very well --- after all, we are the ones who choose the government. It's an indictment of the people themselves.

The only way you can persuade a majority to ignore their collective interest in ensuring a decent community is to stroke their tribal lizard brains into believing that their money is going to help an "enemy" rather than their own. That's why it has worked so well in racist societies.

For those government helps directly, whether it's through educational opportunities or unemployment insurance or health care for their kids and elderly parents, the benefits are obvious. But there's nothing unusual about financially comfortable people also being willing to pay for a decent society in which to live and work and bring up their kids. The unnatural ones are those who think they can live a good life without contributing to such things. Apparently, they think they can live inside a castle and pull up the drawbridge behind them, leaving all the ugliness outside. And that is the perfect, time tested recipe for revolution. It's not exactly the smart move for the long haul.


.
digby 11/06/2008 09:00:00 AM |

 
Quote Of The Day

by tristero

Jane:

With 4.5 million members, MoveOn is now bigger than they NRA. Maybe our leaders should think about that for a while.

So should MoveOn. This is the time to move onwards with a progressive agenda. And fast.

tristero 11/06/2008 07:16:00 AM |

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

 
Dropping The Anchor

by digby

Good God, I hope this is just rhetorical bullshit.

Democratic leaders are tamping down on expectations for rapid change and trying to signal they will place a calm hand on the nation’s tiller.

“The country must be governed from the middle,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Wednesday. Repeating themes from election night, she said she plans to emphasize “civility” and “fiscal responsibility.”

After saying the word "change" at least 175,000 times in the last year, the Democrats had better not start sounding too much like Republican grandpas or millions of people who voted for them might get the feeling they've just been taken for a bunch of chumps. I get that they are trying to calm the village and keep the restive Republicans from staging a hissy fit right out of the gate. And delivering on all this massive change was never going to be easy.

But they had better keep in mind that they were elected by a lot of new voters and liberals too and they are going to need very high levels of support for a sustained period of time to get anything done. I don't expect them to cater to the base like Rove did, but they'd better not take it too much for granted either. We've seen what happened after 2006, when they raised expectations that they would fight Bush hard on the war. Their approval ratings ended up worse than Bush's because they were loathed not only by the right wing (who will loathe them no matter what they do) but by their own base as well. They simply can't afford to let that happen again.

There's nothing inherently wrong with co-opting conservative rhetoric for their own use, but the other side is very good at making them wish they'd never made promises they had no intention of keeping. (It's what they are really good at.) I just don't think the Dems are clever enough to play sophisticated rhetorical games and not end up hanging themselves with their own words. They should just say what they are going to do as forthrightly as possible.

Of course, that might be exactly what they are doing.


.
digby 11/05/2008 08:00:00 PM |

 
The Outsider

by digby

Everybody's chattering about Obama picking Rahm Emanuel for chief of staff. What does it all mean? I don't have the faintest idea. Rahm is a political enforcer, so maybe that's good news. It all depends on who he's bringing the hammer down on, I suppose. We'll have to wait and see.

I found this to be the most amusing bit of spin I've heard about the whole thing though:

When Emanuel led the Democrats' efforts to take back the House in 2006, Axelrod was his chief political adviser. And, in the Obama campaign, Emanuel returned the favor. Although Axelrod tended to take a dim view of advice that was offered by Democrats dialing from a 202 area code, Emanuel's counsel was always welcomed. "There are two branches of Washington," one Obama adviser told me. "There's official Washington and the pundits and the people who have spent a lifetime there and who have done things the old way. And then there are other people, like Rahm who aren't purveyors of conventional wisdom. We don't even consider Rahm a Washington guy."

Okay...

"This beautiful capital," President Clinton said in his first inaugural address, "is often a place of intrigue and calculation. Powerful people maneuver for position and worry endlessly about who is in and who is out, who is up and who is down, forgetting those people whose toil and sweat sends us here and pays our way." With that, the new president sent a clear challenge to an already suspicious Washington Establishment.

And now, five years later, here was Clinton's trusted adviser Rahm Emanuel, finishing up a speech at a fund-raiser to fight spina bifida before a gathering that could only be described as Establishment Washington.

"There are a lot of people in America who look at what we do here in Washington with nothing but cynicism," said Emanuel. "Heck, there are a lot of people in Washington who look at us with nothing but cynicism." But, he went on, "there are good people here. Decent people on both sides of the political aisle and on both sides of the reporter's notebook."

Emanuel, unlike the president, had become part of the Washington Establishment. "This is one of those extraordinary moments," he said at the fund-raiser, "when we come together as a community here in Washington -- setting aside personal, political and professional differences."

.
digby 11/05/2008 06:30:00 PM |

 
Nail Biter

by digby

The latest on Darcy Burner:

Darcy is currently down by around 1400 votes, around 1%, with what looks like about a third of the vote counted. It's impossible to tell what's going to happen because the uncounted and counted votes are in clumps with distinct partisan leanings. That is, the counted votes are not representative of what the uncounted votes will look like. David Goldstein has the summary of what's going on.

You can also mail in ballots in Washington until election day so we might not know this one for some days yet --- and apparently there may still be a runoff recount. Keep your fingers crossed.


.
digby 11/05/2008 05:30:00 PM |

 
Fixed

by digby


The villagers are whipping themselves into a frenzy over the prospect that Obama might not be as bipartisan as they insist he must be, but they needn't fear. The Republicans will be putty in his hands.

After all:

Once the minority of House and Senate are comfortable in their minority status, they will have no problem socializing with the Democrats. Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are unpleasant, but when they've been fixed, then they are happy and sedate. They are contented and cheerful. They don't go around peeing on the furniture and such.

.
digby 11/05/2008 03:30:00 PM |

 
The Resurrection

by dday

I couldn't agree more with John Aravosis:

After eight years of having Republicans call me an un-American troop-hating fag-loving socialist, after months of John McCain embracing the hate to a level where his own supporters were calling out for Barack Obama to be assassinated, no one is going to be permitted to tell me with a straight face that "oh you know, both sides do it."

Your side was abominable. Your side was hateful. Your side race-baited. Your side gay-baited. Your side lied like we've never seen in recent presidential campaign history. Your side used a tax-cheat who would do better under Obama's tax proposal to be your everyman on the issue of taxes. Your side, in a veiled effort at race-baiting, said Obama doesn't put his country first. Your side had the audacity to call Obama a socialist. Your side suggested he was a Muslim. Your side suggested he was a terrorist. Your side suggested he was Osama bin Laden.

Spare me the crap about how both sides do it. You people are a disgrace, you've been a disgrace for eight long years, and all your hate and lying and venom and vitriol finally bit you in your collective fat ass.

The effort to raise John McCain's reputation from the dead has already begun. He'll give a TV appearance where he'll rend his garments and bat his eyes and talk about how sorrowful he was to see what his campaign perpetrated. And everyone in the Village will try to fall in line. It's as predictable as the conservatives who will immediately blame President Obama for not fixing the economy come January 22nd (they'll give him a one-day honeymoon).

Enough. You show your true character when put under the spotlight. John McCain showed his, and proved himself winning to go to any lengths to extend the glory to which he feels entitled. I'm not particularly interested in letting bygones be bygones. The Democratic nominee got multiple threats on his life as the anger of McCain-Palin rallies reached a fever pitch.

McCain will have to live with himself. And anyone that tries to throw him a lifeline will hear from me, at least.
dday 11/05/2008 02:30:00 PM |

 
Always And Forever

by digby

...it's good news for Republicans:

They lost the presidency, at least five seats in the Senate, and around 20 seats in the House. They are officially out of power. But considering how bad the damage might have been, the GOP actually had the best night they could realistically hope for under the circumstances.

Looking back at our races to watch, just about all the conservative Republicans in traditionally red territory held seats needed by the GOP to avoid a blowout: Senators Roger Wicker in Mississippi, Mitch McConnell in Kentucky and, probably, Saxby Chambliss in Georgia, along with House members John Shadegg in Arizona, Cynthia Lummis in Wyoming and the Diaz-Balart brothers in Florida. It looks like graft-convicted Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska will somehow retain his seat long enough to get expelled, and his ethically and temperamentally challenged porkmate, Don Young, was reelected as well; Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota survived her McCarthyite rant on Hardball, and Ohio's similarly obnoxious Jean Schmidt once again avoided a well-deserved early retirement. Republicans even ousted four first-term Democrats before they could get entrenched in deep-red districts — not only the clearly doomed Casanova Tim Mahoney of Florida, but Nancy Boyda of Kansas, Dan Cazayoux of Louisiana and Nick Lampson of Texas.

Democrats did knock off a few fire-breathing right-wing targets: wacky Bill Sali of Idaho, who protested a minimum-wage hike by introducing a bill to repeal the law of gravity; Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado, who once declared gay marriage the greatest threat to America; Tom Feeney of Florida, an escapee from the Abramoff scandal; and Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina, who ran ads calling her Christian opponent "godless." They also defeated some impressive Republicans who could have helped lead the party out of the wilderness, like moderate Congressman Christopher Shays of Connecticut, conservative Senator John Sununu of New Hampshire, and pragmatic Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory, who had hoped to swim upstream into the governor's office.

Still, it could have been worse. After eight ugly years of AIG, WMDs, Abu Ghraib, Enron, Blackwater, freedom fries, yellowcake, record deficits, Fannie and Freddie and Brownie, Mark Foley and Duke Cunningham and Tom DeLay, the Republican Party should qualify for a bailout. Retiring GOP Congressman Tom Davis memorably declared that if Republicans were a dog food, they'd be pulled off the shelves — and their usually well-funded candidates were badly outspent this cycle. But they've survived to fight for more kibbles in the future.

Yes, all in all it wasn't a bad night at all for the Republicans. Unless you believe that repudiation of their party by a majority of the country is bad, of course.

And, needless to say, none of this means that Obama can actually try to enact his agenda. That would be ridiculous without a landslide 50 state victory, a filibuster proof Senate and a veto proof majority (not that he'd need one) in the House, right?

Well, it all depends on if you are a Republican or a Democrat. Republicans eke out victories and get mandates:

Wolf Blitzer, CNN anchor: "My sense is that the president will see this as a mandate on his policies, because the Republicans also did very well in the House of Representatives, did very well in the U.S. Senate, picking up seats in both. He gets over 50 percent, 51 percent. And he's going to see this as a mandate in the next four years to try and move the country in the direction he wants it to move. He will try to bring the country together in the short term, but he's going to say, he's got a mandate from the American people, and by all accounts he does." [CNN election coverage, 11/3/04]

Democrats win big and need to resist the impulse to overreach.

[T]he experience of President Bill Clinton's rocky early months -- remember gays in the military? the BTU tax? -- suggests the steep political price of governing in a way that is, or seems, skewed to the left. This risk is particularly acute for Obama, whose opponents have painted him as a leftist extremist. The good news is that his advisers seem exquisitely aware of this trap and determined not to fall into it.

There are other reasons to be optimistic that Democrats can resist overreaching. For the current congressional leadership, the memory of losing control in 1994 still sears; when Clinton took office, it seemed unimaginable that Democrats would ever lose the House. Now, the enlarged contingent of Blue Dogs and other conservative Democrats applies additional countervailing force.

Thank God for that. The last thing the American people gave Obama, with huge majorities in both houses and a large electoral vote win, is permission to enact his kooky, left wing agenda.

The good news is that the villagers seem to think it's ok to pass SCHIP and Ledbetter so that's something. He's going to have to get their permission if he wants to do anything more "radical" than that. After all, it's not like he has a mandate.


.

digby 11/05/2008 01:30:00 PM |

 
Bittersweet

by digby

As thrilled as I am that the country has begun to shake off the curse of the GOP, this still hurts:

Voters put a stop to same-sex marriage in California, dealing a crushing defeat to gay-rights activists in a state they hoped would be a vanguard, and putting in doubt as many as 18,000 same-sex marriages conducted since a court ruling made them legal this year.

The gay-rights movement had a rough election elsewhere as well Tuesday. Ban-gay-marriage amendments were approved in Arizona and Florida, and Arkansas voters approved a measure banning unmarried couples from serving as adoptive or foster parents. Supporters made clear that gays and lesbians were their main target.

And naturally, the first words out of many of the gasbags' mouths were that this means the country is still "center-right" and that there is no mandate for progressive change. Last night Doug Schoen was all over Fox saying the "ballot measures prove it."

Honestly, I'm wrung out and I don't even care about that at the moment. The political implications are what the spinners will make of it. But these hateful propositions winning makes the victory bittersweet. How people can vote for the first African American president in American history, with all that implies, while simultaneously voting to discriminate against gays is testament to the incoherence of American politics and the lack of clear cut philosophy guiding people's choices. Everyone says there's too much ideology in our politics but I'd say there isn't enough. There isn't enough common sense either. Discrimination against others just because you don't like how they live their lives is against the very essence of the two pillars of America --- liberty and equality. To fail to see that even as you vote for an historic, important first African American is incoherent.

I keep hearing about how this will right itself in the long run, that it's just a matter of waiting until this new generation gets old enough and then gay rights will magically be "granted." I hope that's true. But to paraphrase a saying that's been overused lately -- in the long run all of today's gay partners and gay parents will be dead. These soothing tones of "patience" and "don't worry" don't mean much when you consider that you only have one life to live.

It's terrific that we are seeing a decline in racism to the extent that we are able to elect a black president. We've come a long way and there's no taking anything away from those who waged the struggle over all these centuries. But our society is not truly changed if it's still writing discrimination into law.

It's as if we just can't be America unless we are taking active steps to marginalize somebody.


.
digby 11/05/2008 11:36:00 AM |

 
First And Second Chances

by digby


There are many things to be said about Obama's victory and people much more erudite and talented than I will be writing about all of it over the next few days. For me, there are twp things that are important and deserve at least a passing mention this morning after.

The first, of course, is what I referenced below. The election of the first African American president is inspiring for all the obvious reasons. I was never one who believed that we wouldn't ever elect a black president. But I assumed that he would have to be a conservative Republican in order to win --- a sort of Nixon/China deal. It is a sign of something very, very promising that this country elected a black Democrat.

The other thing is this:

"Your election raises great hopes in France, Europe and the rest of the world," French President Nicolas Sarkozy said in a letter to the president-elect. "I have just sent my warmest congratulations to Sen. Obama," said British Prime Minister Gordon Brown from his office at 10 Downing Street, before pointing to his country's "special relationship" with America. "I have talked to Sen. Obama on many occasions and I know that he is a true friend of Britain."

Newspapers around the world seemed upbeat, and the most positive press in Britain appeared to come from the two papers owned by News Corp. (nyse: NWS - news - people ) owner Rupert Murdoch. "One Giant Leap For Mankind," proclaimed The Sun, a right-wing tabloid that is widely read in Britain, while The Times of London had a picture of Obama with the headline "The New World."

"Historic" seemed to be the buzzword of the day, used in the headlines for the South China Morning Post, the Times of India and El Mundo of Spain. Many papers like Le Monde of France and Spain's El Pais also referred to a fulfillment of the "American Dream."

An article in Indian newspaper The Hindu suggested that Obama's election could help resolve the separatist issue in Kashmir, while Pierre Avril, a blogger for France's Figaro newspaper, said that Brussels would now want to "forget the Bush years."

Abdul Rahman, a reporter for the Iraqi satellite TV channel Al Sharqiya, told Forbes.com that there were two different reactions to Obama's win in Iraq. "Those who are against the political process are optimistic," while others are more concerned about future political changes. "The rumor is that Obama will change the whole political process."

Obama had said in his speech that "to those who would tear this world down--we will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security--we support you."

One of the most frustrating missed opportunities of the last eight years was rejecting the outpouring of support from around the world after 9/11 and failing to create a new regime of cooperation and common purpose in the age of globalization.

It looks like America might just be given another chance. Let's hope we get it right this time.


.
digby 11/05/2008 09:12:00 AM |

Tuesday, November 04, 2008

 

Martin Luther King, Jr.

"I Have a Dream"

Delivered 28 August 1963, at the Lincoln Memorial, Washington D.C.

I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.

Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.

But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. And so we've come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.

In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds."

But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so, we've come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.

We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of Now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.

My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing.

Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrim's pride,

From every mountainside, let freedom ring!

It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. And those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. And there will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.

But there is something that I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.

The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.

We cannot walk alone.

And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead.

We cannot turn back.

There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their self-hood and robbed of their dignity by a sign stating: "For Whites Only." We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until "justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream."¹

I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. And some of you have come from areas where your quest -- quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive. Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed.

Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends.

And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; "and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together."²

This is our hope, and this is the faith that I go back to the South with.

With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

And this will be the day -- this will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning:

And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true.

And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire.

Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York.

Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania.

Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado.

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California.

But not only that:

Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia.

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee.

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi.

From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:

Free at last! Free at last!

Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!

.
digby 11/04/2008 08:00:00 PM |

 
Bold Progressives

by dday


Alan Grayson has defeated Rep. Rick Keller to pick up a seat in the House for the Democrats. This one is great. Grayson is a better Democrat, a guy who went after fraudulent defense contractors who were wasting taxpayer dollars in Iraq. He's a bold progressive. He's going to be a leader in Congress.

Here's Grayson on the Bush Administration:

I'm running because I'm fed up with the government mismanagement, the Bush administration's shameless pandering to war profiteers. I think they set out on a deliberate course to make this war good for the people who were their friends. And I want to try to hold them accountable when I'm in Congress. When I'm in Congress... the Bush administration's worst nightmare is going to be me with subpoena power because I know everything that they've done, and I'm going to hold them accountable for it.

Matt Stoller: But wait wait, let me just interrupt you there, the Bush administration's gone in 2009.

Alan Grayson: Oh but all the people they set up as the new kings and queens of America are still around. What Eisenhower said, that we need to fear the military industrial compex, has become true because they have manufactured a five year war that they want to perpetuate for a generation or even a century so that they can keep lining the pockets of their friends, the war whores.

Matt Stoller: So, people are going to say, let bygones be bygones, or let's have some sort of truth and reconciliation commission, what do you think needs to happen?

Alan Grayson: We don't need truth and reconciliation, we need punishment. We need people to be held accountable for all the mistakes that they made that have screwed us up in this war and screwed us up in this economy. The economy is falling apart, the chickens are coming home to roost. You cannot spend $10,000 for every man, woman, and child in America for a war that never should have taken place in the first place.

Matt Stoller: But be specific, what do you mean by punishment?

Alan Grayson: We'll put people in prison. We'll take away the thing that they care about the most, their money. They stole, they hurt the troops, they killed people, they hurt the taxpayers year after year and they've destroyed this economy. They're not going to get off scot-free.

Matt Stoller: Who's 'they'?

Alan Grayson: The people who have been running this government and their assistants who have been running companies like Halliburton. Think about it, we have a Vice President who was the head of Hallburton, who got a $23 million parting gift from them when he became Vice President. And he was the one who instigated this war and made Halliburton the largest army contractor in existence.

Awesome.


.
dday 11/04/2008 06:00:00 PM |

 
Wrong

by digby


The segregationist, discriminatory scumbags from "Yes on 8" just had the nerve to send me --- a resident of the godless People's Republic of Santa Monica --- a robocall with the voice of Barack Obama saying he doesn't believe in gay marriage.

Eat this:

Joe Scarborough just went OFF on the Republican Party. He said "it wasn't that long ago that Republicans thought they would have a permanent majority. They thought this country was a center right nation: WRONG!"

He went on:

"This is a total repudiation of the Republican brand. This is a party that is out of touch not only with the American electorate but their own base."

Scarborough is pissed. This is going to be a good night.

Pat Buchanan: "I think, frankly, we could be on the cusp of a new era."

.
digby 11/04/2008 05:30:00 PM |

 
Uncivil Disobedience

by digby

Just a little observation about the right: I read this on Calitics this morning:

We just got a report in from a polling location in Contra Costa that a poll worker just came out and berated our volunteers, stating that she was morally opposed to what they were doing. Not exactly within the job description for a poll worker.

I realized reading that the right has created this myth that if you are morally opposed to doing something you have a right to break the law and suffer no consequences. They created this theme around the abortion debate going all the way back to the Hyde Amendment and more recently with groups like Pharmacists For Life and the gay marriage issue and faith based initiatives. It's inevitable that some poll workers and federal employees would get confused and think they have the right to break federal and state laws generally if they find them morally objectionable.

If these were undertaken as acts of civil disobedience, with the full knowledge that they would be prosecuted, then that would be one thing. We have a long and honorable tradition of such things. But they want to be exempted from the consequences. That's not the way we do it.

And while we have always had corruption of the electoral system, like every democracy, at least on some minor levels we have never allowed the ballot to be compromised because of someone's "moral objections" to something on it. Again, it's just not the way we do it.

.
digby 11/04/2008 04:30:00 PM |

 
America's A-Hole

by dday

Joe Lieberman, everyone:

BECK: But do you agree that Senator Hatch said to me that if we don’t at least have the firewall of the filibuster in the Senate that in many ways America will not survive?

LIEBERMAN: Well, I hope it’s not like that, but I fear.

Lieberman also hinted that next session, he would be supportive of conservative efforts to filibuster progressive legislation. Lieberman said that the filibuster is a “key” to stop such “passions of the moment”:

LIEBERMAN: And I think the filibuster is the key. You know, it gets a bad name, but it was really put there, a 60-vote requirement, to, as somebody said to me when I first came to the Senate, stop the passions of a moment among the people of America from sweeping across the Congress, the House, through the Senate, to a like-minded President and having us do things that will change America for a long time. So the filibuster is one of the important protections we have.

"Protections" from such things as giving kids healthcare, getting our troops out of Iraq, building the new energy infrastructure of the future, you know, "dangerous" things like that.

If anyone's counting Democratic numbers in the Senate, be sure not to include Lieberman on our side. He's telling you right here that he's not. We can make that permanent, you know.


.
dday 11/04/2008 03:30:00 PM |

 
Update:

From Dday writing on Calitics:

Make my election prediction come out right! This is from Debbie Cook's campaign, via email:

We have volunteers monitoring precincts across the district, and the results look encouraging. Our voters are showing up and Republicans are just not very excited by Rohrabacher.

We need you to help phone from home now, and until the polls close at 8:00.

We need to personally call every Democrat in the district before 7:30 and get them out to vote.

Can you help?

If you can, please email debbiecookforcongress-at-gmail-dot-com and we'll send you the simple instructions to call from home.

Joe Shaw
Communications Director
Debbie Cook for Congress

A Cook victory would be the biggest ideological shift in the entire House of Representatives. She is a Better Democrat who needs your help. Stay for Change and give Debbie Cook a hand. She will make you proud in Washington.

More Than Obama

by digby


I just got off the phone with Darcy Burner. She's upbeat and feels confident, but it's going to be close and she needs every possible voter today. If you know anyone in her district you need to call them. If you are in her district don't think of blowing it off just because the gasbags are calling the election for Obama.

It is very, very difficult to turn a red district blue by unseating an incumbent, but Democrats like Darcy may just get it done this time. But it won't happen if people fail to vote today.

Here in California I heard from some of my spies (Gloria) that the lines in Debbie Cook's district were very long and included lots of young people, which is unusual in the precincts I heard about. Maybe we can take down that awful throwback Dana Rohrabacher too.

Cook and Burner are the faces of the new Democratic party. If they can get elected in these western blue state districts that are changing from conservative strongholds into modern, pragmatic progressivism we will see a more progressive country.

Take nothing for granted. This isn't easy.



.
digby 11/04/2008 02:00:00 PM |

 
Come From Ahead

by dday

This map is floating around the Internets today. Survey USA polled a hypothetical matchup in 2006 between McCain and Obama. McCain took it 510 to 28 in the Electoral College, with Obama only winning Illinois, Hawaii and D.C.



Two years ago John McCain was probably the most popular Republican in politics, and maybe the nation's most popular politician. It's important not to forget that. Fed by a media image that portrayed him as almost a comic-book hero, as this noble warrior willing to follow his conscience instead of party labels, he was exalted as the rugged maverick. It's simply incredible how that image has been completely tarnished by this Presidential campaign. He did it to himself, and because of the incredible engagement online and in the grassroots, the media was finally compelled to follow.

...by the way, I don't think this is an example of the media being biased, it's a typical example of them being dumb and myopic, thinking that the most important part of the election story is when THEY can report the returns, not giving voters accurate information of when the polls close in their area. It's malpractice of the worst kind. They still think this whole thing is for their amusement.

MSNBC continually aired graphics that purported to show "POLL CLOSING[]" times for each state. But in states that cross over time zones, the times listed in the graphics reflected the western-most time zone in the state, in which polls close an hour later than the rest of the state. Thus, people watching MSNBC in the eastern portion of some states could be left with the impression that local polls would be open for an hour after they actually close.

.
dday 11/04/2008 12:30:00 PM |

 
Vote Suppression

by digby

By "Black Panthers?" It so figures...

Meanwhile, back on planet earth:

Video the Vote has more.

.
digby 11/04/2008 11:30:00 AM |

 
News At Eleven

by digby


I just want to add to what tristero said below --- if the networks call the election early they will not only run the risk of being wrong, they will likely lower turnout in the west. That will affect our congressional and senate races as well as important ballot initiatives.

There is no reason for this bullshit. They tease the results of the news for hours including the all important sporting events. Indeed, there is an old trope that describes it called, "news at eleven." There is no reason that they can't hold off calling the election until the polls are closed. None. Considering their egregious performance just eight years ago, I find it mind-boggling that they are talking about doing this.



.
digby 11/04/2008 09:00:00 AM |

 
How Different This Is

by dday

There is the obvious, of course, and that's a big deal. Senior citizens who were the sons and daughters of slaves are going to the polls today to vote for the son of a Kenyan for President of the United States. It's extremely unique, and anomalous for the world. In fact, the US is the most likely place for this to happen. Europe has never had an ethnic minority lead one of their countries (Nicolas Sarkozy is the son of Hungarian immigrants, but that's not really what we're talking about), and immigrants are simply not assimilated into the society in the same way. It sounds weird to say it, but this is a uniquely American event.

But believe it or not, I think Adam Nagourney gets this largely right - while the phrase "change politics as we know it" gets thrown around a lot, this election truly has.

It has rewritten the rules on how to reach voters, raise money, organize supporters, manage the news media, track and mold public opinion, and wage — and withstand — political attacks, including many carried by blogs that did not exist four years ago. It has challenged the consensus view of the American electoral battleground, suggesting that Democrats can at a minimum be competitive in states and regions that had long been Republican strongholds.

The size and makeup of the electorate could be changed because of efforts by Democrats to register and turn out new black, Hispanic and young voters. This shift may have long-lasting ramifications for what the parties do to build enduring coalitions, especially if intensive and technologically-driven voter turnout programs succeed in getting more people to the polls. Mr. McCain’s advisers expect a record-shattering turnout of 130 million people, many being brought into the political process for the first time.

“I think we’ll be analyzing this election for years as a seminal, transformative race,” said Mark McKinnon, a senior adviser to President Bush’s campaigns in 2000 and 2004. “The year campaigns leveraged the Internet in ways never imagined. The year we went to warp speed. The year the paradigm got turned upside down and truly became bottom up instead of top down.”

And regardless of whether that is good for Democrats or Republicans (right now, it's Democrats, but that could change), it's good for the country. Political engagement is good for America. It's going to be sorely needed as we meet these enormous challenges, the fallout of the Age of Bush.

What was most different is that, despite the smear campaigns and the attacks, this was quite a substantive election. It was waged on ideological grounds, and while a lot of important issues hardly ever got raised, the core philosophies of conservatives and liberals was fully on display. And so the outcome ought to produce a bigger mandate than in the past. Obama made the argument, and so did McCain. Now the winner can act on it. And hopefully, we will see a citizenry as engaged about governing as they were about the horse race. That is the great challenge for the next President, because only people power will be able to overcome the special interests and the guardians of the status quo.

So go vote. But then on November 5, the work begins.



[ Find Your Polling Place | Voting Info For Your State | Know Your Voting Rights | Report Voting Problems ]


.
dday 11/04/2008 06:57:00 AM |

 
Vote!

by tristero

I just saw a headline in the NY Times that scared the daylights out of me: Networks May Call Race Before Voting Is Complete :

At least one broadcast network and one Web site said Monday that they could foresee signaling to viewers early Tuesday evening which candidate appeared to have won the presidency, despite the unreliability of some early exit polls in the last presidential election.

A senior vice president of CBS News, Paul Friedman, said the prospects for Barack Obama or John McCain meeting the minimum threshold of electoral votes could be clear as soon as 8 p.m. — before polls in even New York and Rhode Island close, let alone those in Texas and California. At such a moment, determined from a combination of polling data and samples of actual votes, the network could share its preliminary projection with viewers, Mr. Friedman said.

People, this is democratic malpractice, voter suppression. Senate and House races will be affected by this, as will the tally to defeat odious ballot initiatives like Prop Hate in California.

Don't fall for it! Whatever the preliminary results, whatever you hear, get to the polls and vote as if your single ballot could single-handedly decide Florida in 2000. Why? Because it's true.

Every single vote for Obama repudiates conservatism. It is not enough for Obama to win. Republicans must lose and lose and lose. Republicans know = and for once, they are right - the election is NOT over. Why? Because it is NEVER over. The fight for 2012 began a long time ago. Assuming we are lucky enough to have an Obama victory tomorrow, the fight to destroy his presidency will begin immediately - in fact, it's already begun. The single best thing all Americans can do to prevent that from happening is to vote, no matter how long the lines, no matter how the election is called before all the polls are closed, no matter what.

Vote for Obama as if your safety and security depended upon it. Believe me, they do. It is crucial that he receive as many votes as possible.

Even yours? Especially yours.

tristero 11/04/2008 04:00:00 AM |

Monday, November 03, 2008

 
Call It

by dday

Dixville Notch, NH, the traditional first town to vote in the Presidential race at 12:01 AM ET, hasn't voted for a Democrat since Hubert H. Humphrey in 1968.

Tonight? Obama 15, McCain 6.

Those numbers match the straw poll taken at my mother's elementary school in Bensalem, PA, this morning.

So you know, get out the vote if you want, but we're sitting in the clubhouse with a 9-vote lead, here.

I'm kidding, GOTV like you mean it.


.
dday 11/03/2008 10:30:00 PM |

 
Californication

by digby

Here's your handy dandy, progressive guide to the many ballot propositions courtesy of our friends at the Courage Campaign. There's a link at the bottom to print this out to take to the polls tomorrow:

2008 California Mobile Voter Guide

---

PROP 1A: High Speed Rail

Authorizes $10 billion in bonds to begin construction of a 220 MPH train to connect San Francisco to Los Angeles via San Jose and Fresno. Trains will be powered by renewable electricity and create 160,000 jobs over the next 10 years.
SUPPORTING: Sierra Club, CA Democratic Party, CA League of Conservation Voters, CA Labor Federation, Calitics

---

PROP 2: Stop Animal Cruelty

Mandates that farm animals such as chickens and pigs are given enough room in their cages to spread their wings, turn and move around, stand up or sit down.
SUPPORTING: Sierra Club, CA Democratic Party, CA League of Conservation Voters, Calitics

---

PROP 3: Children's Hospital Bonds

Provides over $900 million in bond funding to renovate and expand children's hospital facilities around the state.
SUPPORTING: CA Democratic Party, Los Angeles Times, Calitics

---

PROP 4: Undermines Teen Safety and Abortion Rights

Californians have rejected this proposal twice since 2005, which would undermine a woman's right to choose. It places young women in serious jeopardy of abuse (or worse) and is part of a strategy to roll back abortion rights for all Californians.
OPPOSING: Planned Parenthood, CA Nurses Association, CA Association of School Counselors, SEIU CA, CA Medical Association, CA Democratic Party

---

PROP 5: Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation

Saves the state over $1 billion a year by providing treatment rather than prison time for those suffering from a drug addiction.
SUPPORTING: CA Democratic Party, Cal Labor Fed, League of Women Voters, CA Nurses Association, SEIU CA, Color of Change.org, NAACP

---

PROP 6: Massive prison expansion

Forces thousands of juvenile offenders into adult courts, mandates longer prison sentences, and takes billions from the state budget for more prison spending at a time of historic budget deficits.
OPPOSING: CA Democratic Party, Cal Labor Fed, Ella Baker Center, ACLU, League of Women Voters, CA Nurses Association, SEIU CA

---

PROP 7: Renewable Power Standard

Prop 7 has been a contentious issue. Proponents believe it is a bold and necessary step toward more solar and wind projects by mandating we get 50% of our power from renewable sources by 2025. Opponents believe the measure is poorly written and may cause more harm than good. We are not convinced by either side and invite voters to make their own assessment.

---

PROP 8: Eliminates marriage rights

Would revoke marriage rights for same-sex couples and enshrine discrimination in the state constitution, the first time in history that a constitutional amendment would rescind human rights.
OPPOSING: Equality California, ACLU, Cal Labor Fed, CA Democratic Party, Anti-Defamation League, California NAACP, CNA, SEIU CA

---

PROP 9: More prison expansion

Like Prop 6, this would mandate huge increases in prison spending, by using "victims' rights" as a cover. California legislation on victims' rights is already among the nation's strongest making this proposition unnecessary.
OPPOSING: CA Democratic Party, Cal Labor Fed, Ella Baker Center, ACLU, League of Women Voters, SEIU CA, CA Nurses Association

---

PROP 10: T. Boone Bailout

Oklahoma oil billionaire and funder of the 2004 Swift Boat ads against John Kerry, T. Boone Pickens, wants to take $5 billion from our stressed budget for his natural gas companies.
OPPOSING: Sierra Club, CA League of Conservation Voters, Cal Labor Fed, Union of Concerned Scientists, SEIU CA, CA Nurses Association

---

PROP 11: Biased Redistricting

A deeply flawed effort to change how legislative districts are drawn. Though we desperately need redistricting reform, this is not it. Actually favors Republicans (who have 32% of registered voters) over Democrats (with 43%) and Independents (with 19.5%). Undermines voting rights for Californians of color.
OPPOSING: CA League of Conservation Voters, Cal Labor Fed, CA Democratic Party, Mobilize the Immigrant Vote, Legislative Black Caucus and Legislative Latino Caucus, La Opinión

---

PROP 12: Veterans' Homes Bond

Renews a home loan program for veterans that dates back to 1922. The bond must be periodically renewed - this would be the 12th renewal. Enables veterans of current wars to get affordable loans. Bond is repaid by veterans themselves.
SUPPORTING: CA Democratic Party, Los Angeles Times, Cal Labor Fed, Calitics

---

CLCV - League of Conservation Voters
LWV - League of Women Voters
EQCA - Equality California

Visit http://www.couragecampaign.org/2008voterguide on your PC for more information.

A project of the Courage Campaign Issues Committee

digby 11/03/2008 09:30:00 PM |

 
All about (election) eve

By Dennis Hartley
















No, you’re not high (well, maybe you are…I can’t really see what you’re doing there.) Digby has invited me to make a rare weeknight appearance; she thought it might be fun for me to offer up some suggestions for an election eve movie festival. You know-something to distract ourselves from all the bloviating blowhards (we’ll be seeing and hearing enough of them tomorrow, as we sit aghast in front of our TV monitors). Digby suggested that we apply the vaccination theory-how about some films about…elections?

For movies that delve into the art of the campaign, I’d be partial to screening The Candidate, Primary Colors, or the brilliant documentary, The War Room. For the election movie as paranoid political thriller, how about The Contender and The Manchurian Candidate (1962) as a double bill? (The latter film is worth the price of the rental just to hear Sinatra exclaim, “Doc, that was one swinger of a nightmare!”). If you’re in the mood for a good election satire, it doesn’t get any better than Wag the Dog, Bulworth, Bob Roberts, or arguably the best of the best, the late Robert Altman’s cable mini-series, Tanner ’88. For political allegory, Election definitely tops my list. And although it has a more tangential election theme (election night as a backdrop for a substantial chunk of the film) any excuse to revisit Hal Ashby’s Shampoo gets my vote.

Strangely enough, I think my all-time favorite election film is one that has nothing to do with American politics: Don’s Party, a worthwhile sleeper from Down Under. Breaker Morant director Bruce Beresford folds in one part Shampoo, one part Return of the Secaucus 7 and sprinkles liberally with Who's Afraid Of Virgina Woolf. The story is set on Australia’s election night, 1969. Our outgoing host Don and his uptight wife are hosting an "election party" for old college chums at their solidly middle-class suburban home. With the exception of one self-absorbed Casanova, most guests range from the recently divorced to the unhappily married. Ostensibly gathering to watch election results, talk politics and socialize, Don's party quickly deteriorates into a veritable primer on bad human behavior as the alcohol kicks in. By the end of the night, marriages are on the rocks, friendships nearly broken and people are taking impromptu naked swims in the vacationing neighbor's pool. Yet, this is not just another wacky party film. It makes some keen observations about mid-life crisis, elitism, politics, and adult relationships along the way. Savagely funny, brilliantly written and well acted. The film’s title is a clever double entendre, n’est-ce pas? So put a shrimp on the barbie, a barb on your tongue, and enjoy.


.
Dennis Hartley 11/03/2008 06:30:00 PM |

 
Bipartisanship In Ermine and Epaulettes

by digby

As we sit anxiously on the eve of the election, wondering if it's possible that this dark, frustrating Bush era is really coming to a close, I thought I would take a little wander back in time and see what the gasbags were saying after the 2000 election. I particularly loved this:

Bush sent Cheney to Capitol Hill on the day Gore conceded to start building coalitions. The Vice President- elect met separately with moderate and conservative groups--and both sides came away pleased and reassured. Conservatives hear a big tax cut coming. Moderates believe education reform and prescription drugs will be the priority. One faction or the other is getting played, but it's impossible to tell which side.

On one point, at least, the Bush message has been remarkably consistent. Bush told TIME--and Cheney has told Republican leaders--that he will not settle for a scaled-down version of his campaign agenda. The man who predicted a decisive victory now argues that scratching out a win in the closest election in a century equals a mandate. He wants it all: education, a prescription-drug benefit, tax cuts and private Social Security accounts. "The reason I will be able to deliver an Inaugural Address," Bush insisted in an interview with TIME, "is because of the positions I took, the cases I made."

Moderates see such remarks as Bush's opening song, the overture that comes before the inevitable compromises. "There's going to be a new world order in the Senate," says Maine Republican Olympia Snowe. "We can't always get our way. We don't have the numbers." But conservatives won't let him off the hook. Republican strategists who helped shape Newt Gingrich's Contract with America are launching a new group called the Issues Management Center. It will wage an ad war designed to pressure Bush to stand up for a conservative agenda of issues--tax cuts, school vouchers and Social Security privatization.

[...]

On Capitol Hill these days, each competing bloc defines bipartisanship in a different way--and no one yet knows precisely how Bush defines it. Does he mean recruiting a few Democrats to decorate conservative Republican policies? Democratic leaders call that the "politics of pickoff" and vow to fight it with the kind of party discipline that can stop a bill in its tracks--especially in the Senate, where the Republicans need 10 Democrats to shut down debate and force a vote. "After two decades of hardened partisanship in the Senate," says Al From of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, "I just don't see 10 Democrats jumping over to the Republican side on any significant issue."

I guess we know how that went.

I don't know what will happen this time. But regardless of the mandate, I would be shocked if the Republicans adopt the same capitulating strategy that the Democrats did after that stolen election. It's not in their nature --- and they are still well practiced in the art of obstructionism and opposition politics. More importantly, as Krugman points out in his column this morning, those who are left in the Republican party are extremists:

Larry Sabato, the election forecaster, predicts that seven Senate seats currently held by Republicans will go Democratic on Tuesday. According to the liberal-conservative rankings of the political scientists Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, five of the soon-to-be-gone senators are more moderate than the median Republican senator — so the rump, the G.O.P. caucus that remains, will have shifted further to the right. The same thing seems set to happen in the House. Also, the Republican base already seems to be gearing up to regard defeat not as a verdict on conservative policies, but as the result of an evil conspiracy. A recent Democracy Corps poll found that Republicans, by a margin of more than two to one, believe that Mr. McCain is losing “because the mainstream media is biased” rather than “because Americans are tired of George Bush.”

And it's obviously a long way from them believing that Americans are tired of conservatism. They will keep fighting.

Now, the villagers are already saying this is a victory for the "center-right" and are becoming apoplectic at the idea that the dirty hippies are coming to town to trash the place, so there will be very strong resistance to anything that doesn't look like centrism and bipartisanship. With the villagers' track record I would hope that a new administration armed with a mandate for change would be smart enough to ignore them.

After all, these are the people who said things like this:

FINEMAN (11/27/01): So who are the Bushes, really? Well, they’re the people who produced the fellow who sat with me and my Newsweek colleague, Martha Brant, for his first interview since 9/11. We saw, among other things, a leader who is utterly comfortable in his role. Bush envelops himself in the trappings of office. Maybe that’s because he’s seen it from the inside since his dad served as Reagan’s vice president in the ‘80s. The presidency is a family business.

Dubyah loves to wear the uniform—whatever the correct one happens to be for a particular moment. I counted no fewer than four changes of attire during the day trip we took to Fort Campbell in Kentucky and back. He arrived for our interview in a dark blue Air Force One flight jacket. When he greeted the members of Congress on board, he wore an open-necked shirt. When he had lunch with the troops, he wore a blue blazer. And when he addressed the troops, it was in the flight jacket of the 101st Airborne. He’s a boomer product of the ‘60s—but doesn’t mind ermine robes.

.
digby 11/03/2008 05:30:00 PM |

 
Patience, Grasshopper

by digby

One of the things you have to admire about the conservative movement is their patience. (I think it comes from their reverence for the tactics and strategies of Chairman Mao.) They are willing to take the long road to achieve their goals and when it comes to vote suppression, they are planning far,far ahead. Byron York writes:

Take some time today to read John Fund's excellent overview of the problem of voter fraud. One particularly interesting aspect of all this is that, with overwhelming evidence of fraud by ACORN and other groups, some on the left seem to have conceded that there is significant voter registration fraud out there — but insist that that will not translate into the casting of fraudulent votes. Of course some of those same people are the ones who oppose common-sense measures, like a photo-ID requirement, that can help prevent voter registration fraud from turning into voter fraud.

Step one accomplished. They have created the delusion that there is massive registration "fraud" --- the left has even apparently agreed to it --- which leads inexorably to the idea that voter fraud will follow. Therefore, we need stringent voter ID laws. It's common sense, after all.

The point of all this, of course, is to suppress the vote of the poor, ethnic and racial minorities, immigrants --- all the people who are likely to vote Democratic. There is zero data to support the charge of voter fraud and there is zero evidence that the ineligible voter registrations are the result of some sort of mass conspiracy to commit voter fraud. So there is nothing common sensical about requiring people to show photo ID, make ethnic minorities and recent immigrants have to face a gauntlet of Minutemen outside the doors and then have to have particular forms of ID to prove they are who they say they are.

But we're going to do it anyway. Just watch, even though 2000 and 2004 (and possibly this one as well) featured egregious examples of Republican voter purging, vote caging, long lines etc, the most enduring electoral integrity issue will be ACORN and vote fraud. They are taking it one step at a time until little by little, they make it more unpleasant and difficult for lower income, elderly and immigrant citizens to vote. And if they can cast doubts on the election of any Democrat who represents such people all the better.

The aristocracy always protects its prerogatives, even when, once in a while, the serfs raise a ruckus.


.
digby 11/03/2008 04:30:00 PM |

 
The Scooter Paradigm

by digby

We've already talked about these latest revelations about McCain and the Keating Five, but I want to look at it from a slightly different angle.

Yes, yes, McCain is a lying piece of work who has spent his career basically acting the character of the heroic Top Gun maverick who flew a little bit too close to the sun, got burned and then spent the rest of his career pretending to seek redemption by becoming a reformer of the system that almost destroyed him. It's crap. He's corrupt, always has been.

But this latest doesn't just indict McCain. It indicts the press corps too:

[T]he Ethics Committee's was not the only investigation into the scandal. There were two other probes at the time that got barely any public attention--both of which largely focused on McCain himself. These were probes into illicit leaks about the proceedings of the Ethics Committee--leaks that repeatedly benefited McCain and hurt his Keating Five colleagues. One of those senators described the leaks at the time as a "violation of ethical behavior at least as serious as anything of which we senators have been accused."

The leaks, if they were coming from a senator, were also illegal. All five senators--including McCain--had testified under oath and under the U.S. penal code that the leaks did not come from their camps. The leaks were also prohibited by rules of the Senate Ethics Committee; according to the rules of the Senate, anyone caught leaking such information could face expulsion from the body. These, then, were not the usual Washington disclosures: Discovered, they could have stopped the career of any Washington politician in his tracks.

Golly, if only we'd known.

I'm going to call this The Scooter Paradigm, wherein the press reports stories that feature the press (sometimes even themselves personally) as if they are reporting on tribal chieftains in Afghanistan. In other words, as if they are reporting on something foreign and unknowable. The fact is that there are some people who know the truth about this from the beginning and they're called "reporters." They knew then and they know now that they were being leaked to by a lying creep who was trying to cover his ass. And, in their minds, that's exactly the same as protecting the identity of some low level whistleblower at the SEC who discovers that powerful people are committing crimes. Nobody said a word.

I will never understand why reporters think it's so important that they protect people who lie to them and use them for nefarious political reasons. They sit idly by while a man like McCain creates a completely phony persona, wines and dines them and treats them to his "unvarnished" off-the-record musings all the while at least some of them (and their editors) know that he is completely full of shit.

He's run for president twice now. And it took until four days before the election for this story of McCain's perfidious treatment of his fellow senators and cover-up of his crimes to surface? A story about leaks to the press? Can we all see the problem here?


.

digby 11/03/2008 03:00:00 PM |

 
RIP Madelyn Dunham

by dday

Terrible news. The day before an historic election, Barack Obama's grandmother, the woman who raised him for a good portion of his youth, has passed away. He took time off the campaign trail in the final weeks to say his last goodbyes. Unfortunately she could not make it to Election Day.

This was a woman who went from the secretarial pool to the Vice President of a bank, a woman who worked on assembly lines during World War II. Here's the statement from Barack Obama and his sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng:

"It is with great sadness that we announce that our grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, has died peacefully after a battle with cancer. She was the cornerstone of our family, and a woman of extraordinary accomplishment, strength, and humility. She was the person who encouraged and allowed us to take chances. She was proud of her grandchildren and great-grandchildren and left this world with the knowledge that her impact on all of us was meaningful and enduring. Our debt to her is beyond measure.

"Our family wants to thank all of those who sent flowers, cards, well-wishes, and prayers during this difficult time. It brought our grandmother and us great comfort. Our grandmother was a private woman, and we will respect her wish for a small private ceremony to be held at a later date. In lieu of flowers, we ask that you make a donation to any worthy organization in search of a cure for cancer."

RIP.

...I should also note that the Nevada State Director of the Obama campaign died from a massive heart attack at the age of just 44. Much of my volunteer efforts for Obama supported Nevada. This is also a tragic loss.

...It is sadly typical of the knuckle-draggers in the California Republican Party that they picked today to file a lawsuit over Obama's travel to Hawaii to visit Mrs. Dunham for the last time. The RNC jumped on this lawsuit filing today as well.

What a classy bunch.

...Obama speaks on this:




.
dday 11/03/2008 01:52:00 PM |

 
MAD libs

by digby


I consider MAD magazine to be the greatest influence in my life. It's true. When I was a kid I pored over every page like like it was the world of God himself. I know that makes me a very strange person. But I think a fair number of us baby boomers suffer from the same disease.

Wired got a sneak preview of MAD's election issue.





Here's an example of McCain's greatest historical moments:


Images courtesy Mad



H/t to AD

.
digby 11/03/2008 01:00:00 PM |

 
Stakes

by dday

In the heat of an election, amidst the media din, sometimes everyone forgets why they're undertaking the fight. The contest becomes one of personalities and soundbites instead of issues and solutions. In this election, there is a definitive reason for that; the rot at the core of our government has a bipartisan patina and has been met by official silence across the political spectrum. There are serious assaults on our Constitution and our civil liberties that haven't had so much as a 30 second glance in the traditional media. And yet they are very deep problems that will not go away with a new Administration in Washington.

As the Bush administration enters its final months with no apparent plan to close the Guantánamo Bay camp, an extensive review of the government’s military tribunal files suggests that dozens of the roughly 255 prisoners remaining in detention are said by military and intelligence agencies to have been captured with important terrorism suspects, to have connections to top leaders of Al Qaeda or to have other serious terrorism credentials.

Senators John McCain and Barack Obama have said they would close the detention camp, but the review of the government’s public files underscores the challenges of fulfilling that promise. The next president will have to contend with sobering intelligence claims against many of the remaining detainees.

“It would be very difficult for a new president to come in and say, ‘I don’t believe what the C.I.A. is saying about these guys,’ ” said Daniel Marcus, a Democrat who was general counsel of the 9/11 Commission and held senior positions in the Carter and Clinton administrations.

The strength of the evidence is difficult to assess, because the government has kept much of it secret and because of questions about whether some was gathered through torture.

If you hadn't guessed, this is (to me, anyway) a signal that the CIA and the intelligence community is going to go to the greatest lengths possible to bury George Bush and Dick Cheney's mistakes on a variety of fronts. The unspeakable tragedy of the Uighurs, innocent bystanders wrapped up in sweeps in Afghanistan, who have been dismissed of any charges and told by a federal judge that they should be released, but who today will be told that they are likely to spend the rest of their lives in prison, is but one example. The rule of law has taken a beating over the past eight years, as federal statutes and international conventions and war crimes resolutions have been totally ignored, and illusions of security took great precedence over liberty. I don't remember this getting much mention at all over the past week:

WASHINGTON — An operation in 2004 meant to disrupt potential terrorist plots before and after that year’s presidential election focused on more than 2,000 immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries, but most were found to have done nothing wrong, according to newly disclosed government data.

The program, conducted by the Department of Homeland Security, received little public attention at the time. But details about the targets of the investigation have emerged from more than 10,000 pages of internal records obtained through a lawsuit by civil rights advocates. Parts of the documents were provided to The New York Times.

The documents show that more than 2,500 foreigners in the United States were sought as “priority leads” in the fall of 2004 because of suspicions that they could present threats to national security in the months before the presidential election and the inauguration. Some of those foreigners were detained and ultimately deported because they had overstayed their visas, but many were in this country legally, and the vast majority were not charged.

We're talking about massive ethnic and racial profiling, enormous data mining schemes, a near-total ignoring of relevant statutes on privacy and civil liberties, all done in a systematic fashion and guarded zealously by elites throughout Washington. The courts can offer a bit of relief here, by asking for secret documents providing the legal basis for the illegal wiretapping program, for example, but considering that the Congress immunized telecoms who participated in the program, that relief is small indeed.

There are stakes to this election but they don't end on November 4. I think Glenn Greenwald, as usual, put this best:

It certainly seems, by all appearances, that Barack Obama and Joe Biden will win on Tuesday (though anything can happen, don't assume anything, etc. etc.). For reasons I've explained many times before, I consider that to be a good and important outcome (principally due to the need to excise the Right from power for as long as possible). But the virtually complete absence from the presidential campaign of any issues pertaining to the executive power abuses of the last eight years -- illegal eavesdropping, torture, rendition, due-process-less detentions, the abolition of habeas corpus, extreme and unprecedented secrecy, general executive lawlessness -- reflects how much further work and effort will be required to make progress on these issues no matter what happens on Tuesday.

Much of this is deeply embedded in the political culture. Very few people in the political and media establishment object to any of it; most either tacitly accept or actively believe in it. And the natural instinct of political officials -- especially new arrivals determined to achieve all sorts of things -- is to consolidate, not voluntarily relinquish, extant political power. It will help to have in the Oval Office someone who has, at least at times, evinced the right instincts on these matters (even though during other times he has acted contrary to them), and the better outcome on Tuesday (the defeat of John McCain) will likely ensure some very modest, marginal improvements in terms of the rule of law, executive power abuses and constitutional transgressions. But that outcome is merely necessary, not remotely sufficient; the election by itself will not produce fundamental changes in most of these areas. That's going to take much more than a single election, standing alone, can or will accomplish.

That work will go on beyond 2008 and into 2010, as the progressive movement matures and seeks to hold accountable those who directed, engaged in, or tacitly accepted the worst of the abuses of the Bush Administration. Elections end with confetti drops but they really represent a beginning and not an end. As we seek together to change the country and not just the nameplate in the Oval Office, it's going to get more difficult. But the importance of it, in the looks on the faces of those Uighur prisoners, in the eyes of the Muslim immigrants questioned for no good reason, from the lips of the innocent phone-callers whose communications have been captured and stored, is too vital to forget.


.
dday 11/03/2008 11:30:00 AM |

 
Observation

by digby

I'm listening to Sarah Palin right now and she no longer has an accent. She's not droppin' her gs (she didn't even say "workin' instead of working) or talking in the strange cadence that makes her sound like a combination of Lawrence Welk and Annie Oakley.

Why, if I didn't know better I'd say she's forgetting who she is.


.
digby 11/03/2008 10:00:00 AM |

 
Election Protection

by digby

We've all heard a lot about vote fraud, vote suppression and are expecting some activity at the polls tomorrow. luckily, there are organizations out there to help tomorrow if you see something weird or have a problem. The Election Protection coalition has put together a free hotline and a web site dedicated to tracking voting irregularities.

Make a note:

1-866-OUR-VOTE

http://blog.ourvotelive.org

This is from their blog today:

Yesterday alone, the 1-866-OUR-VOTE hotline received over 8,000 calls from across the country.

Some key issues:

• Katrina displacement: People who moved out of their damaged homes after hurricane Katrina are reporting confusion about their registration status and voting precinct to Election Protection's 866-OUR-VOTE hotline. Voting rights experts are working to resolve these questions to ensure that all eligible voters from the New Orleans area can exercise their right to vote in this historic election.

• Absentee voting problems are being widely reported, with particularly high rates in Virginia, Ohio and Florida. In one example, a caller from Florida had requested absentee ballots for herself and her husband, a stroke survivor who is unable to go to the polls. Neither ballot has arrived and if they don’t, she will be unable to vote as she is unable to leave her husband’s side to go to the polls.

• Polling place problems – such as extremely long lines – are of great concern to voters in Florida and Georgia, particularly in Miami-Dade and Broward counties in Florida, and Fulton County in Georgia.

To search Election Protection’s voter database, visit www.ourvotelive.org.

.
digby 11/03/2008 09:05:00 AM |

Sunday, November 02, 2008

 
An Observation About Changeling

by tristero

I hope Dennis won't mind my straying yet again onto his beat. I just saw Changeling, the new Clint Eastwood film starring Angelina Jolie and I think it's one of his best films - not on the level of Unforgiven, to be sure, but still an excellent movie. I'd be curious to get his take on it (Dennis, have you reviewed it? I couldn't find anything).

I was curious about the story behind the movie so I tried a google. The ways in which it differs from the actual true story confirmed some thoughts i had about some of the subtexts Eastwood works with.

The rest of this post is now under a Severe Spoiler Alert. Please see the movie first.

The story probably came to the attention of Eastwood and/or his collaborators from this article in the LA times from February 7, 1999. Eastwood and Co. then filled in more details regarding the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. Here's one link to that piece of the story and here's Wikipedia.

To simplify, Eastwood went far further than he had to in order to sanitize the story. Partly, that's because what really happened was so ghastly it comes close to Ed Gein territory and that, for Eastwood's audience today, wouldn't work commercially. Gone, of course, are unnecessary complications, like Collins' jailbird of a husband (complete with a perfectly serviceable red herring that her son was kidnapped by an ex-con seeking revenge on her husband). But Eastwood also dramatically cleaned up the sordid tale of the Northcott mudererers, eliminating, for example, Gordon Stewart's mother, who, unlike her son, actually was convicted of the murder of Walter Collins. (Stewart was convicted of other murders). Also missing from the film is the sexual abuse and the tortures of the poor children. And to top it off, Eastwood further cut a stomach-churning tale of incest as well as other family perversions including a truly insane level of pathological lying.

By eliminating most of the uniquely bizarre details of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, Eastwood went further than needed, I think. After all, this is Dirty Harry and the producer of the lurid Tightrope. In Changeling, however, he stripped the murders of nearly all of their fascination for us morbid voyeurs. True, they don't become exactly generic slasher murders, but they don't stick in the craw the way, say, the murders in Zodiac do. Tamping down our interest in seeing/hearing about unique ways to perpetrate atrocities enables him to place the main focus of the film on Christine's story, as she desperately calls the cops and becomes victimized by what passed for law enforcement in Los Angeles at the end of the 20's.

And that's when things get interesting, because in a very real sense, Changeling becomes a film about a corrupt, violent, law-ignoring government, contemptuous of those it rules, manufacturing fake feelgood stories to deflect criticism and investigation of its abuses. It is also the story of a compliant, lazy press far too eager to print those stories: they easily fit standard sentimental journalistic narratives of how a "tough love" law-and-order government should behave. Should you dare to question the government and/or the press accounts of their behavior, you risk being publicly declared insane and disappeared. Finally, it is only through the incessant, nearly obsessional rants disseminated by a new, relatively inexpensive, but very powerful alternative mass media that the torture, corruption, and incompetence of the rogue government is exposed and denounced.

Sound familiar?

Now, Eastwood is far too sophisticated a filmmaker for anyone to claim that the Bush administration is all that Changeling is about. The serial killer angle is more than just a huge Maguffin (btw, Eastwood quotes at least once from a Hitchcock film, Foreign Correspondent: check out the umbrellas on the steps). The film fits in easily to the genre of LA noir - Chinatown, L.A. Confidential, to name two examples - and that is certainly the main focus of the film, its principle narrative and plot.

However, what I'm suggesting is that Eastwood is much too subtle an artist in his late period to make a film "just" about LA lowlife anymore than Kurosawa was making movies only about samurai (and yes, of course, Kurosawa's the greater filmmaker). The barely hidden subtext in Changeling is our present time and its hero a strong, even shrill, voice who fights the powers that be with everything she's got. Why? Because they are complicit in failing to recover her "angel," a deliberate verbal link by Eastwood to the illusion of a benign "City of Angels," and a (police) force for good.

Like another great recent movie by a serious director - Ang Lee's Lust, Caution - there is no mistaking the conscious effort in a period film to confront the opening of the gates of Hell over the past eight years. Eastwood's film is more conventional than Lee's, but that isn't necessarily a criticism (although I have to be honest and admit I think Lust, Caution is the better film). Eastwood is making Hollywood movies with all the constraints on content that large budgets and a star like Jolie demand (by the way, I thought she did a wonderful job), the tradeoff being that he reaches a far wider audience than Lee ever will (at least in the US). Pace Adorno, all art is about constraints as much as it is about freedom and expression. In this discussion, popularity is, to a great extent, just one more factor an artist weighs when creating a work. (And yes, while one's payday is another factor; for a variety of reasons, I think Eastwood would have made a vastly different film if raking in big bucks was all he had in mind.)

I gather Eastwood endorses McCain. Odd. If so, you'd never know that from seeing Changeling. I truly think the anti-rightwing themes here are deliberately played up to bring up parallels with movement conservatism of the kind the modern Republican party, including McCain of course, practice. (It goes without saying that nothing goes into his films that Eastwood isn't aware of: I'm certain lefty writers didn't sneak this stuff past him.)

Again, this is a film to be seen.

tristero 11/02/2008 11:30:00 PM |

 
Not About Options

by digby


My pal Bill sent me this article about how African American churches doing HIV outreach have problems with the use of condoms:

In Tampa's black neighborhoods, the statistics scream: black family disease. More blacks have HIV than any other ethnic group. One in 85 blacks in Hillsborough County is infected. That is more than four times the rate for whites. The disparity is more pronounced among women. One in every 92 black women in Hills­borough is infected. That is 11 times the rate for white women.

This black family disease — that's what Favorite calls it — preys on even fathers and mothers in the pews, children in Sunday school.

He wants the full gamut of services for his vulnerable congregation, and he wants it based in his landmark church, one founded in 1865 for freed slaves. He wants a partnership with the Health Department similar to one initiated by Florida's black AME churches. AME's Florida bishop has committed to providing a church for HIV screening in every county. They're halfway to their goal.

But pastors whose beliefs are biblically founded get caught in a moral paradox. If they base an HIV prevention program on abstinence alone, they're bound to fail. If they provide the common medically recommended option — condoms — they've compromised their principles. Religion has never been about options.

This, of course, plays into the problem we have with gay rights, specifically with the Prop Hate campaign here in California. A lot of black churches are socially conservative --- like most of the southern based religions. It causes some dissonance. And it's one of the reasons why I'm really not a big believer in faith based government programs replacing the secular ones. There has to be some place for "science based" solutions to social problems and a lot of these faith based organizations just can't do that, evidently.

I'm not holding my breath on that:

Blitzer: But did she make a mistake Donna by going to that fundraiser at the home of the woman who professes that there is no god?

Brazile: You know Wolf there are a lot of believers. I'm one of them. And there are people who just don't believe in an existence of a god. I don't know why because clearly there's strong evidence that there's a god but I believe that you serve all the people. Not just those that profess to have faith but those with little or no faith. That's how you convert them.

There you have it. You serve all the people (even the heathens!) so you can convert them. I think that perfectly makes the case against faith based programs.


.
digby 11/02/2008 08:30:00 PM |

 
Newspapers Ignore Corddry's Law And Readers Bid Them Adieu

by tristero

You do know the great Rob Corddry's famous law? "Reality has a clear liberal bias," he memorably intoned once on The Daily Show. A truly hilarious line has never, ever, been less of a joke, (I wonder: Did he write that?).

As much as the rightwing and their enablers in the press try to ignore it, laws are laws and it's come back to bite them, bigtime in many ways, from the ghastly to the farcical. However, Glenn notes that WaPo's ombudsperson hasn't yet figured that out:

Deborah Howell, today wrote a column claiming that one reason that The Post and other papers are losing money is because they are "too liberal"; have had "more favorable stories about Barack Obama than John McCain," and "conservatives are right that they often don't see their views reflected enough in the news pages." To mitigate newspapers' financial problems, Howell decrees: "the imbalance still needs to be corrected." She adds: "Neither the hard-core right nor left will ever be satisfied by Post coverage -- and that's as it should be."

What if the actual facts -- i.e., "reality" -- are consistent with the views of "the hard-core left" and contrary to the views of the "hard-core right"? What if, as has plainly been the case, the conservatives' views are wrong, false, inaccurate? What if the McCain campaign was failing and relying on pure falsehoods and sleazy attacks, and The Post's coverage simply reflected that reality? It doesn't matter. In order to sell more newspapers, according to Howell, The Post's news coverage must shape itself to the Right and ensure that "their views [are] reflected enough in the news pages" (I don't recall Howell complaining when her newspaper -- according to its own media critic -- systematically suppressed anti-war viewpoints in its news pages and loudly amplified pro-Bush and pro-war views).

In Howell's view, The Post shouldn't determine its news reporting based on what is factually true. Instead, it should shape its coverage to please this discredited, failed political movement -- in order to sell more papers. That corrupt formula is, of course, what is now meant by "journalistic balance" -- say what both sides believe and take no position about what is true -- and it is precisely that behavior which propped up this incomparably failed and deceitful presidency for so long. The establishment media bears much of the responsibility for what has happened during the last 8 years, and amazingly enough, the lesson many of them seemed to have learned is that they didn't go far enough ("we're too liberal; we need to accommodate the Right more"). If there is an Obama presidency, watch for them very quickly to re-discover the long-dormant concept of "adversarial behavior."

Yep.

tristero 11/02/2008 06:30:00 PM |

 
Blue America Down To The Wire

by digby

Howie is doing all the heavy lifting, gathering information and putting together the pre-election round up over at his place. If you're a Blue America donor this cycle and want to know how it's going for our candidates, be sure to check in with him over the next couple of days and after the election for the full round up.

Yesterday, he wrote about Blue America's media work in this cycle:

As I mentioned on Thursday at a story on how the Inside the Beltway Democratic Establishment is cynically using the "free trade" issue to win votes while already plotting to betray the voters they are wooing, Larry Kissell is not a man that will ever be brow-beaten by some corrupt corporate shill like Rahm Emanuel into selling out his constituents' interests. For North Carolina voters, dramatically hurt by the job-killing trade policies of Bush and Emanuel, "fair trade" is a do-or-die issue.

Blue America decided to run a few thousand TV ads in North Carolina that addresses the issue head on. Take a look at the ad which, I'm told, has been hard to avoid for anyone in the district who watches cable TV:

While Jacquie was busily buying up every single available spot that Elizabeth Dole hadn't already grabbed for her ad accusing Kay Hagan of being "godless," she came up with another idea. "Why not run the ad on broadcast TV?" she suggested. She managed to get us a great deal for a few Sunday NASCAR and college football spots on ABC-TV. I hear a lot of people in NC-08 watch those programs.

Blue America also bought TV spots-- different ads-- to remind people what awful representatives Dave Reichert, Mean Jean Schmidt, Dana Rohrabacher, David Dreier, Charlie Dent, Joe Knollenberg and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen have been. We were depressed when we looked at the pricing of ads for NJ-05, where Dennis Shulman is in a close battle with one of the most heinous members of Congress, Scott Garrett. Look at the confirmation we got in the mail for a few of the spots we ran in Mean Jean Schmidt's district just east of Cincinnati:

A 30 second spot on CNN costs $20 between 7pm and midnight and between 9am and 4pm, it's $13. NJ-05 is in the most expensive media market in the country. A single 30 second spot for Dennis on CNN between 6pm and midnight costs $2,167 (and between 10AM and 6pm, $1,084).

This came through the Blue America SayMe campaign, which is the innovation of the future in online organization. It's so good, I'm sure there will be many people clamoring to take credit for it down the road, but it was Howie Klein and Blue America --- and all of you --- who pioneered it in this election.

Stay tuned for more at Howie's place. We are poised to bring some better Democrats to congress this time and all of you who donated to Blue America and our candidates over the past year or so can take a look in the mirror and be proud that you helped elect some real progressives to Washington. It's not as sexy s Obamamania, but it's important.


.
digby 11/02/2008 04:30:00 PM |

 
Serious Political People

by digby

It's amazing how so many of the architects of the Bush debacle are now on television spouting off about what a terrible failure he is and nobody ever mentions their role in making him one. I guess being a villager means never having to say you're sorry.

Former Bush advisor Matthew Dowd is a particularly egregious example of this slimy shape shifting. He's everywhere these days, extolling the virtues of bipartisanship and centrism, saying that people are just darned sick and tired of all the polarization and partisanship. He never mentions this, though:

A former Democratic consultant, Matthew Dowd was the chief campaign strategist for Bush-Cheney 2004 and director of polling and media planning for Bush-Cheney 2000. Here, he describes how, even as the Florida recount was progressing, he and Karl Rove were already thinking about a re-election campaign in the event that Bush won. Dowd tells FRONTLINE that while most of the resources in the 2000 campaign were devoted to trying to win over independents, his post-election analysis showed that only 6 to 7 percent of the electorate was truly "persuadable."

Here was Dowd shortly after Bush's triumphant reelection:

Let me go back to 2000 for just a minute. ... Where did this idea of a base strategy come from? And was it as revolutionary then as it was reported as being when we all look back? When did you first hear about it? Is it your idea?


Well, it's interesting. Obviously, as you looked at 2000, approached 2000, motivating Republicans was important, but most of our resources [were] put into persuading independents in 2000. One of the first things I looked at after 2000 was what was the real Republican vote and what was the real Democratic vote, not just who said they were Republicans and Democrats, but independents, how they really voted, whether or not they voted straight ticket or not. And I took a look at that in 2000, and then I took a look at it, what it was over the last five elections or six elections.

And what came from that analysis was a graph that I obviously gave Karl, which showed that independents or persuadable voters in the last 20 years had gone from 22 percent of the electorate to 7 percent of the electorate in 2000. And so 93 percent of the electorate in 2000, and what we anticipated, 93 or 94 in 2004, just looking forward and forecasting, was going to be already decided either for us or against us. You obviously had to do fairly well among the 6 or 7 [percent], but you could lose the 6 or 7 percent and win the election, which was fairly revolutionary, because everybody up until that time had said, "Swing voters, swing voters, swing voters, swing voters, swing voters."

And so when that graph and that first strategic imperative began to drive how we would think about 2004, nobody had ever approached an election that I've looked at over the last 50 years, where base motivation was important as swing, which is how we approached it. We didn't say, "Base motivation is what we're going to do, and that's all we're doing." We said, "Both are important, but we shouldn't be putting 80 percent of our resources into persuasion and 20 percent into base motivation," which is basically what had been happening up until that point, because of -- look at this graph. Look at the history. Look what's happened in this country. And obviously that decision influenced everything that we did. It influenced how we targeted mail, how we targeted phones, how we targeted media, how we traveled, the travel that the president and the vice president did to certain areas, how we did organization, where we had staff. All of that was based off of that, and ultimately, thank goodness, it was the right decision.

Three years later, the man is saying this on Bill Maher:

I think everybody, including Bill Clinton himself, said that the mistake he made when he first took office was that he governed way too far to the left when he started and that after the Republicans took the house in 1994 he moved more to a centrist policy. that's when his numbers went way up, that's when he preserved his reelection. And if Barack Obama starts the same way Bill Clinton does that is a huge problem, I think.

It's good for the Republican party if he does that. But I think Barack Obama is going to have to govern to the center which is where the majority of the country is.

This is more of the "serious people" disease we have seen and discussed ad nauseum in foreign policy, now asserting itself in politics. These are all essentially conservative villagers who are wrong nearly all the time about nearly everything, but who maintain some bizarre hold on the conventional wisdom in spite of the fact that they are consistently full of shit.

This isn't entirely partisan. There are as many "serious" wankers of this type on the Democratic side, as we saw in the Iraq debate. But this is a moment of clear and present danger for progressives because these "serious" political types are busily setting the terms of this potentially big Democratic win as a victory for centrism. And they're doing it exactly as Dowd does above, by going back 16 years to prove it, while ignoring the epic conservative failure of the past eight. (Ask yourself why Dowd didn't use Bush's overreach on Iraq or Schiavo as an example --- and why nobody on that panel thought to bring it up.) The "Don't Ask Don't Tell" example is always used to show that a president must govern from the center, but here we have a hugely unpopular president who ran and governed explicitly as a conservative for eight years and nobody makes the same connection. That's not an accident: they actually believe that he's unpopular because he was too liberal!

Maher comes right back in Dowd's face, as only the comedians and bloggers are allowed to do, and says that he's wrong, that the country need radical change. That's true, but I would be shocked if it gets it. The best we can hope for is a discernible shift to the left, and even that will precipitate a backlash and hissy fit among the villagers that will twist the Democratic establishment into pretzels trying to prove, again and forever, that they aren't crazed hippie freaks who have a bizarre and out of the mainstream agenda.

If Obama wants to deliver change, the first thing he has to do is figure out a way to either co-opt of vanquish the village elders. And congress is a wild card. If they play nice, Obama may be able to roll over the village. If they decide to play "who's the boss" then we'll have a different scenario. Hopefully, they will have learned the real lesson of the Clinton years, which is to not enable Republicans by stabbing your president in the back every time he tries to do something even slightly liberal. I'm not holding my breath on that one.


Update: Chris Cilizza on MSNBC just issued the same warning about Clinton and reassured everyone in the country that the Democrats have likely learned the important lesson that they need to ignore the crazy morons on the left who don't understand the "process of governing." He brought up 2006 as an example of the hippie freaks expecting waay too much --- but Grover Norquist strutting around saying that the Democrats were neutered farm animals after the 2004 election has been forgotten.

Bush has been successfully disappeared.

.
digby 11/02/2008 02:30:00 PM |

 
Inevitable

by digby


They are going back to their roots. I would look for this in Arizona and New Mexico, but it could crop up in any of the western states and Florida too.


-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	Stop Obama's Aunti and 10 Million Illegal Alien Voters
Date:	Sun, 2 Nov 2008 11:54:37 -0600
From:	MinutemanHQ

National O Minuteman Poll Watch 2008 Stop Obama's Aunti and 10 Million Illegal Alien Voters Report Voter Fraud

7558 W. Thunderbird Road Ste. 1 PMB 622 Peoria, AZ 85381 &nb sp; Phone (520) 829-3112

ALERT: All Minutemen, Minutemen Supporters and Patriots Operation "Poll Watch 2008" We Need Minutemen at your Local Polling Places Tuesday, November4th - All Day and Night Call Your Local Campaign Office TODAY Ask Them if Obama's Aunti Is Registered to Vote? Tell to Keep Illegal Alien Away for the Polls as You Will Be Watching Is Obama's Illegal Alien Aunti Zeituni Also A Registered Voter? According to the AP story : 'Obama aunt from Kenya living in US illegally' By EILEEN SULLIVAN and ELLIOT SPAGAT, Zeituni Onyango, 56, referred to as "Aunti Zeituni" in Obama's memoir, was instructed to leave the United States by a U.S. immigration judg e who denied her asylum request. I must ask the question - If experts believe there could be more than 10 million such illegal immigrants in the United States - does that also mean that 10 million illegal votes could be cast as a result of incompetence and or blatant fraud? I have received so many positive responses to our call to civic duty - as Minuteman poll watchers. We discover we have many Minuteman volunteers who are officially inside the polls as watchers and many others who will be positioned outside the 75-100 ft. neutral zone that surrounds polling locations. Just as a neighborhood watch, civic minded Americans will be working to keep our polling locations safe and secured to those who have the right to vote in our elections. Along with illegal alien workers who display blatant disregard for our laws to enter the U.S. we also know that last year alone in the just the Tucson sector of Arizona over 46,000 arrested and convicted murderers, sexual predators, drug dealers and violent criminals re-entered our country after they committed crimes in the U.S. and were removed by deportation. Could they have also cast a vote in your state? We know millions of illegal aliens who have stolen identities of U.S. citizens could also be casting illegal votes. Not only should we stand vigilant to ensure the rights of all who have a legal right to vote to do so in safety and assurance of the integrity of the system. When you vote, please insist that your poll worker asks for and checks your I.D. The right to vote is precious and the future of our democracy hangs in the balance. Protect yourselves with video cameras and spend a few hours at your local polling places and be vigilant to document anything that may be out of the ordinary or suspicious especially the busloads of people who will arrive at many locations around the country. Please wear your MCDC hats and shirts and follow the SOP - no verbal contact, just quiet and vigilant observation and documentation. Remember that in 2004 the Columbus Dispatch reported that illegal alien Nuradin Abdi—the suspected shopping mall bomb plotter from Somalia—was registered to vote in the battleground state of Ohio by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), a left-wing activist group. Also on the Ohio voting rolls: convicted al Qaeda agent Lyman Faris, who planned to sabotage the Brooklyn Bridge and had entered the country fraudulently from Pakistan on a student visa. ["Long gone but still registered Ohio's Election Day rolls include people who couldn't—and shouldn't—vote, October 24, 2004, Jon Craig The Columbus Dispatch"] There are many more documented accounts of rampant voter fraud from Wisconsin to Florida but thankfully not here in Arizona, voters made sure of that by passing prop 200 in 2004. However in many other states fraud is actually encouraged and many organizations will likely aggressively oppose basic ID requirements at the polls. And they have legions of attorneys standing by to protect people potentially voting illegally from election officials who ask for proof of I.D. who will be accused of harassment and intimidation. They will be accused of disenfranchising the poor and the minorities—never mind the damaging effect of unchecked voter fraud on law, order, and the integrity of our electoral system. WHO: Thousands of Minuteman Civil Defense Corps Volunteers WHAT: Operation "Poll Watch 2008"- A national muster to make sure legal U.S. residents and registered voters are allowed to vote. WHEN: November 4th, Nationwide WHERE: On Duty at Local Polling Locations in Every City and Town in the United States. Our Government is still NOT DOING ITS JOB! On November 4th Minutemen will be on duty to be sure you get to vote. YOU can make a REAL DIFFERENCE. So, for your sake, for the sake of your children, your grandchildren, and for generations to come, please help MCDC continue its fight to protect and preserve the United States of America and defend our Constitution. Select Here to Donate to the November Operations Support Fund https://secure.conservativedonations.com/minutemanhq/? a=1854 Sincerely for these United States, Chris Simcox, President Carmen Mercer, Vice President

digby 11/02/2008 12:30:00 PM |

 
Registered Voter By Birth

by dday

As the last of the lawsuits against ACORN gets laughed out of court, and as Republican Secretaries of State grumble about having to reinstate voters to the rolls, it's clear that, no matter what happens in the election, this insanity around voter registration and zombie lies about voter fraud has to stop. Exhibit A is the fact that John McCain's own head of his "Honest And Open Election Committee" can't name any evidence of voter fraud.

But Ronald Michaelson, a veteran election administrator and member of the McCain-Palin Honest and Open Election Committee, said in an interview that he could not name a single instance in which this had occurred.

“Do we have a documented instance of voting fraud that resulted from a phony registration form? No, I can’t cite one, chapter and verse,” he said [...]

Asked for specifics about the dangers of fake registration, Ben Porritt, a spokesman for the McCain campaign, provided links to 13 news clips and a 2003 Missouri state auditor’s report. Eleven of the cases did not involve registration fraud. Two recounted how felons appeared to have cast illegal votes under their own names. The lone example of a forged registration leading to an illegitimate vote comes from The Wall Street Journal’s John Fund, who in April 2006 wrote that a community organizer had improperly registered a noncitizen, and “someone eventually voted in [the noncitizen’s] name.”

Michaelson, who served for 27 years as executive director of the Illinois Board of Elections, said the sharp exchanges over registration fraud have undermined voters’ confidence in the electoral system.

“The fact that so many of these illegal registrations are being made public raises a perception in the minds of people,’’ he said. “That’s more of a general concern. You don’t want to perpetuate the idea that our election process is lacking integrity.”

Asked whether his own party was responsible for fostering that perception, Michaelson said, “Well, it doesn’t help. It has captured the attention of a lot of people.” Why do it, then? “Maybe it’s because there’s nothing else to talk about,” he said.

Boy, he is part of a committee with the word "honest" in it, isn't he?

This is one of those "problems" that actually has a solution, a very smart and nonpartisan solution that would be simple to implement and would eliminate a lot of unnecessary labor. Rick Hasen asks for America to nationalize voter registration.

The solution is to take the job of voter registration for federal elections out of the hands of third parties (and out of the hands of the counties and states) and give it to the federal government. The Constitution grants Congress wide authority over congressional elections. The next president should propose legislation to have the Census Bureau, when it conducts the 2010 census, also register all eligible voters who wish to be registered for future federal elections. High-school seniors could be signed up as well so that they would be registered to vote on their 18th birthday. When people submit change-of-address cards to the post office, election officials would also change their registration information.

This change would eliminate most voter registration fraud. Government employees would not have an incentive to pad registration lists with additional people in order to keep their jobs. The system would also eliminate the need for matches between state databases, a problem that has proved so troublesome because of the bad quality of the data. The federal government could assign each person a unique voter-identification number, which would remain the same regardless of where the voter moves. The unique ID would prevent people from voting in two jurisdictions, such as snowbirds who might be tempted to vote in Florida and New York. States would not have to use the system for their state and local elections, but most would choose to do so because of the cost savings.

There's something in this for both Democrats and Republicans. Democrats talk about wanting to expand the franchise, and there's no better way to do it than the way most mature democracies do it: by having the government register voters. For Republicans serious about ballot integrity, this should be a winner as well. No more ACORN registration drives, and no more concerns about Democratic secretaries of state not aggressively matching voters enough to motor vehicle databases.

Finally, universal voter registration is good for the country, not only because it will make it easier for those who wish to vote to do so, but because it should end controversy over ballot integrity that threatens to undermine the legitimacy of our election process. If President McCain or Obama makes this a priority, we can have the system ready in time for the president's re-election.

Of course, Republicans aren't serious about ballot integrity, and their opposition to this would prove it. They just want something to carp about and undermine confidence in elections. In addition, there's a credible concern, given how the current government has politicized the Department of Justice and the General Services Administration, that giving over voter registration to them might have dangerous consequences.

But of course, there are Republican Secretaries of State doing that politicization right now. And wouldn't it be nice to create an election system where people don't have to turn in a form or remember to vote at an old precinct if they missed the cutoff, a system designed to make voting easier instead of harder?

This is but one possible innovation in elections (like expanding early voting access, making Election Day a weekend or a holiday, instant runoff voting, a mandate for paper ballots, abolishing the Electoral College, etc., etc.), but it certainly would help to defuse this massive hissy fit we hear every four years like clockwork. I'd love to see Republicans oppose the concept of registering every American to vote.


.
dday 11/02/2008 11:00:00 AM |

 
The Inmates Take Over The Asylum

by digby

They can't control them anymore:

You'd think 21-year-old Kristi Burton would be feted by the pro-life establishment. Though she still lives with her parents in Peyton, Colo., and is only partway through law school, Burton has already succeeded where other anti-abortion activists have failed: Last month she got a proposed amendment to her state's constitution on the ballot that defines a fertilized human egg as a person, the first in the nation. Amendment 48 allows a challenge to the very legality of abortion and has at least a chance of passing, thanks to Burton's sheer single-mindedness. Last June she founded her own group, Colorado for Equal Rights, and recruited her parents as its first volunteers and donors. Burton spent 40-hour weeks canvassing at churches and garden shows. She needed 76,000 signatures to get the measure on the ballot; she collected more than 130,000. The group now has eight staff members and more than $500,000 in donations.

Yet Burton has not received much support for Amendment 48 from her most natural allies—the country's major pro-life groups. Heavyweights like National Right to Life and Americans United for Life are not backing it. "There are other ways to protect human life that we focus on because we believe they are the most effective," says Clark Forsythe, president of Americans United for Life. Although pro-life leaders generally agree with Burton that life begins at fertilization, they fear a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade would ultimately be slapped down by the Supreme Court—still at least one vote shy of an anti-Roe majority—setting back the movement. "The established pro-life movement feels … we should stop trying to overturn Roe because the time isn't right," says Richard Thompson, president of the Thomas More Law Center, a conservative public-interest firm that has advised Amendment 48. "Then there is this huge grassroots movement saying it's immoral not to try and save innocent lives."

This young woman undoubtedly believes that most people agree that life begins at conception. She isn't interested in the thorny problem of what to do with women who have abortions if the fertilized egg is considered a "person" --- meaning the woman has logically committed premeditated murder. And she doesn't care that challenging Roe may very well result in its being upheld. She believes she is doing God's work and doesn't see why she should pull her punches when the truth, as she sees it, is obvious.

I actually have far more respect for her than I do the smarmy, institutional anti-abortion careerists who have milked this issue for all its worth for over thirty years for political and personal gain. They have known from the beginning that they would never be able to satisfy their true believers because there was never any way in hell that the country would stand for prosecuting women for having abortions. And that is where the true believers' principles inevitably lead them. It's a scam.

Colorado is looking good for Obama and let's hope that results in the defeat of this absurd proposition. But at some point, they'll probably be able to get a case like this before the Supreme Court. And that, of course, is yet another reason why it's so important to elect Obama.


.
digby 11/02/2008 09:30:00 AM |

 
We'll Always Have Tom

by tristero

Friedman surpasses himself:

First, we need a president who can speak English and deconstruct and navigate complex issues so Americans can make informed choices.

Then, we need pundits who can write good.

tristero 11/02/2008 07:30:00 AM |

 
No To Prop Hate: Volunteers Desperately Needed

by tristero

Digby also posted on this, but it's so important, I'd also like to jump in. No On Prop 8, the pushback on the despicable anti-marriage initiative on the California ballot desperately needs 1000 volunteers to GOTV. I would join up in a heartbeat if I lived anywhere near California (I'll be doing GOTV on election day in Pennsylvania after I vote in NYC).

Sign up here to work to defeat Prop Hate. In an email, they told me they are in a dead heat. Prop Hate will deny marriage to loving couples. It is rank discrimination of the ugliest sort.

I'd like point to out that while opposition to Prop Hate is a civil rights issue of critical importance to the GLBT community, the right to marry the person you love is a fundamental civil right that impacts everyone. Oppressive societies throughout history have discriminated against couples not only on the basis of sexual orientation but also because of race, creed, religion, political views, and nearly any other difference bigots happen to obsess over. It is not a Christian principle to oppose marriages but a cynical political initiative fueled by well-funded extremists with a purely secular will to power. It would be not only a moral outrage if Prop Hate passes, but deeply dangerous to the always fragile wall of separation between Church and State.

Vote NO on Prop Hate. And people in or near California, sign up to volunteer now to GOTV and help defeat rightwing extremism.

tristero 11/02/2008 06:00:00 AM |

Saturday, November 01, 2008

 
Saturday Night At The Movies


The Docu-horror Picture Show

By Dennis Hartley























Whatever happened to Fay Wray?





In honor of Halloween weekend (we can call it that, when Halloween falls on a Friday, right?), and in a desperate search of a theme for this week’s post (heh), I thought I’d eschew the usual “Top 10 Horror Films” tact in favor of something REALLY scary-real life. Because, let’s face it. Try as they might, Hollywood can never really match the thrills, the chills and grotesqueries of, say, reading the newspaper, watching CNN, going online to look at your 401k, popping into a Denny’s at 3am, or waiting for next Tuesday’s results. Documentary filmmakers have been on to this little secret for years.

So forget the exploding squibs, the fakey Karo syrup blood and severed prosthetic limbs-here’s my Top 10 list of creepy, scary, frightening, haunting, spine-tingling tales that you literally could not make up (as per usual, in no particular ranking order). Er….”enjoy”?

The Atomic Cafe-Whoopee we’re all gonna die! In a big, scary mushroom cloud. But along the way, we might as well have a few laughs. That seems to be the impetus behind this harrowingly funny compilation of U.S. government propaganda shorts from the Cold War era, that were originally designed to “educate” the public about how to best “survive” a nuclear attack (all you have to do is get under a desk…everyone knows that!). In addition to the Civil Defense campaigns (which include the classic “duck and cover” tutorials) the filmmakers have drawn from a rich vein of military training films, which generally reduce the possible effects of a nuclear strike to something akin to a barrage of shelling from, oh I don’t know… a really big field howitzer. The genius of the film lies in its complete lack of narration (irony speaks louder than words, too). This also gives the film a timeless quality; you could very easily apply its “message” to the current world stage (everything old is new again). It makes a perfect double bill with Dr. Strangelove.

Brother's Keeper- An absolutely riveting documentary about a dirt-poor, semi-literate rural upstate New York farmer named Delbert Ward, who was charged with murdering his brother in 1990. Filmmakers Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky follow a year or so in the life of Delbert and his two surviving brothers, as they weather the pressures of the trial and the media circus that surrounds it. The clock seems to have stopped around 1899 on the aging bachelor brothers’ run-down farm, where they live together in relative seclusion in a small, unheated shack (at times, one is reminded of the family in the classic X-Files episode, “Home”) The prosecution claims that the brothers conspired to kill their ailing sibling, coming up with some rather oddball motives. The defense attorney’s conjecture is that the victim died of natural causes, and that Delbert was coerced by law enforcement into signing a written confession (admitting a “mercy killing”), thereby taking advantage of the fact that he was uneducated. He also cagily riles up the town folk to rally behind “the boys” by portraying the D.A. and investigating authorities as city slickers, out to railroad a simple farmer. Is Delbert really “simple”? Watch and decide.

The Corporation - While it's not exactly news to any thinking person that corporate greed and manipulation affects everyone's life on this planet in one way or the other, co-directors Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott have managed to deliver the message in a unique and engrossing fashion. By applying a point-by-point psychological “profile” to the base rudiments of “corporate think”, Achbar and Abbott build a solid case to prove that if the “corporation” were, um, corporeal, “he” would be Norman Bates. Mixing archival footage with observations from the expected talking heads (Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, etc.) and the unexpected (some CEOs who are actually sympathetic with the filmmaker’s point of view) along with the colorful (a self-professed "corporate spy" who makes McCain’s ratfuckers look like Boy Scouts), the film gives us the full perspective not only from the watchdogs, but from the belly of the beast itself. There are enough audacious "exposes" trotted out to keep conspiracy theorists, environmentalists and human rights activists tossing and turning in sweat-soaked sheets for nights on end.

The Cruise-I used to hang out with a co-worker who had a bit of an enigmatic soul. He would pace about his living room, quaffing beers and expounding on the universe. Sometimes, he would stop dead in his tracks, give me a faraway look, and say, “Trust me, Dennis-you don’t want to be in here,” while stabbing a finger at his forehead. Then, he would resume with his pacing and his (always entertaining) pontificating. The idea of being in someone else’s head is always a bit “horror show”, don’t you think? If you can take it, you might want to check out this one-of-a-kind doc that spends nearly 80 minutes in “here”. Specifically, inside the head of one Tim “Speed” Levitch, a tour guide for Manhattan’s Gray Line double-decker buses. Levitch’s world view is, um, interesting, to say the least. And he is nothing, if not verbose. Is he crazy? Is he some kind of post-modern prophet? Or is he just another eccentric, fast-talking New Yorker? It’s a strange, unique and weirdly exhilarating roller coaster ride through the consciousness of being.

The Devil and Daniel Johnston -The full horror of schizophrenia can only be truly known by those who are afflicted, but this rockumentary about cult alt-folk singer-songwriter Daniel Johnston comes pretty close to being the next worse thing to actually being there. Johnston has waged an internal battle between inspired creativity and mental illness for most of his life (not unlike Brian Wilson, Syd Barrett, Roky Erickson and Joe Meek). The filmmakers recount a series of apocryphal stories about how Johnston, like Chance the Gardener in Being There
, stumbles innocently and repeatedly into the right place at the right time, steadily amassing a sizeable grass roots following. Everything appears to be set in place for his Big Break, until an ill-advised tryst with hallucinogenic substances sends him (literally) spiraling into complete madness. While on a private plane flight with his pilot father, Johnston has a sudden epiphany that he is Casper the Friendly Ghost, and decides to wrest the controls, causing the plane to crash. Both men walk away relatively unscathed, but Daniel is soon afterwards committed to a mental hospital. The story becomes even more surreal, as Johnston is finally “discovered” by the major labels, who engage in a bidding war while their potential client is still residing in the laughing house (only in America). By turns darkly humorous, sad, and inspiring.

Grey Gardens -“The Aristocrats!” There’s no murder or mayhem involved in this real-life Gothic character study by renowned documentarians Albert and David Maysles (Salesman , Gimme Shelter), but you’ll still find it to be quite creepy. Edith Bouvier Beale (who was in her early 80s at the time of filming) and her middle aged daughter Edie were living under decidedly less than hygienic conditions in a spooky old dark manor in East Hampton, L.I. with a menagerie of cats and raccoons when the brothers decided to profile them (their halcyon “high society” days were, needless to say, behind them). The fact that the women were related to Jackie O (Edith the elder was her aunt) makes this Fellini-esque nightmare even more twisted. You are not likely to encounter a mother-daughter combo quite like “Big Edie” and “Little Edie” more than once in a lifetime. The intrinsic camp value of the Edies was not lost on Broadway; a musical adaptation (I think that’s a first for a documentary) ran for 2 years. Coming soon: a dramatized version produced by HBO with Jessica Lange and Drew Barrymore (oy vay).

In the Realms of the Unreal -Artist Henry Darger is not usually mentioned in the same breath as Picasso, but he nonetheless makes for a fascinating study. Darger was a nondescript recluse who worked as a janitor for his entire adult life. He had no significant relationships of record and died in obscurity in 1973. While sorting out the contents of the small Chicago apartment he had lived in for years, his landlady discovered a treasury of artwork and writings, including over 300 paintings. The centerpiece was an epic, 15,000-page illustrated novel, which Darger had meticulously scribed in long hand over a period of decades (it was literally his life’s work). The subject at hand: An entire mythic alternate universe populated mostly by young, naked hermaphrodites (the”Vivian girls”). Although it’s tempting to dismiss Darger as a filthy old pervert, until you have actually seen the astonishing breadth of Darger’s monster from the id, spilled out over so many pages and so much canvas, it’s hard to convey how weirdly mesmerizing it all is (especially if you catch an exhibit, which I saw here in Seattle last year). The doc mixes Darger’s bio with animation of his artwork, and actors supplying narration from his tome.

An Inconvenient Truth- It’s the end of the world as we know it. Apocalyptic sci-fi has become scientific fact-now that’s scary. Former VP/Oscar winner Al Gore is a Power Point-packing Rod Serling, submitting a gallery of nightmare nature scenarios for our disapproval. I’m tempted to say that this chilling look at the results of unchecked global warming is only showing us the tip of the proverbial iceberg…but it’s melting too fast.

Sicko - Torture porn for the uninsured! Our favorite agitprop filmmaker, Michael Moore, grabs your attention right out of the gate with a real Bunuel moment. Over the opening credits, we are treated to shaky home video depicting a man pulling up a flap of skin whilst patiently stitching up a gash on his knee with a needle and thread, as Moore deadpans in V.O. (with his cheerful Midwestern countenance) that the gentleman is an avid cyclist- and one of the millions of Americans who cannot afford health insurance. The film proceeds to delve into some of the other complexities contributing to the overall ill health of our current system; such as the monopolistic power and greed of the pharmaceutical companies, the lobbyist graft, and (perhaps most horrifying of all) the compassionless bureaucracy of a privatized health “coverage” system that focuses first and foremost on profit, rather than on actual individual need. Better eat your Wheaties.

Zoo -When the Seattle press originally broke the story of a Boeing engineer dying from a perforated colon as the result of his “love” for horses, that alone was weird and disturbing enough (not to mention the cruelty to animals angle). But when it was revealed that the deceased was a member of a sizable group of like-minded individuals, calling themselves “zoophiles”, who traveled from all parts of the country to converge on a farm where their “special needs” were catered to, I remember thinking that it was a scenario beyond the ken of a Cronenberg or a Lynch; it was horror in the most abject sense of the word. That being said, there is still a “bad car wreck” fascination about the tale, resulting in an eerie, compelling and thought-provoking Errol Morris-style documentary about the darkest side of (in) human desire. To their credit, filmmakers Robinson Devor and Charles Mudede keep a sensitive, neutral tone; it is not as exploitative as you might assume.

Previous posts with related themes:

Oh come, all ye Pagans: DVDs for All Hallows Eve

Divine Trash, Hidden Jewels-Part 2: Klaus Kinski


.
Dennis Hartley 11/01/2008 06:00:00 PM |

 
California Emergency

by digby


I know you're tired of hearing this from me, but it's important. The ban gay marriage amendment, prop 8, is in a dead heat right now and the campaign is having a hard time getting people fired up to help GOTV. In this historic, progressive year it is just unthinkable that we in California would let a bunch of backwards, segregationist, religious extremists actually take away fundamental civil rights.

I had a conversation with a gay friend of mine last night who is extremely political and simply didn't realize that a big Obama win here in California might not translate into a victory for No on Prop 8. It doesn't scan, right? Liberals in liberal California voting in big numbers means support for gay marriage. But the fact is that there a quite a few conservative Democrats and "moderate" Republicans who may very well vote for Obama this time out, but who are opposed to gay marriage. Obama himself is opposed to gay marriage, although he did quietly announce his opposition to Prop 8.

We especially need the young voters to turn out big in California. They instinctively understand this as a basic issue of discrimination and fairness and have the most stake in the future. They need to vote and they need to help get out the vote. We all do.

If you think I'm being hyperbolic, here's the ad about "The Call" again so you'll know just what kind of crazy we are dealing with:

Here's where to go if you can help. Send the link around to anyone you know who can help.

As much as I will be proud and excited if Obama wins this election, it will not be a truly progressive victory is we let these forces of the dark ages succeed in changing the constitution of the most populous state in the union --- a state which Obama is poised to win hugely --- to expressly discriminate against its citizens. It shouldn't happen.


No on Prop Hate.


.
digby 11/01/2008 05:00:00 PM |

 
Because I Need It

by digby

I'm a little bit stressed out and I expect that many of you are too. I need a little break. (If you are an animal-phobe or a serious cynic, don't bother to read further.)

For the rest of you, I offer cute zoo animals eating birthday cake:

More at the link.

And here.

And OMG.

ok, I'm done.
digby 11/01/2008 04:00:00 PM |

 
Sharp Tip

by digby

This is such a great idea, I hope all the Randites adopt it and it sweeps the nation:

Glenn Harlan Reynolds is a law professor at the University of Tennessee and author of the blog "Instapundit." His wife, Helen Smith, is also a blogger as well as a forensic psychologist who writes this blog. Yesterday she came up with an idea to deal with uppity Obama voters, at least those who are waiters and waitresses. In a post, linked to by her husband, entitled “Should You Tip Less in an Obama Administration?”, she writes:

I often tip generously both because I have been a waitress and because I think it is important to reward people who work. However, if Obama gets in (and it is still an if), perhaps tipping less or not at all would be a good way to save money as a way of "going John Galt." Yet, is it fair to the person who is stiffed? What about a compromise, just tipping less? What do you think?

So Dr. Helen’s idea for “going John Galt” is to get and other “Atlases” (picture of her husband) to not only stop holding up the world but stop tipping those who only hold up plates and trays for these world carriers.

That will teach them to vote Obama! To be fair, she doesn’t actually advocate stopping the practice, well common courtesy, of tipping. She is simply proposing “just tipping less.” Don’t stiff them, just cut their wages down. After all, they're paid a whopping $2.01 per hour to bring you your lunch.

As if this weren't arrogant enough, she then goes even further, suggesting that along with a lower tip, other "Atlases" should leave notes, referencing Obama:

I've been thinking. If Obama is elected, maybe in lieu of a tip I should leave a note like the following:

HOPE AND CHANGE FOR AMERICA: Spreading the Wealth Around.

In lieu of a tip, $_____ has been donated to the Re-Elect Obama for President Campaign. Thank you for supporting the man and the movement that are bringing America together!

If enough people leave notes like this, I'm sure it will galvanize waitpeople everywhere in support of The One!

That'll teach 'em to vote for Obama. Why all those dumb waitresses will get so mad at Obama because their customers are giving him their tips that they'll never vote for a Democrat again! A wicked, cunning plan, it is.

It's a good thing that Dr Helen is a psychologist who studies dead people because her understanding of living human behavior is seriously lacking.


.
digby 11/01/2008 03:00:00 PM |

 
White Noise

by digby

The New York Times does a nice feature today on Media Matters, running down how it works and speculating about its effect on the election.

But the most interesting, and predictable, part is this:

“I don’t pay any attention to them,” said Stuart Rothenberg, editor of The Rothenberg Political Report, a Washington newsletter. “Whether it’s conservatives evaluating the media, or liberals evaluating the media, I just have no confidence in any of the ideological stuff.”

Moreover, for all the organization’s culling, the sheer number of items it pumps out can be overwhelming to those reporters who cover the news media, or the campaign.

“At the risk of incurring their wrath,” said Mark Z. Barabak, a political reporter for The Los Angeles Times who has covered the Obama and McCain campaigns, “I think it does become, at a certain point, white noise.”

Similarly, David Folkenflik, the media correspondent for National Public Radio, said: “They’re looking at every dangling participle, every dependent clause, every semicolon, every quotation — to see if it there’s some way it unfairly frames a cause, a party, a candidate, that they may have some feelings for.”

That said, Mr. Folkenflik said the organization was a source of useful leads, in part because of the “breadth of their research.”

Yes, they are ridiculously thorough, which is the kind of thing mainstream reporters and political analysts just hate. Stuart Rothenberg simply discounts all information that doesn't come from allegedly neutral sources. I'd love to know what he thinks those are. (I guess all those videos and documentation from Media Matters are just so booooring to have to look through to evaluate if what they are saying is true. So much easier to just put your fingers in your ears and your faith in Cokie Roberts.)

But this is really funny coming from one of Newtie's creations:

“I think they are one of the most destructive organizations associated with American politics today,” said Frank Luntz, a pollster for Rudolph W. Giuliani and Newt Gingrich who this year has led on-camera voter focus groups on Fox News, a frequent Media Matters target. “They are vicious. They only understand one thing: attack, attack, attack.”

“If I were a Democrat, I would tell them to shut up,” Mr. Luntz said. “If I were a Republican, I would tell my candidates to ignore them.”

I'll bet he would:

Pollster Frank Luntz is crying foul after MSNBC canceled his long-scheduled focus group two days before the debate. Luntz, who is under contract to MSNBC, had already spent $30,000 on recruits for several focus groups and invited reporters in Florida to watch -- only to be told that the network didn't want to declare a winner in the debate.

"I think they buckled to political pressure," says Luntz, who has advised Republicans from Newt Gingrich to Rudy Giuliani but says he's done no GOP work since 2001. "They caved. . . . Why is it that Democrats are allowed to do this" after leaving politics, "but Republicans aren't?"

But MSNBC spokesman Jeremy Gaines says: "We made a decision not to use focus groups as part of our debate coverage. This decision had nothing to do with Frank's past work or politics. We think our viewers should be able to make up their own minds without 'scientific' help" -- despite the fact that the network has prominently featured Luntz and his on-air focus groups for four years.

Luntz has criticized President Bush on occasion, and his non-televised focus group, ironically, favored Kerry in the debate. Some NBC executives find him extremely fair but believe his longtime GOP links create a perception problem.

"For me, nothing is more important than getting it right," Luntz says. He says MSNBC bowed to pressure from conservative-turned-liberal activist David Brock in dumping him and that the network hasn't even agreed to use him as an analyst -- sans focus groups -- in this week's debates.

Luntz, of course, never left Republican politics. And he never stopped being a jackass:

LUNTZ: I always use the line for Nancy Pelosi, "You get one shot at a facelift. If it doesn't work the first time, let it go."

Just in case anyone wonders about the tedious "white noise" Media Matters is boring reporters with, here are just a few headlines from today:

• Cunningham alleged that "Obama wants to gas the Jews"

• In the days before the election, media figures have repeatedly compared Obama to Hitler

• Pressed by Juan Williams, Hannity again declined to express regret for hosting Andy Martin

• Foser: The Right's "bias" charade

• Savage: "If you're insane, hate the family ... hate your mother and father, hate the Bible, hate the church, and hate the synagogue," you oppose CA gay marriage ban

• Rose Tennent on Obama ad: "[D]on't put that jive out there in front of me, devil, and tell me that these people are hurting when they are not hurting"

• Liddy: Obama is relying, in part, on "the welfare class" to win Pennsylvania

Who cares about all that icky stuff? What I want to know is whether or not Obama snapped at reporters for dogging him and his daughter on their way to a Holloween party. Now that's important stuff.


Update: I'd forgotten that Rothenberg was embarrassed by Media Matters quite recently for saying this:

Voters shouldn't judge a candidate by his skin color. Maybe, but is it any more unfair than, for example, saying that because McCain and President Bush are both Republicans that a McCain administration would produce a third Bush term? No, it isn't.

I think he probably believes that.


.
digby 11/01/2008 01:30:00 PM |

 
The President Speaks

by digby

Man, they really are getting desperate:

He's been hidden away in his secure location for months and what with all the Republicans endorsing Obama in these last days as the ship makes its final descent to the ocean floor, I thought maybe he was keeping his options open...


Update: They aren't even mentioning his name anymore. And I'm not talking about Bush:

Looking around the Fantasy of Flight aircraft hangar where the rally took place, there were all the usual reminders that it was a pro-McCain event. There were two large “Country First” banners hung on the walls along with four enormous American flags meant to conjure the campaign’s underlying patriotic theme. Many of the men and women in the audience wore McCain hats and t-shirts.

But on closer inspection, the GOP nominee’s name was literally nowhere to be found on any of the official campaign signage distributed to supporters at the event.

Members of the audience proudly waved “Country First” placards as Palin delivered her stump speech. Those signs were paid for by the Republican National Committee.

The other sign handed out to supporters read “Florida is Palin Country,” but those signs were neither paid for by the Republican National Committee nor the McCain campaign. In small print, the signs were stamped with the line “Paid for and authorized by Putnam for Congress" — as in, the re-election campaign of Florida congressman Adam Putnam, whose district skirts Polk City.

In fact, Putnam’s name was considerably more prominent than was McCain’s — his campaign had placed a number of large “Putnam for Congress” banners around the event site.

Update II: Heh. Here's Obama's response:

President Bush is sitting out the last few days before the election. But earlier today, Dick Cheney came out of his undisclosed location and hit the campaign trail. He said that he is, and I quote, "delighted to support John McCain."

I'd like to congratulate Senator McCain on this endorsement because he really earned it. That endorsement didn't come easy. Senator McCain had to vote 90 percent of the time with George Bush and Dick Cheney to get it. He served as Washington's biggest cheerleader for going to war in Iraq, and supports economic policies that are no different from the last eight years. So Senator McCain worked hard to get Dick Cheney's support.

But here's my question for you, Colorado: do you think Dick Cheney is delighted to support John McCain because he thinks John McCain's going to bring change? Do you think John McCain and Dick Cheney have been talking about how to shake things up, and get rid of the lobbyists and the old boys club in Washington?

Colorado, we know better. After all, it was just a few days ago that Senator McCain said that he and President Bush share a "common philosophy." And we know that when it comes to foreign policy, John McCain and Dick Cheney share a common philosophy that thinks that empty bluster from Washington will fix all of our problems, and a war without end in Iraq is the way to defeat Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda terrorists who are in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

So George Bush may be in an undisclosed location, but Dick Cheney's out there on the campaign trail because he'd be delighted to pass the baton to John McCain. He knows that with John McCain you get a twofer: George Bush's economic policy and Dick Cheney's foreign policy – but that's a risk we cannot afford to take.

.
digby 11/01/2008 12:00:00 PM |

 
Springing A Leak

by dday

I don't know if these 11th-hour smears are going to work at a time when the total financial meltdown tends to focus the mind a bit. But if undecideds were looking for an excuse to vote against Senator Obama, they've been handed it. It appears that Obama has an aunt from Kenya who is living in Boston illegally after her request for asylum was denied four years ago. Illegal!!!1! By the way, Barack Obama doesn't seem to know this aunt well or have any sort of relationship with her.

(Also, she apparently gave a small amount of donations to the campaign, which Obama has just given back.)

The interesting part of this is how the asylum denial was discovered. The quoted portion is from this AP story.

"Information about the deportation case was disclosed and confirmed by two separate sources, one of them a federal law enforcement official. The information they made available is known to officials in the federal government, but the AP could not establish whether anyone at a political level in the Bush administration or in the McCain campaign had been involved in its release."

To quote Josh Marshall:

That's about as transparent a red flag as an outfit like the AP is usually willing to give. And there you have it. Quite likely working in concert with the McCain campaign, a Bush administration official is leaking details on an immigration case to try to help McCain three days before the election. It's shades of Bush I's riffling through Bill Clinton's passport files just before the 1992 election in a desperate last minute gambit as they were swirling down the drain.

Guess what? THAT'S illegal. And unlike some random relative who has no relationship to Obama, it's likely this was carried out at the highest levels of either the Bush Administration or the McCain campaign.

We'll see if it has any impact - I think it will be minimal. But the circumstances of the leak ought to be investigated as well.

...By the way, here are some things that could have driven the news cycle as last-minute revelations about McCain that were ignored by the larger media:

1) A mysterious donor who gave $70,000 to John McCain in one day and $269,000 over the course of a year.

2) John and Cindy used military jets for vacation trips to Bermuda back in 1993.

3) A potential fatal car crash back in 1964.

4) McCain pushed regulators to approve a land swap for a key contributor.

Any or all of these could have been in the genre of these last-minute smears, but you know, that wouldn't be sporting.

...and John Conyers weighs in on this leak:

I was startled to read in today's Associated Press that a "federal law enforcement official" has leaked information about an immigration case involving a relative of Senator Obama. Even more troubling, the AP reports that it "could not establish whether anyone at a political level in the Bush administration or in the McCain campaign had been involved," a very disturbing suggesting indeed. This leak is deplorable and I urge you to take immediate action to investigate and discipline those responsible.

I note that this is not the first leak of law enforcement information apparently designed to influence the coming Presidential election -- in recent weeks law enforcement sources leaked information about an alleged investigation of a community services organization, a leak that the Department of Justice informs me has been referred to the Department's Office of the Inspector General and Professional Responsibility.

Such leaks are deeply harmful to the political process, and the American people expect and deserve better from their government and its law enforcement agencies.

.
dday 11/01/2008 10:30:00 AM |

 
Ah, Comity!

by tristero

Attention, all you Emily Post trolls who need smelling salts after encountering the nasty vicious netroots:

"Now, listen, I've voted 'present' two or three times in my entire 25-year political career, where there might have been a conflict of interest and I didn't feel like I should vote," Boehner said. "In Congress, we have a red button, a green button and a yellow button, alright. Green means 'yes,' red means 'no,' and yellow means you're a chicken shit. And the last thing we need in the White House, in the oval office, behind that big desk, is some chicken who wants to push this yellow button."

That's right. John Boehner said Obama's a chicken shit.

And this is why, girls and boys, all talk about a less toxic political atmosphere with the current Republican party is sheer nonsense. Oh sure, Obama - if we are lucky enough to wake up Wed and find him elected - could find a spare Hagel lying around, or a Jim Leach to nail into his Cabinet,and that's probably a good idea in the long run. But the reality staring us straight in the face is that the leadership of the Republican party - and a huge GOP majority having influence in the party's ideological and strategic direction -have no interest in anything remotely resembling bipartisanship.

And neither does anyone I know personally who's supporting Obama. Not with these murderous, corrupt clowns. We want the extreme right and their agenda out of our national politics, driven back to the margins of American discourse where it belongs. Maybe someone out there truly yearns for a less nasty politics, but not me, not now. Not with extremists who call me "traitor," who have listed my friends as some of the 100 most dangerous people in America or placed them on terrorist watch lists, and who, from their seat as a US Representative pronounce a candidate for the American presidency a chicken shit.

Since I'm sure our resident rightwing friends will take what I just said out of context, let's be clear. I am not saying that a robust, vibrant, and bipartisan effort on serious issues will remain ipso facto impossible or is necessarily undesirable. Nor am I saying that Democrats and only Democrats always have the "right" answer to a problem - clearly they don't. I am saying, however, that it is absolutely impossible with the Republican party as it is now, and in its forseeable paleolithic palinized future, for Democrats to work together productively with the extremists at the top of (and throughout) the party except on the most circumscribed of issues. To get anything serious done, they will have to be fought. And that will not be pretty. I see no reason for Dems to back down and plenty of reasons to respond tit for tat, with interest.

You cannot "work with" the extreme right, but you can defeat them. Obama's tactic appears to be to ignore them and isolate them from the atrophied remnants of the "moderate" Republicans, which he will encourage. Fair enough, that's part of a strategy, but it's not sufficient. To defeat Bushism and other trends of the American extreme right will take, as it always has, concentrated . sustained, and effective resistance in addition to Obama's "divide and conquer" tactics. It requires us to denounce scoundrels like DeLay and humiliate buffoons like Boehner as well as a consistent, persistent, hounding of the media to do their job to expose these people for what they are.

These are incompetent frauds driven by a dangerously belligerent ideology grounded not in American values, but only sheer ignorance and fear. There is no reason to show them respect or kindness. They simply must be pushed away from the corridors of power, left to mutter in their plush think tanks and at their gun shows 'bout how Obama is using hypnosis, how the beginning of the end was fluoridated water, and how gay marriage is the only human factor that causes global warming.

tristero 11/01/2008 08:04:00 AM |

 
Don't Read This If You're Drinking Coffee

by tristero

David Sedaris:

I don’t know that it was always this way, but, for as long as I can remember, just as we move into the final weeks of the Presidential campaign the focus shifts to the undecided voters. “Who are they?” the news anchors ask. “And how might they determine the outcome of this election?”

Then you’ll see this man or woman— someone, I always think, who looks very happy to be on TV. “Well, Charlie,” they say, “I’ve gone back and forth on the issues and whatnot, but I just can’t seem to make up my mind!” Some insist that there’s very little difference between candidate A and candidate B. Others claim that they’re with A on defense and health care but are leaning toward B when it comes to the economy.

I look at these people and can’t quite believe that they exist. Are they professional actors? I wonder. Or are they simply laymen who want a lot of attention?

To put them in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. “Can I interest you in the chicken?” she asks. “Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it?”

To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked.

From The New Yorker. Yes, The New Yorker.

h/t, my friend MC.

tristero 11/01/2008 06:49:00 AM |