Good News Poll!

The people trust the Democrats more than Republicans on every issue save Terrorism:

Simply put, in the NEWSWEEK Poll, voters said they trust Democrats more than Republicans to handle pretty much every problem currently facing the country: Afghanistan (by 6 points), health care (by 12), immigration (by 2, though that figure is within the margin of error), Social Security (by 14), unemployment (by 12), financial reform (by 14), energy (by 19), and education (by 19). Voters even prefer Democrats to Republicans on federal spending (by 4 points), taxes (by 5), and the economy (by 10) -- the GOP's core concerns. The only area where Republicans outpoll Democrats is the issue of terrorism, where they lead by a 6-point margin.

Still, voters are split on which party should control Congress after November -- 44 percent went for Republicans, 46 percent for Democrats -- and most experts are predicting sizable Republican gains in both the House and the Senate.

The first paragraph is awesome. The second paragraph is a sign of our broken political/media system. It takes quite a sustained effort at distortion to make Americans vote for the party they trust less.

Critical Reading Exercise

So, there's a little brouhaha regarding Nancy Pelosi and the veracity of the CIA's claims about its briefings to Congress. Perhaps you've noticed.

Republicans seem to think Panetta slammed Pelosi today, but let's do a little critical reading exercise here, shall we?

Message from the Director: Turning Down the Volume
There is a long tradition in Washington of making political hay out of our business. It predates my service with this great institution, and it will be around long after I'm gone. But the political debates about interrogation reached a new decibel level yesterday when the CIA was accused of misleading Congress.

Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and our values. As the Agency indicated previously in response to Congressional inquiries, our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing "the enhanced techniques that had been employed." Ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened.

My advice--indeed, my direction--to you is straightforward: ignore the noise and stay focused on your mission. We have too much work to do to be distracted from our job of protecting this country.

We are an Agency of high integrity, professionalism, and dedication. Our task is to tell it like it is--even if that's not what people always want to hear. Keep it up. Our national security depends on it.

Did he actually deny that the CIA had mislead Pelosi? No.

Democrat's New Rules Reveal Corruption

I've rooted for Jack Murtha's electoral defeat before, on the grounds that he was reportedly a corrupt Democrat. It now looks like he's in serious trouble:

More than 100 House members secured earmarks in a major spending bill for clients of a single lobbying firm — The PMA Group — known for its close ties to John P. Murtha , the congressman in charge of Pentagon appropriations.

....PMA’s offices have been raided, and the firm closed its political action committee last week amid reports that the FBI is investigating possibly illegal campaign contributions to Murtha and other lawmakers.

No matter what the outcome of the federal investigation, PMA’s earmark success illustrates how a well-connected lobbying firm operates on Capitol Hill. And earmark accountability rules imposed by the Democrats in 2007 make it possible to see how extensively PMA worked the Hill for its clients.

No wonder Murtha was opposed to the increase transparency, eh? This is what happens in the age of Obama - if you are corrupt, you will be caught regardless of political party. I love this.

Predator's Cat Outta the Bag

Back in 2006, the following image of a Pakistani airstrip was taken and merged into Google Earth:

This comes on the heels of Sen. Boxer's embarrassing slip that she understood the drone flights were based out of Pakistan.  She did a good job of covering for herself, saying that she was referencing a new story, not any privileged intelligence, but this seems to confirm the story.

The Pakistanis are not going to be happy.

(h/t Wired)

Overlooked in the Stimulus - Tax Cuts

This point hasn't been widely picked up, but the tax cuts in Obama's Stimulus Plan are arguably the largest in American history - targeting those tax cuts to the bottom ~80% instead of the top 5% like Bush.  So the GOP just voted against the largest tax cut in history, for people that will spend it back into the economy.

How's the Club for Growth going to feel about that?  Oh, right.  Tax cuts only count if they're tax cuts for the rich.

Democrats Call for Burris to Resign

Once again, the Democratic Party shows the kind of spirit I love.  Across the board, we're calling for the resignation or removal of Roland Burris.

David Orr:

It doesn't matter if there's some obscure explanations here and there. The credibility is shot. And we don't need this gamesmanship being played in our U.S senator. We need someone who has the reasonable credibility - Democrat or Republican - in this state who can go to work.

The Attorney General is getting in on it, as well as Sen. Boxer's Senate Ethics Committee:

llinois House Speaker Michael Madigan yesterday referred questions about Burris’s statements to Sangamon County prosecutor John Schmidt...

“The matter is under review by this office,” the prosecutor, Schmidt, said, confirming the House speaker’s referral. Springfield, the state capital, is located in Sangamon County.

Natalie Ravitz, a spokeswoman for U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat, confirmed the federal ethics inquiry.

“Whenever allegations of improper conduct are brought to the attention of the Senate Ethics Committee, we open a preliminary inquiry,” Ravitz said in an e-mail.

I'd love to see him refuse to resign, then get expelled by the Senate Democrats. Of course, the Republicans will try to block his expulsion, just like they helped bring him into the Senate in the first place. After all, there's nothing like having the taint of Blago stinking up the Democrat's side of the chamber.

Congressional Approval Ratings

There are gratifying numbers on Congressional Approval Ratings being produced by theResearch 2000 Poll.  The upshot, with the Net Change computed by comparing to results from January 5th, 2009:

Ouch.  How's that obstructionism working out for you?

Obama Learns his Lessons

Obama on Bipartisanship:

They were pleasantly surprised and complimentary about the tax cut that were presented in that framework. Those tax cuts are still in there. I mean, I suppose what I could have done is started off with no tax cuts, knowing that I was going to want some and then let them take credit for all of them. And maybe that’s the lesson I learned.

That's what we've been saying, but Obama is too damned sincere in his desire to change Washington. Making a deal with the Republicans for votes in exchange for 35-40% tax cuts would have been a better political tactic, but it also would have been closer to business-as-usual in Washington. Obama, to his credit, started out with something that "pleasantly surprised" the Republicans.

I think he'll continue in this vein, continuing to burnish his bipartisan cred with the public, and only thwack Republicans over the head when he's in a commanding enough position.  He's not good on the attack - he's good on the counter-attack.

Daschle's Time to Go

Not cool, Daschle. Accepting a driver from someone without payment, or even acknowledging it as a form of income?  Not cool.

Democrats Beatdown Pay Discrimination

Our conservative Supreme Court (7 of 9 are Republicans) says it's fine for an employer to discriminate against women so long as the woman doesn't find out.  Sounds like Bush Administration thinking to me! What an odious decision that was - truly, one of the great outrages of the last few years.

So who can you count on to fight for the rights of women, and equal rights for all?  The Democrats, of course. Now that we've got a Democratic President who wont just veto the bill, the Democrats in the Senate (and the 4 Republican women Senators) have voted to pass the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.  Not a single male Republican joined in the vote.

McClatchy says this will be one of the first bills Obama will sign into law. That makes me feel good. This is a gigantic injustice that he will right with the swipe of a pen.

William Jefferson, Democrat-Lousiana

Rush Limbaugh's favorite example of Democratic corruption lost his re-election bid last night in his indigo-blue district. Good riddance.

It's worth noting that when the Democrats have an indicted Member running for re-election, we refuse to endorse him. The DNC and the DCCC didn't lift a finger to help Jefferson, and this morning we're all thrilled to see him go.

By contrast, when the Republicans have a convicted felon running for the Senate, not only does the entire party apparatus work for his re-election (coming shocking close to victory in the process), but prominent Republicans endorse him. A certain lipstick-wearing pig comes to mind.

Good on ya, Democrats.

GOTV! Blogging Suspended

I'm already down in Miami working for Annette Taddeo.  So far we've had 16, 17, and 18 hour days.  I assume 18 is where it'll cap out... please God, let it not increase further... 

I think this campaign is run significantly better than my last, so that should preclude the all-nighters.  I'm eating utter crap, taking vitamins, and sleeping like the dead.  Feels about right.

bin Laden's GOTV Effort

Isn't it about time for a Osama bin Laden to release a video?  He's the Republican's best Get Out The Vote organization.

I wonder, do you think bin Laden knows the saying "The friend of my enemy is my enemy?"

Incidentally, McCain's campaign manager has said an attack or bin Laden video would be good for the campaign, and McCain himself, after the video released right before the 2004 election, said "Bin Laden may have just given us a little boost. Amazing, huh?"

Liberals Are Good for America

Bob Herbert, on Liberals:

Without the many great and noble deeds of liberals over the past six or seven decades, America would hardly be recognizable to today’s young people. Liberals (including liberal Republicans, who have since been mostly drummed out of the party) ended legalized racial segregation and gender discrimination.

Humiliation imposed by custom and enforced by government had been the order of the day for blacks and women before men and women of good will and liberal persuasion stepped up their long (and not yet ended) campaign to change things. Liberals gave this country Head Start and legal services and the food stamp program. They fought for cleaner air (there was a time when you could barely see Los Angeles) and cleaner water (there were rivers in America that actually caught fire).

Liberals. Your food is safer because of them, and so are your children’s clothing and toys. Your workplace is safer. Your ability (or that of your children or grandchildren) to go to college is manifestly easier.

It would take volumes to adequately cover the enhancements to the quality of American lives and the greatness of American society that have been wrought by people whose politics were unabashedly liberal. It is a track record that deserves to be celebrated, not ridiculed or scorned.

Good to keep in mind.  This is why, conservative though I feel, I have never despised liberals.

Damned Librul Media!

LATimes:

The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.

You read it right: tougher on the Democrat.

During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.

Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center.

The poor media has been beaten and battered by conservatives for so long that even the "Obamessiah," for whom they are all supposedly in the tank, cannot get their support. John McCain, on the other hand, who has called the media his "base" again and again, complains that the media loves Obama. What a whiner. This looks like Pro-Obama bias to me:



That's the Associated Press giving McCain his favorite donuts and coffee, by the way, just to make sure he's comfortable for the interview, which I'm sure was an absolute grilling. I'm sure they're just buttering him up before-hand to make him an easier target. Right.

You might wonder why the AP, the wire service that provides content for most of America's small newspapers, is bending over backwards to make McCain happy. Perhaps it is because the head of the AP's all important Washington Bureau went through a multi-month job negotiation with the McCain campaign before he clinched the nomination. Or perhaps it was the adoring e-mails from the same new bureau-head to Karl Rove, whose proteges now run McCain's campaign.

In any case, regardless of studies about who people in the news industry contribute money to, you cannot make the case that the media is liberal any longer. The gopher in the basement and the copywriter in the newsroom do not set agendas - the corporation does. When the ultimate source in straight news - the AP - is literally in bed with the McCain campaign, the conservative persecution complex on this issue must come to an end.

Then again, playing the persecuted victim is one of the Republican's great strengths, so I expect them to keep it up. Why stop doing something that works so well? Especially when the media plays along?

Turks Freak-Out on the Democrats

Way to go, Democrats. Keeping campaign promises is good and all, but this could be calamitous:

Turkey's government on Thursday warned the U.S. that a congressional bill recognizing the mass killings of Armenians during World War One as genocide could jeopardize relations between the two countries.

In a statement, Turkey's foreign ministry said the country's government "resents and condemns this decision" and called the resolution an "irresponsible act" at an "extremely critical time."

The issue threatened to "not only endanger the relations with a friendly and allied nation but also jeopardize a strategic partnership that has been cultivated for generations," it added.

This resolution, should it be brought to the floor, actually is irresponsible. On a matter of foreign policy, the Republicans are right for once. Wow.

I really don't understand the leadership's thinking on this. It certainly isn't making it through the Senate, with their new "all filibuster, all the time" format. Will it even be brought to the House floor? Is simply bringing up the resolution in committee worth enough Armenian votes to counter the backlash of failing utterly to do something so stupid?

Of course, even if it were a political winner it would be the wrong thing to do. At a time when Turkey is threatening to engage in a Bush-Doctrine invasion of Iraq, straws are not to be applied to backs.

Although this post is critical of Democrats, I'd just like to remind everyone that it was the Democrats that correctly predicted the Turkey-Kurdistan conflict as one of the many reasons not to go to war with Iraq.

Obama-Oprah '08

Whoa! Oprah is taking an active role in the Obama campaign.

Oprah Winfrey, the nation's wealthiest African American and host of an afternoon television program, endorsed Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in May. Now, she is in discussions with his advisers about playing a broader role in the campaign -- possibly as a surrogate on the stump or an outspoken advocate -- or simply bringing her branding magic to benefit his White House bid.

Shouldn't this do it? I mean, she sells reading, of all things. In America. It bears imagining that she could do the same for voting.

Of course, the counter-argument is that Oprah viewers are die-hard Hilary voters. I wonder.

YKos: Hilary Evades the Nail

I was late to the convention this morning because somehow my pass was not with me, so I had to run back home and catch the next train. I came into Clinton's session late, so I wasn't able to strategically position myself, dooming my chance to ask a question. Luckily, two of the five questions she took were about the issues of tyranny I wanted to raise... of course, they weren't as biting as mine. But she answered them perfectly.

Clinton is a very interesting candidate. She really is pitch-perfect. Despite the fact that she's already clearly running a general campaign (see Iraq War), she still gets on famously with this activist slice of the Democratic Party.

I'm at the Presidential Candidate's Forum right now, and even here, poor Senator Gravel doesn't get any questions. He's looking pissed-off over there. Edwards is tearing it up... he's really quite impressive as well. I've never been a big fan of Edwards. I don't know what exactly he lacks, so I've always just called it Voltage. Well, he's got it today. Hairs are standing on end here. Neat.

Maybe it's just that all of these people are better in person. Except Richardson.

Boxer's Boxing

Here is an excellent example of Senator Boxer beating poor Senator Graham silly after he says Reid believes the troops are losers (video). More like this, please.

BOXER: I don't know anyone who opposes this war that ever said our troops are losers. Our troopers are winners.

GRAHAM: Harry Reid did.

BOXER: Excuse me. He never said our troops are losers. Now, Lindsey, just be careful what you say. The bottom line here is, the losers are the ones who have, you know, engineered this war, made a huge mistake, Dick Cheney, we're in the last throes, the war will last six months, and all of you who have supported this escalation and have turned us away from fighting al Qaida into putting us in the middle of a civil war.

BOXER: "The loser is the Commander in Chief who has not lead our country well."

Watch the segment. It's a thing of beauty.

Interestingly, watch Lindsey carefully in the seconds after he steps in it. He can see what he's done. Look at that hard swallow and fidgeting. That's not the normal Graham we know so well. He knows he's crossed a line, given the Boxer the perfect pitch, and all he can do is sit and watch as she creams it out of the park. This is the sort of response all Democrats need to have on the tips of their tongues when Republicans try to slap us around. Hitting back carries a much weightier message than the English alone would imply.

Thoughts and Predictions on the Primaries

This election is gravy for the Democrats. Here are my thoughts.

Republicans:

• John McCain - The old Maverick has tried like hell to shred the tires on the Straight Talk Express, literally embracing Bush. He's got Bush's institutional support sewn up, and that's far more important in the Republican Primary than in the Democratic, since the tendency for the GOP to nominate frontrunners is well documented. Unfortunately for him, the base still hates him, never having forgiven the original sins of campaign finance reform and having that black illegitimate child. Add in his position on immigration and the base will never trust him, no matter how much warmongering he engages in. Support for the Iraq War will, however, succeed in pushing away all independent support. It was the independents that made McCain in 2000, and they'll unmake him now.
  
• Mitt Romney - There is already a dolphin following Mitt Romney around the country. His name is Flipper, and there's no shortage of material for him to work with. Poor Mitt Romney... it was inevitable. It'd be like Ben Nelson trying to get the Democratic nomination - no, even less likely than that. I mean, Romney was a Republican running for the Senate in Massachusetts against Ted Kennedy. The poor guy had to strenuously disavow everything he now has to embrace. That being said, he "looks presidential," rakes in the cash, and has spent it to create the best organizations in the early primary states. When the other candidates start spending money to tarnish him, we'll see if he can maintain his lead. If he's able to swing a victory in Iowa or New Hampshire he will immediately become the prohibitive favorite. Amongst the currently declared, he has by far the best chances of winning the nomination, cult membership notwithstanding.
  
• Rudy Giuliani - When I saw this video of Rudy in drag, enjoying getting felt up by Donald Trump, I sorta stopped paying attention to his candidacy. What's the point? With positions like this he knows that his only chance is to win the nomination by decisive victories in the big blue states, notably California, on the Super Primary day, February 5th. Once again, I have to bear bad news... the way I see the psychology of campaigns working, with such a hugely extended process, the momentum from the Iowa/New Hampshire week wont hardly be dented in the two intervening weeks before February 5th. Rudy is sunk.
  
• Newt Gingrich - Although the man gave the Republicans the great Revolution in '94, he also critically overplayed his hand, thinking the country at large hated Clinton the same way he did. Furthermore, we have in Newt yet another critically challenged marital history, with Gingrich's ultimate moment of shame coming when he pushed divorce proceedings on his hospitalized and cancer stricken wife. Hypocrisy abounds with the former Speaker of the House, and the Christian conservative base notices.
• Mike Huckabee - An ordained Baptist minister with a story of personal adversity? Shouldn't this guy be the candidate of the religious right? Heck, where is the religious right? Or has David Kuo's call for a boycott of elections by evangelicals actually resonated? Huckabee would be a favorite any other year, but he just can't seem to raise any money or get any attention - sort of prerequisites for the job. Of course, when the electorate starts paying attention in the final month maybe they'll realize they don't have an evangelical candidate and make him competitive in spite of the party elders. In Iowa 40% of the Republicans are self-described evangelicals, so he could make serious moves in a short time.
  
• None of the Above - Now here's the real star of the Republican nomination thus far. The poor GOP can't be happy with the bunch of serial adulterers and flipfloppers they've got lined up. There's not one of them that exemplifies the "family values" rhetoric that is so necessary for firing up the base. Remember, 29% of Americans still support President Bush, and 25% believe that the 2nd coming of Christ will occur this year. Something tells me these are the same people. It's difficult to imagine a path to the nomination that doesn't include them. There will continue to be dissatisfaction with the field until a conservative angel descends on the process. Who that will be, I have no idea, but if Romney doesn't own it in Iowa, None of the Above has my prediction.

Democrats:

• Hilary Clinton - My primary problem with a second Clinton Presidency is that, were she elected for 2 terms, we would have two families controlling the Oval Office for 28 years. We are a country of over 300 million - I think we can diversify our leadership pool a tad. That being said, she's scary-competent. It would be awfully nice to see a Democratic campaign well run, leading to a well run White House. Both would represent a much-needed change. For realism's sake, I've got to put my prediction on Hilary.
  
• Barack Obama - This man set me on fire at the 2004 convention. Admittedly, after hearing Kerry speak so extensively, I was ready to be disproportionately impressed by someone who could give a freaking speech. I remember George W. Bush's renomination speech distinctly. It brought tears to my eyes. I believe Obama has the potential to bring people together in a way that the historically divisive Hilary Clinton will find difficult or impossible. This has real value in my eyes. There is a substantial amount of healing that needs to be done in the country after what Bush has wrought, and Barack is the right candidate to get it done. I'll be rooting for Obama.
  
• John Edwards - I know lots of people who really like John Edwards... I just don't really get it myself. I mean, sure, he's from the south and is therefore somehow more electable. My reticence about his candidacy is amorphous. Something about him makes me uncomfortable. I just don't feel, from his responses, that he's got the voltage I want to see in my President. When things start getting tight in Iowa we'll see if he opens up the rhetorical mains.
  
• Joe Biden - Now there's a man with voltage. I don't care if, at times, he does go on. I myself have a torrid love affair with the comma, so who am I to judge? There may be problems with message discipline in the full national campaign, but ultimately I would rather have a gritty, less polished man as my President. It makes it easier to trust them, and I trust Joe Biden. With the celebrities at the top of the race, Biden doesn't stand a chance, but I'll push hard for him as VP.
  
• Bill Richardson - I want to like him, but once again, he's not quite ready for prime time. I have a very similar feeling about Edwards.
  
• Al Gore - The former Vice President will win the Oscar, of course, but that wont be enough to push him into the race. We'll see if winning the Nobel Peace Prize is enough to make him take on Hilary. If he enters the race he will be the Anti-Hilary candidate that the disaffecteds will rally to, and if enough others drop out of the race, he has a real chance.

There it is. Let's see how I do.