There Will Not Be New Elections In Florida and
Michigan

Here is a quick heads up to people who think holding new elections in Florida and Michigan is the[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/OpenLeft-FrontPage/~3/229215942/showDiary.do

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Voting Based on Supporters' Actions

There is a political phenomenon that has come up throughout this campaign which I have absolutely no tolerance for. It is the notion of choosing to vote for or against someone because of what their supporters do.

Kevin Drum wrote today that he is supporting Barack Obama. He listed 3 reasons which he called good reasons. He then listed a ?not-so-good reason?:

There are also some not-so-good reasons. I'm half embarrassed to admit that this stuff even affects me, but the fact is that the actions of both the candidates' supporters and detractors has had an impact. Watching Andrew Sullivan rant and rave on a daily basis about Hillary, for example, has had the perverse effect of keeping me on her side. I just hated the thought of fever swamp hatred like that influencing my party's nomination. Conversely, today's Paul Krugman column, which was yet another installment in his months-long anti-Obama jihad, had the opposite effect. I don't like Obama's mini-demagoguery of Hillary's healthcare plan either, but for chrissake, it's an election. A bit of hardball is to be expected and I can't for the life of me figure out what Obama has done to drive a sensible guy like Krugman over a cliff.

Anyway, I realize that this stuff shouldn't matter, but it's all part of the mix.

I?m not going to pick on Drum too much, because he at least acknowledges that it?s a poor reason. But this is the latest evidence of an increasingly prevalent phenomenon.

This happened big time across the blogosphere with Ron Paul, which I said was unfair at the time. And I did so because I knew if it was my candidate, I wouldn?t want the same reason cited. I also noticed this a few days ago on a diary at the BooMan Tribune where a Clinton supporter?s main reason for voting for her was the ?divisiveness? of Obama supporters.

What supporters do is not related to how the candidate would be president or anything of the sort. You can pick out dumb supporters for any candidate.

And there?s another dangerous reason. Once you use this as a criterion, you open yourself up to people posing as supporters to smear a candidate. If one of the most decisive factors was the quality of their supporters, you can pose as supporters and say the most vile and outrageous things, and people will say, ?oh I cant support X, because their supporters said Y.? I could create a blog purporting to be a Hillary supporter and make the most racist remarks about Obama. I could go comment on other blogs and spread the same hate. This would be an illegitimate way of getting Obama elected. But it will become a legitimate tool if we keep giving supporters' actions any weight in our voting decisions.

Now there is one thing to note: When a campaign or a chief surrogate makes a comment, that is a much more elevated context. One which the candidate either exercises control over, or one which they will benefit massively from and can easily make a statement or hold a press conference to condemn the statements. However, a candidate can?t be expected to address what supporters on the ground or across the internet do.

We have records, platforms, and resumes?you know, substantive reasons?to decide which candidates to choose to support. Whoever you vote for, use those.

h/t to Memeorandum for linking in

Read The Full Article:
http://liberaljournal.blogspot.com/2008/02/voting-based-on-supporters-actions.htm
l

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Breaking the School-to-Prison Pipeline

A new project fights to put vulnerable kids on track towards graduation, not incarceration.read more | digg story

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/uncomfortablyNumb/~3/229193647/breaking-school-to-
prison-pipeline.html

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Obama Offers Presidential Leadership Among the
Ruins

Why we are ready for the audacity of hope!read more | digg story

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/uncomfortablyNumb/~3/229193648/obama-offers-presid
ential-leadership.html

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

McCain Calls For More Conservative Judges As
Lieberman Looks On Lovingly

 AmericaBlog:Tonight on ABC News, we learned that today John McCain is again appealing to the right wingers in the GOP. Look who appears over McCain’s shoulder as he says, “I will appoint judges that strictly interpret the constitution of the United States of America and do not legislate from the bench.” (That’s code for McCain [...]

Read The Full Article:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/02/04/mccain-calls-for-more-conservative-judge
s-as-lieberman-looks-on-lovingly/

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Being A Landlord Is Work

One thing lost in those exciting housing market days when we were all suppose to buy multiple investment properties is that being a landlord is a big responsibility and requires a nontrivial amount of work.

That's what happened to homeowners Carmen Nuñez and her husband, Raymond Ordoñez. Almost four years ago, they bought a nice home in a nice neighborhood near 35th and Northern avenues in Phoenix. They kept the house as an investment property when they later moved to Laveen and in August rented it to a young, unmarried couple.

The tenants stopped paying the $1,200 rent in December, instead dodging Nuñez's phone calls and giving lots of excuses.

"I'm spending money I don't have to pay the mortgage on that house, my house, to the courts for the eviction," said Nuñez, a real-estate agent. "It's affected me really badly, and it's just plain ridiculous."

On Wednesday, a team of constables descended on the home to evict the tenants, who weren't home. The house was trashed: Half-eaten hamburgers and moldy bowls filled with cereal and milk sat on a table. Christmas decorations, dirty clothes and toys were scattered through the living room. The carpets were stained, the place smelled like rotten food and dirty diapers.

It isn't clear how much damage was really done here, but tenants can do a lot of damage if they're so inclined.

Not everyone wants to or should run a business, and even having a property or two "on the side" means you're doing just that.

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/blogspot/bRuz/~3/229031075/2008_02_03_archive.html

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

FISA Fight: How's it playing in Kansas

Judging by this letter to the editor in the Topeka Capital-Journal, the FISA fight has reached the red states.

President Bush is pressuring Congress to pass a bill that expands and extends unchecked powers of the executive branch (in this case, warrant-less eavesdropping) and grants immunity to corporate entities that cooperate and assist with illegal invasions of civil liberties.

Is it our Bill of Rights or a bill of goods? Have these senators completely blanked on their solemn oath to defend and uphold the Constitution?

Consider this — the cloture you get to subvert votes on proposed amendments to the FISA bill, the cloture we get to a fascist state.

Senators, please look both ways before you cross the aisle. The health and longevity of our beloved Republic is at stake.

It's pretty certain that this plea will fall on deaf ears in the Kansas delegation, but it's good to know that the fight has gone beyond the blogs. This is a complicated issue, and one that is easily overlooked by citizens who have to worry about their child or their spouse fighting in Iraq, or who have to figure out whether to by food or medicine this month, or somehow have to scrounge together enough change to fill the tank to get to work this week. But it's as critical to the fabric of our nation as any fight Congress has taken up.

The Senate comes back at 2:00 today, and resumes debate on the FISA overhaul. So far the schedule of votes hasn't been determined, but the telco amnesty provisions will probably come tomorrow. As a reminder, here's what's coming in terms of amendments:

• Four non-controversial amendments will pass on unanimous consent--they won't require a vote. These include Feingold's amendment requiring Congress see FISC rulings for the past five years, Whitehouse and Kennedy amendments allowing for acquisition to continue during government appeal and emphasizing prohibitions on domestic targeting, and a Bond amendment that eliminates a 7-day deadline for the FISC.
• Eight amendments subject to up or down, simple majority votes.
• Two from Bond, the most important one which does loosen current restrictions would allow surveillance without a warrant in cases that involve the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
• The critical telco amnesty amendment by Feingold/Dodd which strips the provision providing for telco amnesty from the current bill--this is going to get two hours of debate.
• Whitehouse-Specter is the follow-up if Feingold-Dodd doesn't pass. It will also get two hours. It substitutes the government for telcos being sued for their participation in the warrantless wiretapping program, but only if the company is first determined by the FISA Court to have cooperated with the Bush Administration reasonably and in good faith.
• Three Feingold amendments that raise the bar for the government to prove that they are after foreign intelligence and one that gives the FISC power to order surveillance stopped if the government's application is deficient.
• A Feingold-Webb amendment that prohibits the use of illegally obtained information. Bulk collection (Feingold): Requires the government to certify to the FISA Court that it is collecting communications of targets for whom there is a foreign intelligence interest.
• Four amendments that require a 60 vote margin. These are Whitehouse's amendment on minimization, the process of weeding out data obtained about U.S. persons and destroying it. This amendment would grant the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court the discretionary authority to not only approve minimization rules but to review their implementation. Two from Feinstein that allow FISC to review the AG's declaration that the telcos acted in good faith before they get their immunity and a second that makes FISA the exclusive means of foreign surveillance. Finally, Cardin has an amendment to sunset the law in four years as opposed to six.

Since I wrote that a few days ago, the status of the Feinstein amendment on exclusivity (making the FISA court the sole means of surveillance) has changed. This one could very likely get a simple majority of Senators, and would also very likely be a poison pill, forcing a Bush veto.

You're fingers might be worn out from dialing and typing e-mails, but we need to keep the pressure up on this. Contact your own Senators and also this list of Senators likely to be persuadable. Tell them (1) NO on telco amnesty, (2) NO basket warrants or reverse targeting, (3) sequestration of illegally harvested evidence, (4) make FISA the exclusive means of surveillance, and (5) vote for a 4 year sunset. Tell them even Kansans are watching how they vote.

• Bayh (202) 224-5623 phone, (202) 228-1377 fax
• Byrd (202) 224-3954 phone, (202) 228-0002 fax
• Carper (202) 224-2441 phone, (202) 228-2190 fax
• Feinstein (202) 224-3841 phone, (202) 228-3954 fax
• Inouye (202) 224-3934 phone, (202) 224-6747 fax
• Johnson (202) 224-5842 phone, (605) 341-2207 fax
• Kohl (202) 224-5653 (202) 224-9787
• Landrieu (202)224-5824 phone, (202) 224-9735 fax
• Lincoln (202) 224-4843 phone, (202) 228-1371 fax
• McCaskill (202) 224-6154 phone, (202) 228-6326 fax
• Mikulski (202) 224-4654 phone,  (202) 224-8858 fax
• Nelson (FL) (202) 224-5274 phone, (202) 228-2183 fax
• Nelson (NE) (202) 224-6551 phone, (202) 228-0012 fax
• Pryor (202) 224-2353 phone, (202) 228-0908 fax
• Rockefeller, (202) 224-6472 phone, (202) 224-7665 fax
• Salazar (202) 224-5852 phone, (202) 228-5036 fax
• Stabenow (202) 224-4822 phone, (202) 228-0325 fax
• Chambliss (202) 224-3521 phone, (202) 224-0103 fax
• Coleman (202) 224-5641 phone, (202) 224-1152 fax
• Collins (202) 224-2523 phone, (202) 224-2693 fax
• Dole (202) 224-6342 phone, (202) 224-1100 fax
• Graham (202) 224-5972 phone, (202) 224-3808 fax
• Lieberman (202) 224-4041 phone, (202) 224-9750 fax
• McCain (202) 224-2235 phone, (202) 228-2862 fax
• Smith (202) 224-3753 phone, (202) 228-3997 fax
• Snowe (202) 224-5344 phone, (202) 224-1946 fax
• Sununu (202) 224-2841 phone, (202) 228-4131 fax
• Warner (202) 224-2023 phone, (202) 224-6295 fax

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/229041401/9429

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Krugman: Hillary's health care plan will cover
twice as many uninsured at only slightly more cost

Paul Krugman in the NYT:

[N]ew estimates say that a plan resembling Mrs. Clinton?s would cover almost twice as many of those now uninsured as a plan resembling Mr. Obama?s ? at only slightly higher cost....

Both plans require that private insurers offer policies to everyone, regardless of medical history. Both also allow people to buy into government-offered insurance instead.

And both plans seek to make insurance affordable to lower-income Americans. The Clinton plan is, however, more explicit about affordability, promising to limit insurance costs as a percentage of family income. And it also seems to include more funds for subsidies.

I'd be interested in also knowing what each plan does to help keep health care affordable for the rest of us too. Are we going to see $2,000 a month premiums for 60-something-year-old self-employed individuals under either plan? What about lifetime caps on how much you can get out of the plan? I don't care how "rich" you are, good luck paying for a catastrophic illness if your health insurance runs out or simply refuses to cover it.

After the jump, the details of why Hillary's plan covers more, and why Obama may have boxed himself in by criticizing mandates.

More from Krugman:

Mr. Gruber finds that a plan without mandates, broadly resembling the Obama plan, would cover 23 million of those currently uninsured, at a taxpayer cost of $102 billion per year. An otherwise identical plan with mandates would cover 45 million of the uninsured ? essentially everyone ? at a taxpayer cost of $124 billion. Over all, the Obama-type plan would cost $4,400 per newly insured person, the Clinton-type plan only $2,700.

That doesn?t look like a trivial difference to me. One plan achieves more or less universal coverage; the other, although it costs more than 80 percent as much, covers only about half of those currently uninsured....

You see, the Obama campaign has demonized the idea of mandates ? most recently in a scare-tactics mailer sent to voters that bears a striking resemblance to the ?Harry and Louise? ads run by the insurance lobby in 1993, ads that helped undermine our last chance at getting universal health care.

If Mr. Obama gets to the White House and tries to achieve universal coverage, he?ll find that it can?t be done without mandates ? but if he tries to institute mandates, the enemies of reform will use his own words against him.

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Americablog/~3/229187312/krugman-hillarys-health-c
are-plan-will.html

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Barbara's Daily BuzzFlash Minute for February 4,
2008

BARBARA'S DAILY BUZZFLASH MINUTE

Looks as though the radical ?right? has been duped yet again! What is it about the so-called conservative crowd; why is it they always make the wrong choices!  McCain may not be the straight talker he claims to be after all!! Past history has a way of coming up to bite a liar in the rear and reveal the truth!

* * *

Bookmark/Search this post with: buzzflash | delicious | digg | technorati Technorati Tags: Barbara's Daily Buzz Taliban Bush Lies Mistakes Huckabee McCain Maria Shriver Obama

read more

Read The Full Article:
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/dailybuzz/469

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

So what should go into a want ad for President of
the United States

We say we want experience from a president, but what does that mean?

This in-depth analysis examines what constitutes experience, and how that can influence who people vote for in the 2008 presidential caucuses, primaries, and ultimately in November.

So tell us, what would you put in a want ad for president of the United States?

Bookmark/Search this post with: buzzflash | delicious | digg | technorati Technorati Tags: Be-Elected 2008 race Hillary Clinton Barack Obama leadership experience

Read The Full Article:
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/election08/056

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!