Memo to Dem donors warns that Massachusetts
Senate race is 'very tight' and 'urgent'

That's what both Joe and I had been hearing. It's why Joe warned about this yesterday. And it's why we still can't figure out why the President is refusing to campaign for the Democratic candidate, since we're at risk of losing our 60th seat in the Senate. Please donate via ActBlue to Martha Coakley's campaign.

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

While Bashing Obama, Events Of September 2001
Slip Giuliani's Mind -- Verse-Case Scenario by Tony Peyser

Not remembering being attacked?
It could happen to anyone at all
Now and then I don't recall things
Even with my back to the wall.

Everyone should lay off Rudy
Let's all move on --
Especially the media;

Various explanations clearly
Exist; he's just a man
Not an encyclopedia.

read more

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Regulators Seek to Throw Light on Hedge Fund
Impact in Energy Trading

Do hedge funds have an impact on energy trading?

While the answer might seem intuitive, the debate as to whether they actually do has come to resemble the medieval theological dispute about how many angels can dance on the head of the pin.

Because, like angels, many trades in energy futures are invisible, and it is often not possible to pinpoint where they take place.

And yet, for most of us, including lawmakers on Capitol Hill, it seems obvious that when hedge funds buy and sell billions of dollars worth of oil and gas futures, it must be having an impact on energy…

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Tucker Carlson Launches His New Website With
Jokes About Gays, Rapes and Rachel Maddow Insults--UPDATED

Just going back to my personal belief that Tucker is a mean-spirited, immature, over-privileged frat boy who owes his entire career to being born to a socialite family. Think Progress:

Today, Tucker Carlson launched his new much-hyped conservative website, The Daily Caller. One of the most prominent features is a column by Weekly Standard senior writer Matt Labash. The ?Ask Matt Labash? column is supposed to be a funny ?conversation.? Highlights from this week include jokes about how getting a traffic ticket is like being raped and Rachel Maddow is ?the sexiest man alive?:

For those unfamiliar with me from my day job at The Weekly Standard, I?ll give you a capsule bio by way of introduction: I have the gift of wisdom. Does that sound arrogant? I?m sorry, that wasn?t my intention. I didn?t choose wisdom. It chose me. If I had my druthers, I?d have chosen another gift, perhaps the untold riches of Lil? Wayne, whose teeth are made of actual diamonds, or to be the sexiest man alive, like Rachel Maddow. [...]

I'm guessing that since Rachel is open about being a lesbian, then in a conservative's mind, that makes her a man. What a knee-slapper. And so kind to the only person worth watching on Tucker's unlamented turn at MSNBC. Just a thought, Matt. That kind of comment doesn't exactly belie the wisdom you claim to possess.

Pick three government programs you would eliminate. Why?
?AJ
2. Legalized rape. What?s that you say? Rape isn?t sanctioned in this country? Then you must not live in a city with red-light or speed cameras, where it happens every day. {..] Meaning that the only deterrent effect the technology has is deterring your government from being honest about raping its own citizenry. If you?re going to slide me a roofie, Government, at least take me to dinner and a movie first.

Really, what can you say to any man who so flippantly analogizes a brutal and terrifying sexual assault to the nuisance of getting a speeding ticket?

Labash also gave his very special take on Tiger Woods:

If you were a billionaire golfer, how many mistresses would you keep? ?Tony

The most striking detail of the Tiger Woods saga is the white supremacism that lies at the heart of it. At last count, he had something in the neighborhood of 178 mistresses, yet good luck finding any mistresses-of-color. Now I?m not calling Woods a racist. The heart wants what it wants. And I know he says he?s ?Cablinasian,? which means that he?s part Asian, part black, part Indian, part Klansman.

You stay classy now, Matt and Tucker. Your debut does not exactly bode well for continued success.

UPDATE: I wondered whose deep pockets the trust fund baby was using to launch his new vanity project. Turns out, Tucker's sugar daddy is Foster Friess, a very vocal climate change denier.

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Tucker Carlson Launches His New Website With
Jokes About Gays, Rapes and Rachel Maddow Insults

Just going back to my personal belief that Tucker is a mean-spirited, immature, over-privileged frat boy who owes his entire career to being born to a socialite family. Think Progress:

Today, Tucker Carlson launched his new much-hyped conservative website, The Daily Caller. One of the most prominent features is a column by Weekly Standard senior writer Matt Labash. The ?Ask Matt Labash? column is supposed to be a funny ?conversation.? Highlights from this week include jokes about how getting a traffic ticket is like being raped and Rachel Maddow is ?the sexiest man alive?:

For those unfamiliar with me from my day job at The Weekly Standard, I?ll give you a capsule bio by way of introduction: I have the gift of wisdom. Does that sound arrogant? I?m sorry, that wasn?t my intention. I didn?t choose wisdom. It chose me. If I had my druthers, I?d have chosen another gift, perhaps the untold riches of Lil? Wayne, whose teeth are made of actual diamonds, or to be the sexiest man alive, like Rachel Maddow. [...]

I'm guessing that since Rachel is open about being a lesbian, then in a conservative's mind, that makes her a man. What a knee-slapper. And so kind to the only person worth watching on Tucker's unlamented turn at MSNBC. Just a thought, Matt. That kind of comment doesn't exactly belie the wisdom you claim to possess.

Pick three government programs you would eliminate. Why?
?AJ
2. Legalized rape. What?s that you say? Rape isn?t sanctioned in this country? Then you must not live in a city with red-light or speed cameras, where it happens every day. {..] Meaning that the only deterrent effect the technology has is deterring your government from being honest about raping its own citizenry. If you?re going to slide me a roofie, Government, at least take me to dinner and a movie first.

Really, what can you say to any man who so flippantly analogizes a brutal and terrifying sexual assault to the nuisance of getting a speeding ticket?

Labash also gave his very special take on Tiger Woods:

If you were a billionaire golfer, how many mistresses would you keep? ?Tony

The most striking detail of the Tiger Woods saga is the white supremacism that lies at the heart of it. At last count, he had something in the neighborhood of 178 mistresses, yet good luck finding any mistresses-of-color. Now I?m not calling Woods a racist. The heart wants what it wants. And I know he says he?s ?Cablinasian,? which means that he?s part Asian, part black, part Indian, part Klansman.

You stay classy now, Matt and Tucker. Your debut does not exactly bode well for continued success.

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

A Modest Proposal Regarding Airline Safety --
Verse-Case Scenario by Tony Peyser

Whenever I look for books online
And make a decision
Book recommendations flood in
With amazing precision.

With each new suggestion, I think
To myself --- damn!
These guys have really figured out
Exactly who I am.

So, if the current administration wants
To know who's Got Bomb?
They should turn all security over
to Amazon.com.

VERSE CASE SCENARIO

read more

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Jonathan Gruber, Paid Consultant to the Obama
Administration

It's understandable Krugman would be defensive of Gruber. He's cited him many times. And when Rahm Emanuel touted "progressive" support for the Senate bill in the Wall Street Journal, noting that "what you?re seeing is the progressive backlash against[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/01/12/jonathan-gruber-paid-consultant-to-th
e-obama-administration/

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Institutionalizing Minority Rule

The misuse of the Senate's filibuster convention by the GOP, and the institutionalization of Minority Rule that this abuse creates, is but another manifestation of the rise to prominence in our politics of the radically authoritarian, largely Southern-based faction that has dominated the Republican Party and our national politics since it first appeared with Newt Gingrich's 1994 conservative revolution.

Even though 160 years have passed since the Civil War, the anti-democratic mindset that defines the GOP today is almost identical to that which prevailed among the Southern plantation Bourbon elite at the time of the Confederacy. And it was this elite, which was accustomed to extraordinary deference, that eagerly turned to John C. Calhoun's brilliant but bizarre constitutional theories of "concurrent majorities" which would give the South an absolute veto through which it could bring the national government to a halt at precisely the time the Southern Slaveocracy's control of the federal government was fading in favor of growing strength of the culturally polyglot North.

The only reason we are still focused on the filibuster rule today is that this Neo-Confederate faction is no longer in control.  Therefore, the filibuster remains the single weapon still available to the Radical Right to continue its influence over the nation in defiance of two free and fair national elections that repudiated conservatism as a governing canon.

But as Congressional scholar Norm Ornstein has documented in "The Broken Branch," the deterioration of democracy in Congress and the institutionalization of Minority Rule by the Radical Right was well underway in the years shortly after Southern conservatives took control of Congress in 1994.  Once in power these reactionaries behaved exactly as you would expect authoritarians to act.  They undermined two century's of Congressional habits and traditions by which the parties had learned to work together.  Southern leaders advised new members to keep their families at home and not bring them to the Nation's Capital for fear they might interact, form friendships and therefore be contaminated by the ideas of "the enemy."  Republicans took rules that Democrats had merely abused when they were in power and affectively repealled them altogether as they cut Democrats out of the lawmaking process entirely, shook down K Street for corporate "protection money" to build a one-party nation, and monopolized all power in the hands of a few chosen House leaders.

Lawless renegade and former House majorioty Leader Tom DeLay was admonished FOUR times by the GOP-controlled Ethics Committee for violating House rules as he clawed his way to power.  So, DeLay acted according to form: He fired the committee, put his cronies on instead, then slapped a counter-charge against the Ethic's Committee's chairman whom he made sure was re-districted out of office in the next election.

The bottom line is that once these Southern Republican thugs took control of Congress they immediately set to work turning the World's Greatest Deliberative Body into a private, partisan fiefdom controlled by the same sort of right wing elite that governed Southern politics before the Civil War.  And now that this cabal is out of power, rather than respect the will of the American people and accept the verdict of the past two elections, they are treating the governing Democratic party and its president as trespassers, illegitimate usurpers, as they work to reestablish one-party Republican rule with the single tool at their disposal -- the filibuster.

Since this has effectively shut down the government, and since the GOP shows no signs of releasing its grip from around the nation's throat anytime soon, the question we must face is whether we are serious about our democracy or whether we will allow ourselves to be held hostage in this way by a right wing dictatorship which demands absolute conformity to its narrow and backward ideology as the price for governing this nation at all.


Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheyGaveUsARepublic-FrontPage/~3/bleLOMqnhPQ/insti
tutionalizing-minority-rule

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Right Wing Mounts Witch Hunt To Smear TSA Nominee
With Flailing, Off-Target Attacks

?Republicans are stepping up their effort to block Erroll Southers from becoming head of the Transportation Security Administration,? Politico reports. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) has been holding up Southers? nomination in a political effort ?to prevent TSA workers from joining a labor union.?

Southers, a counterterrorism expert, is currently working as a senior official for homeland security and intelligence for the police division of Los Angeles World Airports. He is also an associate director of the University of Southern California?s security studies program, has developed and implemented anti-terrorism measures for a variety of public institutions, and wrote a doctoral study on “Predictive Indicators of Homegrown Islamic Terror Cells.” Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) said Southers is ?more than qualified? to lead TSA.

Despite Southers? impressive resume and qualifications, the right wing is intent on playing politics with his nomination. Conservative bloggers and activists have begun mounting a campaign to smear Southers with fallacious attacks. Some examples below:

Right-Wing Attack: ?TSA nominee: Global Warming Deserves Parity With War on Terror.? The conservative blog Hot Air highlights Southers? comment that terrorism ?deserves to perhaps have some parity with global warming.? Blogger Ed Morrisey concludes that Southers? view is ?ludicrous.?

Reality: A Pentagon analysis concluded that the long-term security threat of global warming was greater than terrorism, and many security experts agree. The National Intelligence Council assessed the grave threat global warming poses. It could not only fuel further terrorism, but spur mass migration, refugees, poverty, environmental degradation, and pandemics. The CIA is now dedicating resources to analyzing the security implications of climate change.

Right-Wing Attack: ?Obama TSA Nominee Erroll Southers Calls Pro-Life Advocates Terrorists in Video.? LifeNews attacks Southers for saying homegrown terrorist groups — particularly white supremacist groups — are ?anti-government, in most cases anti-abortion, they are usually survivalist type in nature, identity oriented.” Gateway Pundit writes, ?This kook rattled off every leftwing nut conspiracy in one interview.?

Reality: A Homeland Security report published last August warned right-wing extremists, ?specifically the white supremacist and militia movements,? may ?include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion.? Subsequently, the report was vindicated by acts of domestic terrorism by white supremacists and anti-abortion crusaders.

Right-Wing Attack: ?TSA nominee in 2008: Alliances with Israel, France make us subject to terror attack.? The Washington Examiner?s David Freddoso takes issue with Southers? observation the U.S. alliance with ?countries that are seen by groups, by al Qaeda, as infidels? may subject us to greater risk of attack. ?So Southers is a hack leftist and a fool,? the conservative blog Powerline writes.

Reality: Consider the words of Osama bin Laden. In 1996, the terrorist leader complained of the ?iniquity and injustice imposed on them by the Zionist-Crusaders alliance? and called for raising ?the banner of Jihad against the American-Zionist alliance occupying the sanctities of Islam.? In 2008, he reiterated his hateful screed: “We shall continue the fight, Allah willing, against the Israelis and their allies.?

In their desperation to smear Southers, the right is grasping at straws.

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Politics of Afghanistan Part II

Foreword: The folks over at the National Security Network have put together a critique of the 2010 Politics of Afghanistan from Friday. [Original Post] In the spirit of vigorous debate as a tool for good new ideas, which we are highly supportive of here at FiveThirtyEight, we agreed to run the (660 word) critique by NSN*, followed by a brief response from me.
---
National Security Network:
Renard?s first argument is correct ? there are indeed strong reasons for the administration and democratic allies in congress to hope that Afghanistan does not become a political football in the 2010 midterms. But his next conclusion - that this mood of ambivalence spells an opening for anti-incumbents - is difficult to accept, at least insofar as the GOP is concerned.

While there may be exceptions for particular circumstances, on a national level, it will be difficult for Republicans to run on an Afghanistan platform in 2010. The first reason for this is that widespread ambivalence over the war restricts the GOP?s ability to turn a pro-war position to their political advantage. At times during 2009, support for the U.S. presence in Afghanistan was well below 50%, a view fueled by dramatic increases in U.S. casualties during the spring and summer, as well as broader indications that the war was not going well.

While public confidence received a boost from the President?s strategy announcement, it will likely dip again as more American troops flow into the country, and casualties rise in relation. In this atmosphere, it?s hard to imagine GOP challengers finding an audience in favor of the war, or increased American involvement, except in very particular circumstances. At best they will argue that the Obama administration has mishandled the war, similar to the message many Democrats adopted in 2004, but not significantly to their advantage.

So what about anti-incumbent Republicans who oppose the war? Her again, they are constrained from using their position to an advantage. This time however, the constraints come more from their own party, than national public opinion.

Anti-War Republicans run into the problem that their party leadership has moved uniformly to support the war, making it difficult for challengers to take opposing positions. McConnell, Kyl, Boehner, Cantor ? the entire GOP leadership is firmly in support of an expanded military mission in Afghanistan, even hinting that they would support further escalation if military commanders deemed it necessary.

They are joined by GOP ranking members on the relevant foreign policy committees, with the possible exception of Richard Lugar, who has attenuated his support with a push for greater focus on Pakistan. On HR 2647, Congressman McGovern?s bill requiring the Pentagon to provide an exit-strategy - probably the best stand-in for an up or down vote in support of the war - House Republicans were in lock-step, voting 164-7 against the amendment.

Now the republicans in congress do not perfectly represent the views of republicans nationwide, but even there, GOP leadership strongly supports the war. Following Obama?s West Point speech in December, RNC Chairman Michael Steele released a statement endorsing the war effort, but criticizing the President for wavering in his commitment. Republican campaign committee chairs John Cornyn and Pete Sessions echoed Steele?s message, endorsing a troop increase, while also blasting the Administration for not committing whole heartedly to the war effort. It?s difficult to see where GOP challengers could make hay from opposing the war, without bucking what appears to be a consensus among their party?s leadership.

The actions taken by GOP figures on Afghanistan are intended to create a security threshold for the administration that it cannot reach. If a Republican candidate went against this narrative they would be failing to reach their own party?s threshold. Running against the war also risks undermining the ?we listen to the commanders on the ground? narrative, potentially setting the challengers against the military as well.

Though the divisions within the Democratic Party on the war should present an opening for Republicans, the constraints posed by national ambivalence about the war, along with GOP endorsement of an expanding the conflict means they won?t take it.

Ryan Keenan is the Outreach director for the National Security Network. Pat Barry is a researcher, also with the Network.

----
Response from the author (Renard Sexton):
The basic argument that Ryan Keenan and Pat Barry make in their post is that because the Republican leadership in Congress and the RNC are supportive of expansion and escalation of the Afghanistan war, it is "difficult to see where GOP challengers could make hay from opposing the war, without bucking what appears to be a consensus among their party?s leadership."

Indeed, I argued in my Friday article that anti-incumbent "challengers should jump on [Afghanistan] in a big way."

The problem with Keenan and Barry's argument, while perhaps exactly right in a 2004 context or earlier, is that the American right is currently heavily factionalized, a point I explored in detail on Friday.

Republicans in Congress, particularly among the Republican leadership, are generally quite hawkish, with a few exceptions like Ron Paul or Dick Lugar. However, as it has been widely discussed, the energized portion of the conservative electorate is not the "mainstream" Republican leadership, but in fact the tea party activists, some social conservatives and other more populist movements. In addition, individual GOP politicians, an example being Jim DeMint's "Senate Conservatives" PAC, are making big pushes to support particular candidates that may or may not line up with the GOP leadership's vision.

Bottom line is, the GOP leadership, which is quite discredited even among Republicans, will indeed likely set a "threshold" on the Afghanistan issue, including nominating a particular view on the issues as the standard party line. But what we have learned since the 2008 election is that many moderate and conservative voters in the country are skeptical of the GOP's ability to make these judgments, and many challenger candidates on the right are not willing to accept these party decisions as gospel.

Indeed, rejecting the positions of an unpopular national party's leadership only bolsters the anti-establishment and outsider credentials of a libertarian, tea-party activist or socially hard conservative candidate. Similarly, some right-leaning moderates that feel marginalized or alienated by the GOP leadership or the tea-party activists may be turned off by the lack of coherence and sit out the election.

In conclusion, while the Keenan and Barry argument has some important elements -- for example that going against the GOP leadership excludes you from a pretty hefty pot of campaign money and some inherent legitimacy -- the fact is that the Republican Party does not have the political weight that it did in the last couple of elections. If voters lash out against Democrats, it is undoubtedly because of frustration with the Obama Adminstration and congressional Democrats, rather than endorsing an exciting new programme from Republicans.

Therefore, I remain dubious about the contention that Congressional challengers on the right will be forced to run in favor of a hawkish expansion of Afghanistan war. Instead, like in the special election in NY-23, some sort of mixture between running strong on generic "national security", while either ignoring or condemning the specifics of the Afghanistan conflict, will work well for Republican challengers and some incumbents alike. For those against the war, as long as it does not undermine an otherwise "strong defense" stance, it should work well.

---
Renard Sexton is FiveThirtyEight's international affairs columnist and is based in Geneva, Switzerland. He can be contacted at sexton538@gmail.com

* Heather Hulbert, Executive Director of NSN, suggested the debate; thanks to her for facilitating.

Read The Full Article:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/politics-of-afghanistan-part-ii.html

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!