Prognosis Progressive

Homeland Insecurity (full text)

2007-12-08T22:39:00.000-06:00

"Homeland Insecurity"

By Barack Obama

The Wall Street Journal

America is in a defining moment. This is the wealthiest nation in history. Yet many Americans feel that the dream so many generations fought for is slowly slipping away.

I've spoken with folks across this country who have worked all their lives to put their children through college, but now can't afford the rising tuition. I've spoken with many others who've done everything right, but fell into bankruptcy once they became sick, because they couldn't afford their skyrocketing medical bills. And since working Americans have to pay these rising costs with incomes that remain stagnant, many are falling deep into debt, unable to set anything aside for savings.

So at a time when many Americans have no margin for error, it's no surprise that the downturn in the housing market has done enormous harm. In the coming years, over two million Americans could face foreclosure.

The larger risk, however, is that what is happening in housing could spill over elsewhere. A number of firms borrowed huge sums to make investments tied to the housing market. They are now suffering big losses that could trigger a slowdown of the entire economy. We're already seeing some troubling signs. Consumer confidence is the lowest it's been in years. Pension funds are losing money, threatening retirement security. And banks are also losing money, resulting in a credit crunch. That means businesses have less money to invest and people can't get loans, which could lead to significant job losses in the months ahead.

This is a moment of challenge. But it's also a moment of opportunity which we must seize, to make sure our economic future is secure. That starts with addressing the source of our economic woes -- the crisis in the housing market. For most Americans, a home is not just a place to live; it's their most valuable possession -- so preventing a larger crisis in the housing market means providing greater economic security for middle-class families.

This week, President Bush outlined a limited agreement with lenders to ensure that some families don't face higher mortgage payments they can't afford. It is a start. But we need to do more. That's why, several months ago, I proposed tax breaks to help millions of homeowners make their payments, direct relief for the victims of mortgage fraud, and counseling so homeowners know what options are available to avoid foreclosure and refinance. And I have outlined a program to help make it easier for middle-class families, not speculators, to renegotiate or refinance their mortgages.

To prevent the current problems in the housing market from spreading, shaking confidence in other sectors of the economy, we need to put money in the pockets of middle-class Americans. In September, I proposed a middle-class tax cut that would offset the payroll tax that working Americans are already paying. It would give every working family a tax cut worth up to $1,000. It would also make retirement more secure by eliminating income taxes for any senior making less than $50,000 per year. And over the long term, I've called for an automatic workplace pension enrollment policy, which would include a federal government match for part of the savings of middle-class families so they can count on more savings when they retire.

But the test of judgment and leadership isn't just how you respond to problems; it's what you do to prevent them. That's why, last spring, I called for a summit on housing with representatives from the government and private sector similar to the one that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson attended earlier this week. I also introduced a bill that would treat those who commit mortgage fraud like the criminals they are -- a measure that might have prevented the current crisis from escalating. Three months ago, I asked lenders to show flexibility to Americans trying to sell or refinance their houses.

In the last several months, I've also proposed a number of steps to prevent another economic crisis. These include restoring market transparency by making sure there's adequate government oversight over the rating agencies, so we can avoid practices that can mislead investors. We also need to stop credit-card companies from engaging in deceptive practices that push middle-class Americans further into debt. In addition, we need to update our regulatory system to reflect a 21st-century marketplace where so much credit comes from nonbank lenders, rather than traditionally regulated banks. And as we reform our regulatory rules, let's do so with an eye toward the global economy in which we're operating.

It's going to take a new kind of leadership to strengthen our middle class and make sure America's economic future is secure -- leadership that can challenge the special interests, bring Republicans and Democrats together, and rally this nation around a common purpose. And that is exactly the kind of leadership I intend to offer as president of the United States.

Obama takes Progressive, Rationale Stance

2007-07-27T00:54:00.000-05:00

During the YouTube debate there was a question about meeting with the leaders of current rogue nations, as defined by the Bush Administration.

In this biting video, an online editor splices together Obama's and Hillary's answers and the resulting fall out of Clinton referring to the Obama as "naive".

The video shows Clinton as not just a flip-flopper, but a hypocrite.

Either she has defined her own Senatorial statements as "naive", but in agreement with what Obama is not afraid to say.

Or she is in agreement with continuing the Bush administration's foreign policy, and because of her mercurial opinions on the subject, unable to provide leadership in international affairs.

Spend a few minutes and watch it all - you'll be glad you did (or if you support Clinton you'll be disheartened and feeling sold out by another weak-spined Democrat trying to sound tough for all the wrong reasons).

Prognosis Probable: Hillary will continue testing stances, sliding toward whatever stance her primary opponents are gaining ground with, settling into a milquetoast soundbite.

Prognosis Ludicrous: Clinton uses her Senate prerogative to travel to all the "rogue" nations in question. In an effort to attempt a October type surprise, husband Bill attains peace treaties with them all, but the cat slips out of the bag. With the aide of "heightened alerts", being accused of undermining fictitious, administration talks and conspiring with the enemy, Mitt Romney wins in a landslide. The rapture occurs with the conclusion of the Oath of Office.

Prognosis Progressive: Democrats nominate Barack Obama.

Conservatives usher in era of unprecedented obstructionism

2007-07-22T10:04:00.000-05:00

This year, “Senate Republicans are threatening filibusters to block more legislation than ever before.” The pattern of obstructionism is demolishing previous records:

Nearly 1 in 6 roll-call votes in the Senate this year have been cloture votes. If this pace of blocking legislation continues, this 110th Congress will be on track to roughly triple the previous record number of cloture votes — 58 each in the two Congresses from 1999-2002, according to the Senate Historical Office.

McClatchy provides this statistical analysis:

Backing Obama, Without a Blessing

2007-06-22T19:49:00.000-05:00

by David D. Kirkpatrick, NY Times

Supporters of Senator Barack Obama’s Democratic presidential primary campaign have formed one of the first independent organizations dedicated to supporting a 2008 presidential hopeful, overlooking their candidate’s past criticisms of the legal status of such groups.

Mr. Obama, Democrat of Illinois, is one of many senators who have criticized the groups — known as 527s, after a section of the tax code—because they allow donors to make unlimited contributions, sometimes without disclosure until after an election, thereby sidestepping campaign finance laws.

The new organization, Vote Hope 2008, was founded by Steve Phillips, a San Francisco lawyer who is the son-in-law of two of the biggest Democratic donors, the California bankers Herb and Marion Sandler. The Sandlers were among the biggest contributors to Democratic 527 groups during the 2004 election.

A spokesman for Mr. Obama said the senator did not approve. “Obama thinks that candidates should be accountable for the campaigns they run, the donations they receive and the money they spend,” the spokesman, Bill Burton, said. “It is our hope that anyone who supports Obama does so directly through his campaign.”

While short of repudiating Vote Hope, Mr. Obama’s public discouragement of such efforts could nonetheless come under some strain if he wins the Democratic nomination. Wealthy partisans on both sides of the general election are expected to pour millions of unlimited contributions into 527 groups just as they did in 2004, and Democrats could be at a big disadvantage if their supporters’ abstained.

Jenifer Ancona, a spokeswoman for Vote Hope, said the organization aimed to make up for the apparent absence of an Obama primary campaign in California, where the rival campaign of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has already begun organizing.

“We are responding his call to people to self-organize,” Ms. Ancona said.
The group’s web site, www.votehope2008.org, features a photograph of Mr. Obama and a link to his campaign’s official site. “Bank it for Barack,” the Vote Hope site declares, urging voters to cast mail ballots for Mr. Obama even before the state’s February primary.

California has moved up its primary election to give it a larger role in the nominating process, and Ms. Ancona said the organization would focus on raising awareness of the race among voters unaccustomed to the new schedule or the state’s new importance, with focus on young voters and minority groups.

The organization’s web site includes a photograph of its founder, Mr. Phillips, with his wife, Susan Sandler. But her parents, the billionaire donors Herb and Marion Sandler, have not yet contributed, Ms. Ancona said.

Although Vote Hope 2008 is among the first 527 groups dedicated to supporting a primary candidate, conservatives have formed at least one other 527 group expressly to stop the nomination of Senator Clinton.

Editor's Note: The anti-Hillary 527 group is subtlety called "Stop Her Now".

Bin Laden may have arranged family's US exit: FBI docs

2007-06-21T00:53:00.000-05:00

Source: Breitbart.com

Osama bin Laden may have chartered a plane that carried his family members and Saudi nationals out of the United States after the September 11, 2001 attacks, said FBI documents released Wednesday.

The papers, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, were made public by Judicial Watch, a Washington-based group that investigates government corruption.

One FBI document referred to a Ryan Air 727 airplane that departed Los Angeles International Airport on September 19, 2001, and was said to have carried Saudi nationals out of the United States.

"The plane was chartered either by the Saudi Arabian royal family or Osama bin Laden," according to the document, which was among 224 pages posted online.

Read more: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070620200413.fd64rwmy&show_article=1

Link to the Documents. http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2007/Saudi%20Docs%202.pdf

Judicial Watch Release:

The document states: “ON 9/19/01, A 727 PLANE LEFT LAX, RYAN FLT #441 TO ORLANDO, FL W/ETA (estimated time of arrival) OF 4-5PM. THE PLANE WAS CHARTERED EITHER BY THE SAUDI ARABIAN ROYAL FAMILY OR OSAMA BIN LADEN…THE LA FBI SEARCHED THE PLANE LUGGAGE, OF WHICH NOTHING UNUSUAL WAS FOUND.” The plane was allowed to depart the United States after making four stops to pick up passengers, ultimately landing in Paris where all passengers disembarked on 9/20/01, according to the document.

Overall, the FBI’s most recent document production includes details of the six flights between 9/14 and 9/24 that evacuated Saudi royals and bin Laden family members. The documents also contain brief interview summaries and occasional notes from intelligence analysts concerning the cursory screening performed prior to the departures. According to the FBI documents, incredibly not a single Saudi national nor any of the bin Laden family members possessed any information of investigative value.

Moreover, the documents contain numerous errors and inconsistencies which call to question the thoroughness of the FBI’s investigation of the Saudi flights. For example, on one document, the FBI claims to have interviewed 20 of 23 passengers on the Ryan International Airlines flight (commonly referred to as the “Bin Laden Family Flight”). On another document, the FBI claims to have interviewed 15 of 22 passengers on the same flight.

“Eight days after the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history, Osama bin Laden possibly charters a flight to whisk his family out of the country, and it’s not worth more than a luggage search and a few brief interviews?” asked Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Clearly these documents prove the FBI conducted a slapdash investigation of these Saudi flights. We’ll never know how many investigative leads were lost due to the FBI’s lack of diligence.”

http://judicialwatch.org/6322.shtml

I just printed this report for some reading material tonight.

Conservatives to Close Grade Schools

2007-06-12T13:09:00.001-05:00

by Steve Benen @ Crooks and Liars

Jonah Goldberg offers a new talking point for the GOP: close public schools. [ed. note: Look for them to now be called "government" schools - sounds much more nefarious].

Here's a good question for you: Why have public schools at all?

OK, cue the marching music. We need public schools because blah blah blah and yada yada yada. We could say blah is common culture and yada is the government's interest in promoting the general welfare. Or that children are the future. And a mind is a terrible thing to waste. Because we can't leave any child behind.

The problem with all these bromides is that they leave out the simple fact that one of the surest ways to leave a kid "behind" is to hand him over to the government. Americans want universal education, just as they want universally safe food. But nobody believes that the government should run 90% of the restaurants, farms and supermarkets. Why should it run 90% of the schools — particularly when it gets terrible results?

Let's do all we can to share Goldberg's words of wisdom to American families from coast to coast — the right wants to shut down your local public school and privatize education. That ought to go over well.

Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer is exploring US Senate bid

2007-06-07T15:30:00.000-05:00

We've held back on this, relegating it to speculation. But now, with the launch of the Website mostimportantdecade.com, we can kick into rumor, well intended wishing, or possibly calculated foray into the race.

We were tempted in the past to also mention one rumor from a very reliable source - Ford Bell endorses Nelson-Pallmeyer. We'll leak it out now.

The story goes like this - Having received a contribution call from Al Franken, Bell asked if Franken still supported troops in Iraq. This was a main point of contention between the two Blake School graduates. Just like in mid-2006, Franken said he still supported troops in Bush's Iraq War.

Bell refused to contribute to Franken.

The unconfirmed part is that Bell then sent an email to some of his biggest supporters from his 2006 US Senate run, telling them what happened, and that he was supporting Nelson-Pallmeyer. It is not known if Bell encouraged others to support JNP, if Bell has any role in the Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer Exploratory Committee or if JNP even knows of this support.

Having received an email to look at the Website from the site's email server, we can only assume that a) the new group has JNP's email list from his 2006 Congressional bid, b) the group has a list of DFL caucus attendees from 2006 or c) they have a DFL email list. Any are a good starting point for a candidate who was grossly underestimated in the 2006 endorsing convention for CD 5.

It will be interesting to see what carries over.

Some positives would include; his passionate speaking style (best speech at the CD 5 convention), his fanatical volunteers, his knowledge on the issues beyond the talking points, his faith (attended seminary and received a Master of Divinity degree), and his clean campaigning (only accepted a max of $100 in individual contributions).

The questions and negatives his campaign needs to address; his fanatical volunteers (less arts and projects, more voter contact), creating a resonating message beyond the progressive base, being considered a viable candidate statewide, raising funds for state-wide race (will he stick to $100 limit?).

Update: Posted yesterday on MPR: Polinaut - "DFLer Nelson-Pallmeyer eyes Senate race".

Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer, the DFLer who originally challenged Rep. Martin Sabo last year before Sabo retired, is now thinking about a run for U.S. Senate.

Nelson-Pallmeyer says he's launching an exploratory campaign with listening sessions around the state.

“It is too early to anoint a candidate,” Nelson-Pallmeyer says in a release. “What we need is a state-wide conversation about pressing problems and practical solutions.”

He joins Peter Agre and Jim Cohen in the DFL-exploratory mode. Al Franken, Mike Ciresi, Bob Olson and Dick Franson are in the race already hoping to face off against Norm Coleman next year.

Hillary's Mother-F'ng Tour Business

2007-05-04T12:55:00.000-05:00

From our friend Greg Palast:

Before his untimely death in a plane crash, Commerce Secretary Ron Brown said,

“I’m not Hillary’s mother-f****** tour guide!”

That wasn’t a nice thing for a member of the President’s cabinet to say about the First Lady, now my Senator, Hillary Clinton.

And it’s probably not polite for me to bring it up now. But if I don’t, surely the Karl Rovarians will - if Senator Mrs. Clinton nails the Presidential nomination.

Bill Clinton used to say that, once he became president, he finally earned more money than his wife. That was a carefully crafted bit of modesty to show Bill as an aw-shucks regular guy versus Richie Rich-kid George Bush.

But Bill’s cute remark raised a question in my mind: How did Hillary get that big ol’ salary? And another question arises: how has she stayed out of prison?

The story’s a little complicated, involving a New Orleans power company, Indonesian billionaires, a New York nuclear plant and plain old influence peddling. But if we follow the money, we’ll get the picture. And it ain’t pretty.

But first, let’s stop at Wal-Mart. Read an official biography of the Senator and you’ll find her six-month stint on a child-protection task force. Yet you won’t find her SIX YEARS on the board of directors of Wal-Mart Corporation. She may have earned a Grammy for “It Takes a Village to Raise a Child.” But it takes a Governor’s wife to provide cover for Wal-Mart’s profiteering off systematic wage-enslavement of children in its factories in South America.

Sam Walton called Hillary, “My little lady.” Sam paid her an eyebrow raising sum for a director - equal to 60% of her entire not-insubstantial salary as a lawyer. By contrast, Wendy Diaz (her real name), a 13-year-old in Honduras, was paid 25 cents an hour to make shirts for the “little lady’s” label.

Hillary’s rake-in was made possible by Wal-Mart’s 100% union-free operation and out-sourcing of 100% of its manufacturing, some to prison factories in China. Now, you could say that Hillary couldn’t hear the screams of the kiddies in Kamp Wal-Mart in Honduras. After all, she relied on the intelligence provided her by the President (of Wal-Mart).

Fast forward to 1994 and the Brown ‘mother-f’ing tour guide’ business. According to Nolanda Hill, the Commerce Secretary’s long-time business partner and love interest, Brown, who died in 1996, endorsed a Hillary cash-for-access scheme ($10,000 for coffee with the President, $100,000 for a night in the Lincoln bedroom). However, Brown resented the discount rate the First Lady put on US executives joining Brown’s lucrative trade missions. ‘I’m worth more than $50,000 a pop!’ he said.

One company more than happy to pony up for a cash joy-ride with Brown was Entergy International. This electric company, based in Little Rock, became one of the world’s biggest power system operators on the planet under the Clinton regime. Interestingly, Bill Clinton began his political climb by running for Arkansas Attorney General campaigning on a pledge to fight Entergy’s electric price hikes. His pro-consumer plan was defeated in court by Entergy’s law firm - which included one Hillary Rodham.

There were more favors for Entergy. In 1998, I discovered, while working under cover for the Guardian and Observer, that Tony Blair was personally fixing the system to let Entergy to violate British policy on coal plants. Why? I picked up in my secret recordings of Blair’s cronies that calls to take care of Entergy, rules be damned, had come in from the office of ‘the Flotus’ - the First Lady of the United States.

It gets creepier. In June of 1994, Entergy’s partner in Asia, the Riady family of Indonesia paid recently-resigned Associate Attorney General Webster Hubbell a $100,000 consulting fee. Odd that: Hubbell was on his way to prison for the felony crime of inflating his legal bills. Why would Asians pay a lawyer for advice on Asia who was on his way to the pokey?

Maybe it had to do with his partner in crime. I’ve conducted investigations of lawyer over-billing. It is nearly impossible for a senior lawyer to pad billing records unless the junior partner also fraudulently monkeys with time logs to make sure the records don’t give away the game. Who was Hubbell’s “little lady” junior partner? Today we call her Madame Senator.

Hillary’s logs were worth close inspection by authorities, no? But the funny thing about Hillary’s billing records: when requested for disclosure in another suit, they disappeared. First, her law firm’s computers went ka-blooey. Then the paper printouts vanished, but not before, during the 1992 Presidential campaign, they were secretly combed over, line by line, by … Web Hubbell.

Hubbell knew his own logs were phonied, and he understood the consequences of exposure. Ultimately, bloated hours on those records caused him to lose his law license, his Associate Attorney General post and his freedom. He got 21 months in the slammer.

What did Hubbell see and know about Hillary’s logs? Hubbell won’t say, except for a cryptic remark, after seeing her bills, that ‘every lawyer’ fabricates records. Hubbell pleaded guilty, but refused to answer investigators’ questions, a requirement in any plea bargain - so the judge had to sentence him to prison.

Why would Hubbell choose to do time on the chain gang over testifying about the First Lady? His prosecutors did not know at the time of the $100,000 Riady payment, the first of over half a million dollars Hubbell would receive from Clinton friends in the weeks up to his entering jail.

And those Hillary billing records? Hubbell lost them - how convenient. Then they reappeared two years later, just outside Hillary’s office, right after Hubbell announced he would refuse to testify against her.

Maybe the Clintons knew nothing about the big money flowing to prison-bound Hubbell. Knowledge of the payments would suggest they were buying Hubbell’s silence. In 1996, when the LA Times uncovered the payments, Mrs. Clinton’s First Man Bill stone-cold denied he knew anything about it.

Then, in 2000, in a deposition by the Justice Department, the President changed his tune. Investigators confronted the President with this: on June 20, 1994, Hubbell met with Hillary. Two days later, James Riady, the Asian billionaire Entergy partner, met with Hubbell for breakfast. Just a few hours later, Riady returned to the White House, then met again with Hubbell, then made two more treks to the White House. Two days later, a videotape shows the beginning of another meeting in the Oval Office between Clinton and Riady — but oddly, before they talk, the tape goes blank. Two days after that, Hubbell gets his $100,000 through a Riady bank.

Lying to journalists is a venal sin, but lying to the Feds is perjury. In his deposition, the President’s denial transformed into amnesia. He couldn’t remember if Riady mentioned the payment. Then, the President slyly opened the door to the truth. “I wouldn’t be surprised if James told me,” Clinton said. Neither would I.

What did Riady get? The Flotus herself, says Nolanda Hill, forced Brown to accept the appointment of Riady’s bag man, John Huang, as a Commerce Department deputy. According to records of calls the Guardian obtained via the Freedom of Information Act, Huang’s first order of business was to wheedle his way into confidential CIA briefings on Indonesia and China, then call Riady and his Entergy partners.

The same day Riady met the President, documents show he called on a Clinton crony at the top of the department’s Export-Import Bank. “We just came over from the Oval Office,” is a nice way to provide assurance of the ‘political connection’ required for help. These and other Riady team meetings at Commerce are marked ’social’. Yet, shortly thereafter, the department agreed to promote and fund the Riady-Entergy China venture.

Influence is not a victimless crime. Riady and his minions’ visits to the White House (94 times!) included successful requests for the President to meet Indonesian dictator Suharto and to kill negative reports on East Timor and working conditions in Indonesia. Timorese and Indonesians paid for these policy flips with blood.

Has Entergy’s investment in Hillary’s jail-bird partner continued to pay dividends?

Code Pink and New York environmentalists have been pulling out their hair over Senator Clinton’s backing of the operation of the creaky old Indian Point nuclear plant just above - and within irradiating distance of - New York City. The owner of the Indian Point nuke? Hillary’s old buck buddies, Entergy.

Am I saying Hillary would arrange for a payoff to keep witnesses silent, to poison US foreign policy for the profit of corporate cronies, to vote in Washington loaded down with conflicts of interest? I would never say so. Even if the evidence will.

The GOP Morality Scam

2007-05-01T11:10:00.001-05:00

From today's post on my blog, American Politik:

The Republican Party has made hypocrisy their political trademark the past couple of decades. Heck the biggest political headline of the day, likely Bush vetoing the Iraq emergency spending bill that passed in Congress, reeks of such hypocrisy. Bush who is choosing not to accept the funds made available by Congress by vetoing the bill somehow thinks he can blame the Congress for not funding the troops.

This post however, is about a different type of hypocrisy.

Sex is the biggest morality play to the Republicans far right religious base. They used President Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky as a way to connect Democrats to immorality. Forget the fact that the man leading the charge, Newt Gingrich, was having an affair himself. They impeached Clinton in the House because of it and rode George W. Bush to the White House promising to clean up a supposedly dirty Washington D.C.

Now word gets out that a Washington D.C. escort service has been caught and it's speculated that it could contain a list of thousands of names (possibly including many prominent Republican lawmakers) was released to ABC News as the paid client list. Whether ABC, who was responsible for falsely blaming the Clinton Administration for the 9/11 attacks in a mockumentary last fall, releases the names of the key Republicans or not is still up for debate.

Regardless it's just another sign that Republicans are willing to say one thing and do another when it comes to sex. They use a false morality to seem above reproach on these issues. They confuse the deeply religious into thinking that these men are not the sinners their Democratic counterparts are. And they used those Evangelicals to help get Bush elected as President twice (with the help of some election fraud of course).

Gay Marriage seems the centerpiece of the Republican morality parade. According to the Right, Homosexuality is a "sin" and thus gay marriage is against the laws of God in the Bible.

The problem is this is a mean spirited way to prevent human beings who love each other from having the same rights as their heterosexual peers.

The people leading the charge say ridiculous things to equate their hate mongering for something moral.

Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott equated homosexuality with alcoholism, sexual addiction and kleptomania.

Former Texas State Republican Party Chair Robert Black, famously told the Log Cabin Republicans (Gay and Lesbian Republicans) that they didn't belong and "We don't allow pedophiles, transvestites or cross-dressers, either."

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum said the following disgusting comments:

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery," Santorum said in the interview. "You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does."

At another point in the interview, Santorum said marriage is a bond between a man and a woman. "That's not to pick on homosexuality," he added. "It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be."

Their morality might not be so easy to shoot down if they weren't so blatant about their own lengthy forays into this supposed world of sin.

For instance, here in Wisconsin, John Gard was the furthest right wing ideologue in the Wisconsin Legislature. When Mark Green left his 8th Congressional District House Seat to run for Governor, Gard immediately popped up as the Right Wing's favorite choice to replace him. Gard had made a name for himself by being the man out front in pushing the Gay Marriage Amendment that unfortunately passed here last November.

Gard and the Republicans had control of the legislature then (that has since changed with the Republican purge at the polls that occured in the mid-terms) and he was considerably abusive in getting the amendment through the legislature including keeping opponents out of the room in which it was being put together and yelling, "Go to hell, Marlin!" at one of the opponents in the hall.

Someone this opposed to gay rights and gay marriage certainly would be squeaky clean himself in this area right?

This previously uncirculated photo slipped into my hands thanks to an anonymous source this week. It shows a younger John Gard from the mid-1980s (circled on the right), cross dressing as a female nurse at a party for his UW-La Crosse Cross Country team.

Is there anything wrong with this photo? Not in my opinion. College parties tend to be wild and fun affairs. Dressing outlandishly at one is by no means a news story. Unless you have bigoted views like Mr. Gard does and do so much to contribute against the very society in which Gays, Lesbians, TS/TV citizens live and breath. Seems pretty hypocritical to have such exclusive views and still cross dress..

Of course he's not the only one doing this.

Republican Presidential Candidate Rudy Guiliani cross dressed a couple of times as well. It's all in good fun, until you go out, reverse course and say you are now against Civil Unions (which is a step below marriage even!).

Of course these are not the only walking contradictions for the party which has used Gay Marriage as such a wedge issue to win elections.

How about Evangelical Leader Ted Haggard (see: Jesus Camp)? He was the man described as President Bush's personal pastor. He also got caught having a gay affair and using meth. There's a guy who truly was practicing what he preaches.

What about Republican Mark Foley? He only had erotic online chats with underage male Congressional pages on the floor of the House and had sex with them.

Of course there was the White House's favorite press corps member, straight from a fake news agency, Jeff Gannon. Remember that guy? He had lots of visits to the White House, besides his duties as a "member of the press". Oh yeah and he turned out to be a gay prostitute.

It seems to me that this list could go on forever.

Maybe John Gard and the other Republicans should show a little more compassion towards the GLBT community instead of throwing them under the bus for political gain.

But of course if Gard chooses to run against Steve Kagen again in the 8th Congressional District, Karl Rove already has that targeted (see below, click image to enlarge) as a race he wants to win. Maybe Rove won't be so eager to funnel RNC funds to a cross dressing hypocrite next time.

Is that fair? Nope. But it's the game the Hypocrite Republicans created and now they get to play by it's rules.

-Rp

Milwaukee US Attorney On Firings

2007-04-14T12:22:00.000-05:00

U.S. Attorney Steven Biskupic, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin and once targeted for firing by the U.S. Justice Department, released a statement this morning in response to a McClatchy New Service story, carried in today's Journal Sentinel, that quoted a source saying Biskupic was once on a Bush administration firing list.

Here is the statement:

Until the recent controversy surrounding the firings of eight United State Attorneys around the country, it was never communicated to me that my job could be in jeopardy or that I was considered to be disloyal to President Bush's agenda.
It is my understanding that my name appears on a list, which was a ranking of United States Attorneys. My name appeared in a category questioning my performance and loyalty to the President. That same list characterized esteemed Chicago United States Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald as "mediocre." I believe the list has no credibility.
The charging decision in the Georgia Thompson case was made in consultation with the then-Democratic State Attorney General, and the Democratic District Attorney for Dane County. The decision to charge Thompson was based solely on the facts, and was not made with consideration of my job status. To my knowledge at the time, my job status was entirely secure.
I am a career prosecutor, selected as United States Attorney through a bipartisan commission. My numerous public corruption cases include prosecutions of Democrats and Republicans. Our records show that since 2002 when I became United States Attorney, I have brought at least 12 cases against individuals who donated money to Republican candidates or who were aligned with the Republican Party.

The Big Lie gets sandbagged

2007-04-13T05:04:00.000-05:00

from crooks and liars
During his speech to the American Legion on Tuesday, President Bush said this:

The bottom line is this: Congress's failure to fund our troops will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines. Others could see their loved ones headed back to war sooner than anticipated.

On Wednesday Secretay Gates announced the Army would be doing this:

The Pentagon has announced that all active-duty Army soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan will serve three months longer than expected.

But on March 23 the House passed an Iraq spending bill that includes this:

The $124 billion legislation includes more than $100 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus billions more than Bush requested for combat equipment and training, for military housing and health care, to address the flaws in mental health care, brain trauma treatment and other issues that surfaced in the Walter Reed Army Medical Center scandal.
The bill would establish strict standards for resting, training and equipping combat troops before their deployment and lay down binding benchmarks for the Iraqi government, such as assuming control of security operations, quelling sectarian violence and more equitably distributing oil revenue. If progress is not made toward those benchmarks, some troops would be required to come home as early as July.

Apparently in Bush World passing a spending bill that fully funds the troops, expands funding for veterans care, demands a one year rest period and seeks to extract the troops from a civil war if the Iraqis don't meet certain benchmarks — all in record time — constitutes "failing to fund our troops" and making "military families wait longer for their loved ones to return," despite Bush's escalation strategy that sends more troops to Iraq and Secretary Gates' decision to extend their tours by three months. Paging Mr. Orwell. Mr. Orwell…

UPDATE: Did the administration plan to announce the tour extension after the veto so as to lay blame on the Democrats? Only to have that plan scrapped because of a leak? Duncan notes the strange timing and ThinkProgress highlights Dana Perino's odd quasi-admission that President Bush didn't know about his own policy. This would all seem to suggest that the plan to blame the tour extension on the Democrats was short-circuited by a DoD leak. And who's politicizing the war and the troops?

Chomsky - What If Iran Had Invaded Mexico?

2007-04-11T10:09:00.001-05:00

Please check out the new link, tomdispatch.com, which has just been added to the growing list. From that site is this recent article from Noam Chomsky. While I don't agree with all the geopolitical and historical comparisons he posits, still, this piece provides a foundation to begin questioning the basis for middle eastern policy wonk-talk pushed through the media.

Putting the Iran Crisis in Context
By Noam Chomsky

--- Unsurprisingly, George W. Bush's announcement of a "surge" in Iraq came despite the firm opposition to any such move of Americans and the even stronger opposition of the (thoroughly irrelevant) Iraqis. It was accompanied by ominous official leaks and statements -- from Washington and Baghdad -- about how Iranian intervention in Iraq was aimed at disrupting our mission to gain victory, an aim which is (by definition) noble. What then followed was a solemn debate about whether serial numbers on advanced roadside bombs (IEDs) were really traceable to Iran; and, if so, to that country's Revolutionary Guards or to some even higher authority.

This "debate" is a typical illustration of a primary principle of sophisticated propaganda. In crude and brutal societies, the Party Line is publicly proclaimed and must be obeyed -- or else. What you actually believe is your own business and of far less concern. In societies where the state has lost the capacity to control by force, the Party Line is simply presupposed; then, vigorous debate is encouraged within the limits imposed by unstated doctrinal orthodoxy. The cruder of the two systems leads, naturally enough, to disbelief; the sophisticated variant gives an impression of openness and freedom, and so far more effectively serves to instill the Party Line. It becomes beyond question, beyond thought itself, like the air we breathe.

The debate over Iranian interference in Iraq proceeds without ridicule on the assumption that the United States owns the world. We did not, for example, engage in a similar debate in the 1980s about whether the U.S. was interfering in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan, and I doubt that Pravda, probably recognizing the absurdity of the situation, sank to outrage about that fact (which American officials and our media, in any case, made no effort to conceal). Perhaps the official Nazi press also featured solemn debates about whether the Allies were interfering in sovereign Vichy France, though if so, sane people would then have collapsed in ridicule.

In this case, however, even ridicule -- notably absent -- would not suffice, because the charges against Iran are part of a drumbeat of pronouncements meant to mobilize support for escalation in Iraq and for an attack on Iran, the "source of the problem." The world is aghast at the possibility. Even in neighboring Sunni states, no friends of Iran, majorities, when asked, favor a nuclear-armed Iran over any military action against that country. From what limited information we have, it appears that significant parts of the U.S. military and intelligence communities are opposed to such an attack, along with almost the entire world, even more so than when the Bush administration and Tony Blair's Britain invaded Iraq, defying enormous popular opposition worldwide.

"The Iran Effect"

The results of an attack on Iran could be horrendous. After all, according to a recent study of "the Iraq effect" by terrorism specialists Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank, usinggovernment and Rand Corporation data, the Iraq invasion has already led to a seven-fold increase in terror. The "Iran effect" would probably be far more severe and long-lasting. British military historian Corelli Barnett speaks for many when he warns that "an attack on Iran would effectively launch World War III."

What are the plans of the increasingly desperate clique that narrowly holds political power in the U.S.? We cannot know. Such state planning is, of course, kept secret in the interests of "security." Review of the declassified record reveals that there is considerable merit in that claim -- though only if we understand "security" to mean the security of the Bush administration against their domestic enemy, the population in whose name they act.

Even if the White House clique is not planning war, naval deployments, support for secessionist movements and acts of terror within Iran, and other provocations could easily lead to an accidental war. Congressional resolutions would not provide much of a barrier. They invariably permit "national security" exemptions, opening holes wide enough for the several aircraft-carrier battle groups soon to be in the Persian Gulf to pass through -- as long as an unscrupulous leadership issues proclamations of doom (as Condoleezza Rice did with those "mushroom clouds" over American cities back in 2002). And the concocting of the sorts of incidents that "justify" such attacks is a familiar practice. Even the worst monsters feel the need for such justification and adopt the device: Hitler's defense of innocent Germany from the "wild terror" of the Poles in 1939, after they had rejected his wise and generous proposals for peace, is but one example.

The most effective barrier to a White House decision to launch a war is the kind of organized popular opposition that frightened the political-military leadership enough in 1968 that they were reluctant to send more troops to Vietnam -- fearing, we learned from the Pentagon Papers, that they might need them for civil-disorder control.

Doubtless Iran's government merits harsh condemnation, including for its recent actions that have inflamed the crisis. It is, however, useful to ask how we would act if Iran had invaded and occupied Canada and Mexico and was arresting U.S. government representatives there on the grounds that they were resisting the Iranian occupation (called "liberation," of course). Imagine as well that Iran was deploying massive naval forces in the Caribbean and issuing credible threats to launch a wave of attacks against a vast range of sites -- nuclear and otherwise -- in the United States, if the U.S. government did not immediately terminate all its nuclear energy programs (and, naturally, dismantle all its nuclear weapons). Suppose that all of this happened after Iran had overthrown the government of the U.S. and installed a vicious tyrant (as the US did to Iran in 1953), then later supported a Russian invasion of the U.S. that killed millions of people (just as the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iran in 1980, killing hundreds of thousands of Iranians, a figure comparable to millions of Americans). Would we watch quietly?

It is easy to understand an observation by one of Israel's leading military historians, Martin van Creveld. After the U.S. invaded Iraq, knowing it to be defenseless, he noted, "Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy."

Surely no sane person wants Iran (or any nation) to develop nuclear weapons. A reasonable resolution of the present crisis would permit Iran to develop nuclear energy, in accord with its rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but not nuclear weapons. Is that outcome feasible? It would be, given one condition: that the U.S. and Iran were functioning democratic societies in which public opinion had a significant impact on public policy.

As it happens, this solution has overwhelming support among Iranians and Americans, who generally are in agreement on nuclear issues. The Iranian-American consensus includes the complete elimination of nuclear weapons everywhere (82% of Americans); if that cannot yet be achieved because of elite opposition, then at least a "nuclear-weapons-free zone in the Middle East that would include both Islamic countries and Israel" (71% of Americans). Seventy-five percent of Americans prefer building better relations with Iran to threats of force. In brief, if public opinion were to have a significant influence on state policy in the U.S. and Iran, resolution of the crisis might be at hand, along with much more far-reaching solutions to the global nuclear conundrum.

Promoting Democracy -- at Home

These facts suggest a possible way to prevent the current crisis from exploding, perhaps even into some version of World War III. That awesome threat might be averted by pursuing a familiar proposal: democracy promotion -- this time at home, where it is badly needed. Democracy promotion at home is certainly feasible and, although we cannot carry out such a project directly in Iran, we could act to improve the prospects of the courageous reformers and oppositionists who are seeking to achieve just that. Among such figures who are, or should be, well-known, would be Saeed Hajjarian, Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi, and Akbar Ganji, as well as those who, as usual, remain nameless, among them labor activists about whom we hear very little; those who publish the Iranian Workers Bulletin may be a case in point.

We can best improve the prospects for democracy promotion in Iran by sharply reversing state policy here so that it reflects popular opinion. That would entail ceasing to make the regular threats that are a gift to Iranian hardliners. These are bitterly condemned by Iranians truly concerned with democracy promotion (unlike those "supporters" who flaunt democracy slogans in the West and are lauded as grand "idealists" despite their clear record of visceral hatred for democracy).

Democracy promotion in the United States could have far broader consequences. In Iraq, for instance, a firm timetable for withdrawal would be initiated at once, or very soon, in accord with the will of the overwhelming majority of Iraqis and a significant majority of Americans. Federal budget priorities would be virtually reversed. Where spending is rising, as in military supplemental bills to conduct the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it would sharply decline. Where spending is steady or declining (health, education, job training, the promotion of energy conservation and renewable energy sources, veterans benefits, funding for the UN and UN peacekeeping operations, and so on), it would sharply increase. Bush's tax cuts for people with incomes over $200,000 a year would be immediately rescinded.

The U.S. would have adopted a national health-care system long ago, rejecting the privatized system that sports twice the per-capita costs found in similar societies and some of the worst outcomes in the industrial world. It would have rejected what is widely regarded by those who pay attention as a "fiscal train wreck" in-the-making. The U.S. would have ratified the Kyoto Protocol to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions and undertaken still stronger measures to protect the environment. It would allow the UN to take the lead in international crises, including in Iraq. After all, according to opinion polls, since shortly after the 2003 invasion, a large majority of Americans have wanted the UN to take charge of political transformation, economic reconstruction, and civil order in that land.

If public opinion mattered, the U.S. would accept UN Charter restrictions on the use of force, contrary to a bipartisan consensus that this country, alone, has the right to resort to violence in response to potential threats, real or imagined, including threats to our access to markets and resources. The U.S. (along with others) would abandon the Security Council veto and accept majority opinion even when in opposition to it. The UN would be allowed to regulate arms sales; while the U.S. would cut back on such sales and urge other countries to do so, which would be a major contribution to reducing large-scale violence in the world. Terror would be dealt with through diplomatic and economic measures, not force, in accord with the judgment of most specialists on the topic but again in diametric opposition to present-day policy.

Furthermore, if public opinion influenced policy, the U.S. would have diplomatic relations with Cuba, benefiting the people of both countries (and, incidentally, U.S. agribusiness, energy corporations, and others), instead of standing virtually alone in the world in imposing an embargo (joined only by Israel, the Republic of Palau, and the Marshall Islands). Washington would join the broad international consensus on a two-state settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict, which (with Israel) it has blocked for 30 years -- with scattered and temporary exceptions -- and which it still blocks in word, and more importantly in deed, despite fraudulent claims of its commitment to diplomacy. The U.S. would also equalize aid to Israel and Palestine, cutting off aid to either party that rejected the international consensus.

Evidence on these matters is reviewed in my book Failed States as well as in The Foreign Policy Disconnect by Benjamin Page (with Marshall Bouton), which also provides extensive evidence that public opinion on foreign (and probably domestic) policy issues tends to be coherent and consistent over long periods. Studies of public opinion have to be regarded with caution, but they are certainly highly suggestive.

Democracy promotion at home, while no panacea, would be a useful step towards helping our own country become a "responsible stakeholder" in the international order (to adopt the term used for adversaries), instead of being an object of fear and dislike throughout much of the world. Apart from being a value in itself, functioning democracy at home holds real promise for dealing constructively with many current problems, international and domestic, including those that literally threaten the survival of our species.

Noam Chomsky is the author of Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy (Metropolitan Books), just published in paperback, among many other works.

This article was first published at www.tomdispatch.com

iPod Saves

2007-04-06T19:35:00.000-05:00

Just featured as a top person of the day; the story of the US Army Sergent and the iPod that stopped a bullet.

Here is the original flicker pic set and the caption:

Photos sent to me by my friend Danny with this caption:

My wife’s uncle works in a military hospital and told me about this. Its pretty amazing. Kevin Garrad (3rd Infantry Division) was on a street patrol in Iraq (Tikrit I believe) and as he rounded the corner of a building an armed (AK-47) insurgent came from the other side.

The two of them were within just a few feet of each other when they opened fire. The insurgent was killed and Kevin was hit in the left chest where his IPod was in his jacket pocket. It slowed the bullet down enough that it did not completely penetrate his body armor. Fortunately, Kevin suffered no wound.

I thought it was a great story so I posted them here.

Possibly more interesting is the original poster's documentation of the blooming of the Internet growth of the picture and the related story on the blog HavanaLion under the post "The Digg Effect".

That post even warranted an update:

I decided to move the updating on the Soldier and Ipod photos to my blog. It’s just easier to do it here.

First I want to thank everyone who has volunteered to replace the iPod. This includes people from Apple, Circuit City and Wal-Mart. There also numerous individuals who have volunteered to do it themselves or take up a collection. All of this support is real cool.

To make something very clear, DO NOT send me anything. I’m not trying to profit in any way from this story and I don’t want there to be any misunderstandings.

Danny and I are working hard to try and reach Kevin. When we do, we promise to pass the information along (if he wants us to) to those that are interested.

Thanks again everyone.

Wilde can't raise funds

2007-04-05T18:47:00.000-05:00

From the Star Tribune

... Wendy (Wilde) Pareene and other supporters said in a news release Wednesday that a lack of funds forced the center's closure ...

Imagine that, but then looking at the 2006 fundraising numbers and should come as no surprise. Now we don't advocate surrendering in any district, but when the opposition in question (Ramstad) is more "moderate" than some individuals in the DFL, maybe contributions are better suited going toward real candidates in the 1st and 6th district against shaking and truly wingnut neoconservatives (assuming such a person runs against Walz).

Should retirement rumors for Rep. Ramstad prove to be true, members of the 3rd CD DFL should abandon Wilde for the pitch perfect Ford Bell. Wilde tried unsuccessfully to incorporate at least 2 members of Bell's Senate campaign staff, but Wilde was and may never be a candidate rather than a micromanager.

On the flip side, Bell proved he could fundraise, even under the most trying of underdog campaigns. While Wilde only had two personal friends contribute the maximum federal amount for the general campaign, Bell had many donors who double maxed (primary and general) in his contested run against party favorite and current Sen. Amy Klobuchar.

While Bell is more progressive than Ramstad, the two apparently know each well enough not to run in elections against each other. This why Bell won't run mano-e-mano against Ramstad. However, a Ramstad to Bell transfer of power will continue to be a pitch perfect representation of the district. And to put to rest any lingering thoughts, Bell raised money, only contributing $10,050 to his Senate ambitions.

At 1/6 of Wilde total 2006 congressional budget, that probably could have even kept the youth center open.

Obama raises $25 million from 100,000 donors

2007-04-04T11:23:00.000-05:00

From Associated Press

DAVENPORT, Iowa - Democrat Barack Obama raked in $25 million for his presidential bid in the first three months of 2007, placing him on a par with front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton and dashing her image as the party’s inevitable nominee.
The donations came from an eye-popping 100,000 donors, the campaign said in a statement.
The figure was the latest evidence that Obama, a political newcomer who has served just two years in the Senate, has emerged as the most powerful new force in presidential politics this year. It also reinforced his status as a significant threat to Clinton, who’d hoped her own $26 million first quarter fundraising total would begin to squeeze her rivals out of contention.
The campaign reported that the figure included at least $23.5 million that he can spend on the highly competitive primary race. The Clinton campaign has yet to disclose how much they can use for the primary verses money that is designated for the general election.
While Clinton has honed a vast national fundraising network through two Senate campaigns and her husband’s eight years as president, Obama launched his bid for the White House with a relatively small donor base concentrated largely in Illinois, his home state.
But his early opposition to the Iraq war and voter excitement over his quest to be the first black president quickly fueled a powerful fundraising machine.
More than half the donors contributed a total of $6.9 million through the Internet, the campaign said.
“This overwhelming response, in only a few short weeks, shows the hunger for a different kind of politics in this country and a belief at the grassroots level that Barack Obama can bring out the best in America to solve our problems,” said Obama finance chairwoman Penny Pritzker.

Iran to release British sailors

2007-04-04T11:22:00.000-05:00

From the Guardian Unlimited

Fifteen British marines and sailors held captive in Iran for almost a fortnight are expected to fly home tomorrow morning after the country's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, announced their release as a "gift" to the UK.

In a surprise announcement during a news conference at the presidential palace in Tehran, Mr Ahmadinejad said the 14 men and one woman would be "going back home" in a move marking the birthday of the prophet Muhammad last Saturday and acknowledging Easter.

Iran's IRNA state news agency said later they would leave Tehran tomorrow at 8am (5.30am UK time) on a flight to London.

After the conference finished, Iranian television broadcast footage of the British naval crew, who were detained on March 23, meeting Mr Ahmadinejad on the steps of the palace.

Dressed in grey suits, apart from the sole female captive, Leading Seaman Faye Turney, who was wearing a striped top and a headscarf, they appeared delighted.

"We are very grateful for your forgiveness," said one of the male captives, Lieutenant Felix Carman. "You are welcome," Mr Ahmadinejad responded in Farsi.

"You came here on a compulsory trip," the Iranian leader told another, getting the answer: "I don't know if I'd put it like that but you could call it that."

Downing Street welcomed the news but struck a note of caution, saying it was still establishing what the announcement "means in terms of the method and timing of their release".

However, the news prompted uncontained delight among relatives. Sandra Sperry, the mother of Royal Marine Adam Sperry, told Sky News: "I'm absolutely ecstatic ... I heard in Asda ... I think everyone thought I had gone mad ... we thought it would drag into next week."

Speaking in London, an Iranian diplomat said the next step would be for the detainees to be taken to the British embassy in Tehran before boarding a flight home.

It had been feared that Mr Ahmadinejad - renowned for being a hardliner and a critic of the west - would use his news conference to make more demands relating to the captives.

The initial signs were not positive - the president began with a long complaint about the invasion of Iraq, also criticising Britain for taking the case of the captives to the UN security council.

He also presented medals to three members of the Revolutionary Guard naval patrol that seized the Britons as they searched an Indian-registered merchant ship just outside the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, which divides Iran and Iraq.

But in a dramatic flourish about an hour into the address, the president suddenly announced: "While insisting on our rights, these 15 sailors have been pardoned and we offer their freedom to the British people."

Iran repeatedly said the patrol had been in Iranian waters, but Britain presented GPS evidence last week that it said proved the UK personnel had been well inside the Iraqi zone.

Later on during his two hour-plus press conference, Mr Ahmadinejad said the British government had sent a letter to Iran's foreign ministry pledging that incursions "will not happen again".

A foreign office spokesman refused to comment on the specifics of any communication with Tehran, but said it had "made our position clear" about where Britain believed the UK crew was when they were captured.

There has also been speculation that the release was prompted in part by an agreement to let an Iranian representative meet five Iranians detained by US forces in Irbil, northern Iraq, in January.

Tehran says the men are diplomats; the US says they are Revolutionary Guards linked to insurgents in Iraq. There have been claims that Tehran orchestrated the seizure of the British crew with a view to an exchange.

The US insisted today that there was no connection between the cases. "Not that I am aware of," said a State Department spokesman, Tom Casey, when asked if there was a link.

Feingold Ready to Up Ante

2007-04-04T10:53:00.000-05:00

Mr. President, if you really want Congress to come back and give you a different bill to sign ... let's just say you're not going to be happy. Preach on brother Feingold!

Wisconsin Governor Tommy Tompson Is In

2007-04-02T07:44:00.000-05:00

Democratic Fundraising Numbers Roll In

He thought about it in 2000, and it leaked out last week, but the main stream media found and reported it; the "boy from Elroy", former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson, is in the hunt for the Republican Presidential nomination.

His announcement came with what might be one of the best Iraq solutions offered from the 2008 Presidential field.

Thompson will be holding events this Wednesday, April 4 in Wisconsin and Iowa:

Milwaukee Event
Time: 9 a.m. CDT
Location: Messmer High School - Tommy G. Thompson Athletic Center
742 W. Capitol Drive, Milwaukee, WI

Iowa Event
Time: 12 p.m. CDT
Location: 7 Flags Event Center
2100 NW 100th Street, Clive, Iowa

Could he pull it off? Consider these points:

His announcement on yesterday's "This Week" on ABC trumped any story regarding fund-raising totals by other Republican nominees.
Thompson is incredibly strong at retail politics and Wisconsin borders Iowa (Thompson grew up less than 100 miles away) which will provide an influx of volunteers and play to mid-west allegiances - two huge advantages in the first caucus of the 2008 election.
The endless accounts of how dissatisfied conservatives are with their field of Republican candidates. Playing to this is Thompson's talking point that he is "the only reliable conservative." The Des Moines Register quoted it back here and two weeks later here.
As a White House cabinet member from 2001-2005, he was secretary of Health and Human Services back when Bush was still popular enough to barely get reelected.
Before joining the Bush administration, he was the nation's longest-serving governor and will hand the perennial battle-ground state of Wisconsin's electoral votes to the Republican for the first time since Reagan
He has a proven track record of new ideas and change including the overhaul of Wisconsin's welfare system, some of which filtered up into the Clinton welfare redo (both with their detractors). Its what David Broder called Thompson's need to "fight the status quo" at the end of Broder's column regarding Thompson's departure from HHS.
He heads a health-care think tank, a major issue that the Democrats own on the national stage.

With the best idea about Iraq to date, Thompson said he would demand that the Iraqi government vote as to whether it wanted the U.S. to remain in the country. If the answer were yes, "it immediately gives a degree of legitimacy." If the answer were no, "we would get out, absolutely. It's a duly elected government." Quells the idea of cutting and running when the "sovereign" nation asks you to leave. This would also endure the Iraqi government to its people, being able to do something, especially as insurgents seem to make things worse. The blog Average Joe has more quotes from Thompson.

Democrats should unilaterally take up this stratagem. It'll kill Thompson's primary dreams, but as a way to honorably (not cut-and-run) get the troops out of Iraq and end the occupation, it's an idea that is win-win.

Thompson's biggest drawbacks are the limited pool of financial and political power from his home state of Wisconsin, and at HHS the flu vaccine shortage in the fall of 2004 and the anthrax scare which has yet to be solved.

Today of course the Democratic numbers trumped all things political with Barack Obama continuing to shine. USA Today placed Hilary Clinton's faux $36 million raised in its front page side bar (above the fold). The real number was $25 million from 50,000 contributors. Obama '08 pulled in $22 million from over 83,000 people.

That is impressive for two intertwining reasons. First is the weight of Rodham Clinton's insider contacts. Former DNC Chair and major fundraiser Terry McCauligh is her campaign chair, President Bill Clinton is an obvious asset and her cash crazy US Senate races have all combined to produce what should be the most productive fundraising call list ever. Ever.

Add to that the idea that Rodham Clinton has been running for years, and odds are that she had numerous verbal commitments that only required to be contacted. A cornucopia of low hanging fruit, in fundraising vernacular, who were willing to give $2300 for both the primary and general elections. This is the case, considering the estimated $500 per contributor for Clinton versus an estimated $265 per contributor for Obama.

As the less experienced candidate, especially against the insider heavy Clinton campaign, Obama's numbers are simply astounding. A clear advantage in donors puts Obama in drivers seat when you consider that the low-dollar donors will also be volunteers. As for the experience question, see the t-shirt graphic to the right and remember that Pedro won.

In the end, however, both dollars and volunteers have been poorly used (we're looking at you Joe Trippi and Howard Dean). Before now, the highest off-year, first-quarter total was $13.5 million reported in 1995 by Republican Texas Sen. Phil Gramm. That didn't help him secure the Republican nomination which was won by Viagra spokesman Sen. Bob Dole.

Rounding out the Democratic contenders are John Edwards, who raised more than $14 million — twice his first-quarter total in 2003 and also beating Gramm's old record — from more than 37,000 donors. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson raised more than $6 million.

All first-quarter reports are due April 15 at the Federal Election Commission.

Snoop says " f— Bill O'Reilly"

2007-04-01T05:42:00.000-05:00

From TBOHipHop.net -- "Snoop was on a Dutch talk show ... called "Jensen!" [on March 29]. He couldn’t get into the UK so he decided to stay in Holland for a couple of days. The talk show host talked about how Snoop still isn’t seen as a good American citizen, while he has done a lot of good things for society. That was the moment they began to talk about Bill O’Reilly". [explicit]

Here is the original interview with Snoop's defence attorney [video]

Federal Election Commission Deadline

2007-03-31T12:00:00.000-05:00

Tonight at midnight the books close on this quarter's financial take for federal candidates. With polls all over the place the money raised will be the best indicator of where candidates are. Most campaigns will leak expected numbers soon even though they have a couple of weeks to file paperwork with the FEC.

Here are the Democratic candidates:

~~While all the campaign sites have links for contributions, props to the Clinton web people for being the only site making special mention of the deadline.~~
UPDATE- The Clinton campaign was the first to specifically mention the midnight deadline, although the Dodd campaign had basketball themed donation goals, complete with a scoreboard, counting the hours to midnight. Since this mornings post the Obama, Edwards and Richardson (the chili pepper) websites also pronounce Midnight as the deadline.

National Journal's Hotline had fundraising estimates yesterday. They also have a list of questions that should be used to put the numbers into context.

Iran Hostage Crisis - Daily Show style

2007-03-31T10:39:00.000-05:00

Yesterday we revealed some details regarding the United States' build up toward military action against Iran.

Of course saber-rattling is a two way street. Jon Stewart and the Daily Show's hardest working correspondent, John Oliver, deliver a spot on editorial to the leaders of Iran.

Russia Predicts US Attack on Iran - One Year Ago

2007-03-30T05:09:00.000-05:00

Unearthed from a recent column by Heather Wokush is the prediction from Alexei Arbatov, head of the International Security Center in Moscow, that the United States will attack Iran soon.

"If [the U.S.] ventures a military operation, it will conduct it next year after thorough political, military and propaganda preparations," said Arbatov in a April 17, 2006 article in the Russian News and Information Agency Novosti (RIA-Novosti).

The Russian news service reported on Tuesday, March 27, "a flurry of activity by U.S. Armed Forces near Iran's borders" as well as U.S. Naval presence which has, "reached the level that existed shortly before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003."

Their main source for the article, Col.-Gen. Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy of Geopolitical Sciences, said the Pentagon is planning to deliver a massive air strike on Iran's military infrastructure in the near future.

Wokush refers to another Russian estimate of American armed conflict, "predicting the US will attack Iran on April 6th, Good Friday".

Her researched and eye-opening article can be found here (article).

And in case you missed it something occurred just before the unanimous March 24 vote by the United Nations Security Council to impose stricter sanctions on Iran. There was a dispute between Iran and the the U.S. State Department on whether visas for the Iranian President, who sought to attend the session, had ever been granted. (article)

Pat Tillman - "You know, this war is so f— illegal."

2007-03-29T16:37:00.000-05:00

You know what he said. Some other gems revealed in an article from Sunday:

He totally was against Bush.
Tilman urged [a fellow Ranger] to vote for Bush’s Democratic opponent in the 2004 election, Sen. John Kerry.

These observations of Pat Tillman and the title quote are taken from the San Francisco Chronicle article by Robert Collier. (article)

Shortly after the article was writen, Tilman's mother Mary was interviewed on ESPN Radio's Dan Patrick show, by Patrick and Keith Olbermann.

Download (1813) | Play (1430)
Download (877) | Play (929)

Tit-for-Tat

2007-03-29T04:01:00.000-05:00

Boobs - the only word that comes to mind for the Fox Noise Network. Keith Olbermann goes graphic to graphic with them on Tuesday's "Countdown".

File under "F" for Funny - McCain MySpace Hacked

2007-03-28T10:26:00.000-05:00

From TechCrunch

Someone on Presidential hopeful John McCain’s staff is going to be in trouble today. They used a well known template to create his Myspace page. The template was designed by Newsvine Founder and CEO Mike Davidson (original template is here). Davidson gave the template code away to anyone who wanted to use it, but asked that he be given credit when it was used, and told users to host their own image files.

McCain’s staff used his template, but didn’t give Davidson credit. Worse, he says, they use images that are on his server, meaning he has to pay for the bandwidth used from page views on McCain’s site.

Davidson decided to play a small prank on the campaign this morning as retribution. Since he’s in control of some of the images on the site, he replaced one that shows contact information with a statement:

Today I announce that I have reversed my position and come out in full support of gay marriage…particularly marriage between two passionate females.

[Davidson] is making a political statement while also sending a message about respecting the property rights of others. I expect the changes to be reversed quickly, unless the wrong person is sick or out to lunch today. Either way, we’ve captured it above.

Do You Ted Rall?

2007-03-27T00:10:00.000-05:00

If you don't you should check out his Website. Rall is a cartoon artist who goes the extra mile to point out the bull shit we so often smell. Plenty of honors have been heaped upon him (read his bio) and I read the cartoons each time they come out.

Here's the toon that prompted the glowing praise. You know someone over at the DNC offices has asked this question.

All Hail the Oligarchy - or - White House Experience Uber Alles?

2007-03-26T16:31:00.000-05:00

I came to a simple realization recently. For my entire voting-age life only 2 families have ruled this country. Extend that through a hypothetical two-term Hillary presidency, and that will be an aggregate 28 year reign.

No need for that to be the end either. In 2016 Jeb Bush, two-term-due-to-term-limits Governor of Florida and member of the neoconservative think tank Project for the New American Century (the guys who thought in 1998 that invading Iraq would be a super-duper thing to do), will be a hale and hearty 63 years old. He could serve through 2024 and at 71 he would still be younger than Reagan.

Also in 2016, Chelsea Clinton will be 36, her first year of Presidential eligibility. A Disney movie called "Zenon: Girl of the 21st Century" makes reference to "President Chelsea Clinton" (found it on Wikipedia, so it's gotta be true). The movie does take place in 2049, the year that a new oath of office will be taken in January, so that puts the Chelsea ascendancy as early as 2040. Gosh, that's a 3 term gap, how will we get by without anyone with White House experience.

Bush twins!!

- funny side note from Chelsea Clinton's Wikipedia entry: As of 2005, Chelsea Clinton lives in the mid-Manhattan west side neighborhood of Chelsea. The neighborhood north of it is called Clinton. The two Midtown West neighborhoods are often lumped together as "Chelsea Clinton" and there was a local weekly newspaper "Chelsea Clinton News" before she became the famous first daughter.

"Vote Different" maker exposed

2007-03-24T17:26:00.000-05:00

The Huffington Post went into overdrive and on March 21 they had tracked down the maker of the "Vote Different" ad that had been such a fuss to those paying attention. Not a professional from the Obama campaign, but not really an amatuer either.

The video, "was the work of Philip de Vellis, who was the Internet communications director for Sherrod Brown's 2006 Senate campaign, and who now works at Blue State Digital, a company created by members of Howard Dean's Internet Team."

Below is a post on the Huffington Post Website from the maker.

Hi. I'm Phil. I did it. And I'm proud of it.

I made the "Vote Different" ad because I wanted to express my feelings about the Democratic primary, and because I wanted to show that an individual citizen can affect the process. There are thousands of other people who could have made this ad, and I guarantee that more ads like it--by people of all political persuasions--will follow.

This shows that the future of American politics rests in the hands of ordinary citizens.
The campaigns had no idea who made it--not the Obama campaign, not the Clinton campaign, nor any other campaign. I made the ad on a Sunday afternoon in my apartment using my personal equipment (a Mac and some software), uploaded it to YouTube, and sent links around to blogs.
The specific point of the ad was that Obama represents a new kind of politics, and that Senator Clinton's "conversation" is disingenuous. And the underlying point was that the old political machine no longer holds all the power.
Let me be clear: I am a proud Democrat, and I always have been. I support Senator Obama. I hope he wins the primary. (I recognize that this ad is not his style of politics.) I also believe that Senator Clinton is a great public servant, and if she should win the nomination, I would support her and wish her all the best.
I've resigned from my employer, Blue State Digital, an internet company that provides technology to several presidential campaigns, including Richardson's, Vilsack's, and -- full disclosure -- Obama's. The company had no idea that I'd created the ad, and neither did any of our clients. But I've decided to resign anyway so as not to harm them, even by implication.
This ad was not the first citizen ad, and it will not be the last. The game has changed.

Purging Public Trust

2007-03-16T19:01:00.000-05:00

Using the recently-disclosed internal White House/DoJ emails, Keith Olbermann connects the dots showing how intimately involved the White House was in the politically-motivated purge of US attorneys.

Download (1833) | Play (1556)
Download (756) | Play (1027)

Will Thomas also did the bulk of the research for an attorney purge timeline of events for Talking Points Memo.

In the end the Republican talking points will center on denial (no law was broken), counter-accusation (no crime here, Dems are trying to score political points) and pointing blame elsewhere (Clinton purge was much bigger). They'll beat these into the ground until the networks lose interest.

Prognosis: Democrats need to get a bill in motion, putting the appointments of US attorneys back into the hands of the legislature, ASAP. No crime has been committed, but the American people know ethical wrong from right. While we shouldn't legislate ethics, we can install a process of (gasp) checks and balances to ensure that the right thing is done.

"Vote Green" Does Not Translate Into Klingon

2007-03-12T18:52:00.001-05:00

All hail Jyrki J.J. Kasvi, a member of the Finnish Parliment, who is also an ardent Trekkie.

Read the English version of his biography on his website and if you're capable, click over and read the Klingon version (Swedish is also a choice).

Hats off to you Mr. Kasvi, for proving you can be progressive, geeky and still win elections - if you reside in Finland - prost!

GOP Rep. Blames the Troops for Walter Reed

2007-03-10T15:07:00.000-06:00

‘If You Leave Food Around You’ll Get Mice’

Yesterday at the House Armed Services Committee hearing on veterans care, Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) attempted to stand out from the rest of Congress and argue that the conditions in Building 18 weren’t that bad. Instead of criticizing the cockroach infestation, he said, “I was glad to know that those cockroaches were belly up. It suggested to me that at least someone was spraying for them.”

He also tried to blame the soldiers for the conditions, stating, “And, of course, if you leave food around in a motel room or a dorm room at a college, you’re going to get some mice show up at some point in time.”

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN TO GINGREY

Gingrey further blamed the media — specifically the Washington Post — for the fallout, saying he was “shocked” that Army Secretary Francis Harvey and Walter Reed commander Gen. George Weightmann were fired. “[A]sk the Washington Post whose head should roll, I think [President Bush] probably would be…the only satisfaction.” He then added, “[L]et’s try to take some of the politics aside and some of the rhetoric, and try to solve the problem.”

Transcript:

I want to say for the record that, Mr. Chairman, that, um, I have been to Building 18. I have been to Walter Reed on a number of occasions, but specifically in regard to this issue went to take a look first-hand.

Having grown up in a motel, when I was going to medical school and living in one of the rooms, when I saw this old Walter Reed Motor Inn, it really reminded me a lot of, Mr. Chairman, of a, of the motel that my parents had in Augusta, Georgia. It’s not a five-star hotel, make no mistake about it, but it’s not a flophouse. It’s not a dump. It’s not a dive. It needs some work, no question about it. I’m not making excuses, of course. And when I read the Washington Post report I was glad to know that those cockroaches were belly up. It suggested to me that at least someone was spraying for them, Mr. Chairman.

And, of course, if you leave food around in a motel room or a dorm room at a college, you’re going to get some mice show up at some point in time. But there’s no question that
there’s a problem. I’ve heard some of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle suggest that specific heads should roll. I don’t know that, ah — I was a little bit
shocked, quite honestly, that the Secretary of the Army was relieved of his command and the commander at Walter Reed, General Weightmann was relieved of his command and a change has been made there.

I don’t know what comes next, but I would guess if you ask, since General Schoomaker has had to recuse himself, ask the Washington Post whose head should roll I think it probably would
be the Commander-in- Chief, would be the only satisfaction, and that would be President Bush. But here again, let’s try to take some of the politics aside and some of the rhetoric, and try to solve the problem.

From the Halls of CPAC

2007-03-04T20:42:00.000-06:00

An interesting bit of footage filmed at the Conservative Political Action Conference by a writer (editor?) for the liberal magazine "The Nation". Nothing earth shattering; Michelle Malkin losing her cool over nothing (grace under pressure will definitely not be used in describing her), a cheap shot at Ann Coulter and some conservative flipping out within their supposedly sequestered annual meeting.

One part in particular struck me as very true and revealing. One attendee is apparently hiding his Confederate flag lapel pin, and when question why he is doing so he mutters, "'cause you have a video camera in my face." Ultimately the gist of the segment is that there are a bunch of white males, who support the all-white ideals of the new confederacy, who are anti-immigrant, but don't want the issue of race to come up. The classic, "I hate you, but I'm not a racist" tact that works so well when it comes to homophobia - i.e. "I hate the sin, not the sinner, even though they'll go to hell so its okay to treat them as second class citizens." Since conservative legislatures are moving to block rights and access to gay individuals, I foresee someone petitioning for gays to have their votes downsized to the Confederacy era 3/5ths vote. Heritage at its finest and strict adherence to the constitution as written - none of that 20th century judicial activism on behalf of voting rights.

Despicable

2007-03-02T16:57:00.000-06:00

de·spi·ca·ble :adjective : deserving to be despised : so worthless or obnoxious as to rouse moral indignation <despicable behavior>

That devotee of the far-right, Ann Coulter, reached her usual low at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) when she implied that John Edwards is a "fagot".

Download (331) | Play (345)
Download (167) | Play (214)

Mitt Romney, whom Coulter endorses, and his supporters must be thrilled. Sadly, this statement might not be facetious.

4 Reasons 4 Barack

2006-12-16T12:56:00.000-06:00

Rocking the Barack train seems to be the business of late. Poo-Pooing the very idea of Barack Obama running for president, based solely on experience. It's a natural reaction to the overwhelming interest in Obama over the last couple of weeks, especially with his recent trip to New Hampshire. But it begs the question, "What other possible candidate can draw a crowd of 1,500 jaded New Hampshirites, in December, two years before the next election?"

The answer, honestly, is no one.

The draw is the wide appeal, and that appeal has even extended to conservative columnist George Will. His December 14 column titled, "Run Now, Obama," addresses the experience issue and comes out with four reasons to run now.

New Hampshire was recently brightened by the presence of Barack Obama, 45, who, calling the fuss about him "baffling," made his first trip in 45 years to that state, and not under duress. Because he is young, is just two years distant from a brief career as a state legislator and has negligible national security experience, an Obama presidential candidacy could have a porcelain brittleness. But if he wants to be president -- it will not be a moral failing if he decides that he does not, at least not now -- this is the time for him to reach for the brass ring. There are four reasons why.

First, one can be an intriguing novelty only once. If he waits to run, the past half-century suggests that the wait could be eight years (see reason four, below). In 2016 he will be only 55, but there will be many fresher faces.

Second, if you get the girl up on her tiptoes, you should kiss her. The electorate is on its tiptoes because Obama has collaborated with the creation of a tsunami of excitement about him. He is nearing the point when a decision against running would brand him as a tease who ungallantly toyed with the electorate's affections.

Third, he has, in Hillary Clinton, the optimal opponent. The contrast is stark: He is soothing; she is not. Many Democrats who are desperate to win are queasy about depending on her. For a nation with jangled nerves, and repelled by political snarling, he offers a tone of sweet reasonableness.

What people see in him reveals more about them than about him. Some of his public utterances have the sponginess of Polonius's bromides for Laertes ("neither a borrower nor a lender be . . . to thine own self be true"). In 2005 the liberal Americans for Democratic Action and the AFL-CIO rated his voting record a perfect 100. The nonpartisan National Journal gave him an 82.5 liberalism rating, making him more liberal than Clinton (79.8). He dutifully decries "ideological" politics but just as dutifully conforms to most of liberalism's catechism, from "universal" health care, whatever that might mean, to combating global warming, whatever that might involve, and including the sacred injunction Thou Shalt Execrate Wal-Mart -- an obligatory genuflection to organized labor.

The nation, which so far is oblivious to his orthodoxy, might not mind it if it is dispensed by someone with Obama's "Can't we all just get along?" manner. Ronald Reagan, after all, demonstrated the importance of congeniality to the selling of conservatism.

Fourth, the odds favor the Democratic nominee in 2008 because for 50 years it has been rare for a presidential nominee to extend his party's hold on the presidency beyond eight years. Nixon in 1960 came agonizingly close to doing so (he lost the popular vote by 118,574 -- less than a vote per precinct -- and a switch of 4,430 votes in Illinois and 24,129 in Texas would have elected him) but failed. As did Hubert Humphrey in 1968 (he lost by 510,314 out of 73,211,875 votes cast), Gerald Ford in 1976 (if 5,559 votes had switched in Ohio and 7,232 in Mississippi, he would have won) and Al Gore in 2000 (537 Florida votes). Only the first President Bush, in 1988, succeeded, perhaps because the country desired a third term for the incumbent, which will not be the case in 2008. So the odds favor a Democrat winning in 2008 and, if he or she is reelected, the Democrat nominated in 2016 losing.

Furthermore, remember the metrics of success that just two years ago caused conservatives to think the future was unfolding in their favor: Bush carried 97 of the 100 most rapidly growing counties; the center of the nation's population, now southwest of St. Louis, is moving south and west at a rate of two feet an hour; only two Democratic presidents have been elected in the past 38 years; in the 15 elections since World War II, only twice has a Democrat received 50 percent of the vote. Two years later, these facts do not seem so impressive.

In 2000 and 2004, Bush twice carried 29 states that now have 274 electoral votes; Gore and Kerry carried 18 that now have 248. Not much needs to change in politics for a lot to change in governance. And Obama, like the rest of us, has been warned, by William Butler Yeats: All life is a preparation for something that probably will never happen.

Unless you make it happen.

Good fall

2006-12-13T02:55:00.000-06:00

Whether talking about the season or the metaphorical fall of the GOP, it goes without saying (but we will), we approve.

In the previous post we backed 4 Mid-westerners running for the US Congress.

Three of them won. The fourth, Patty Wetterling, had a record amount spent against her in the state of Minnesota and the highest amount spent by the RNCC this past cycle. This to protect a Republican district Bush won with 57% - their candidate squeeked out 50 percent.

Rest time is over folks, back at it!

Don't Just Vote - Volunteer

2006-10-31T23:28:00.000-06:00

Blogging doesn't count - I repeat - blogging does not count as volunteering.

And every campaign will have it's hiccups and you'll ask, "why the f*ck am I talking to this person on the list of voters?" But if you reach one person at their doorstep and change their mind, the collective effort will prevail. If 200 people had gotten one more (white) person to vote in Florida back in 2000 ... well let's just say it would be a very different country and a better world today.

So if you're in driving distance help out these candidates in the mid-west. Spend a day and help ensure there are checks and balances again with a Democratic House of Representatives.

Patty Wetterling (MN-6) - Volunteer or call (320)229-0444
Steve Kagen (WI-8) - Volunteer or call (920)257-2592
Bruce Braley (IA-1) - Volunteer or call (319) 233-0861
Tim Walz (MN-1) - Volunteer or call (507)696-2814

Probably best to follow up with a call and say, "I can volunteer all day on November (date)." Do it or you have no right to criticize any of these candidates or their campaigns - no Wednesday morning quarterbacking. Each candidate has been pounced upon for any misstep or for simply being human.

These are the tough seats where millions of Republican dollars are being spent to protect a GOP devoid of responsibility and their tenuous grasp on Congress. Easy victories in the cities are boring and anti-climatic. Fighting door-to-door in these areas will be more rewarding personally and is where we begin to change the country.

10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong (not)

2006-10-25T11:49:00.000-05:00

1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage would be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

(one of the saddest parts about our society is that, these arguments, before the humourous common sense, are the real reasons why people can't accept gay marriages. Be sure to vote against Michele Bachmann.)

Bachmann runs from her education record on MPR

2006-10-22T00:47:00.000-05:00

A few folks have picked this up, but the details are definitely not public information. Patty Wetterling dropped in a challenge to Michele Bachmann's education credentials, leaving a big question unanswered - who was this mysterious group helping to fund Bachmann's congressional run?

Mr. Ed at Democratic Underground has a few comments regarding Bachmann's MPR claims. Then the Dump Bachmann website goes a few steps further by naming the organization (the Alliance for Separation of School and State) and which of their members are backing Bachmann. I believe the group can be summed up by ONE member and his accompanying credentials: Rev Ellsworth McIntyre - "How to Become a Millionaire in Christian Education".

Yeah, they're definitely in it for the kids.

Below is the text of a Wetterling press release after the MPR debate:

Bachmann lies again: "I have voted for every K-12 education bill."

ANOKA, Minn. - Michele Bachmann, the Republican candidate for Congress in Minnesota's 6th District, continued to run from her state Senate record today on Minnesota Public Radio.

Bachmann, whose own children were home-schooled and sent to private schools, lied when she said, "I have voted for every K-12 education bill." In reality, she voted against an $8.8 billion early childhood - grade 12 education funding bill, against immediate emergency fuel assistance for school districts, and against a bill that appropriated over $13 billion for early childhood, K-12 and higher education.

Bachmann has also accepted over $50,000 from members of the Alliance of the Separation of School and State, an organization whose members sign the following pledge: "I proclaim publicly that I favor ending government involvement in education." Bachmann denied taking donations from the organization itself, but failed to mention that she has in fact taken generous contributions from the organization's members.

Bachmann's statements on education reveal her latest untruths and attempts to run from her record.

Please see fact check below.

MICHELE BACHMANN ON PUBLIC EDUCATION

Bachmann: "I have voted for every K-12 education bill." - Michele Bachmann, MPR, 10/20/06

The Reality:
Bachmann opposed increased K-12 school funding.
Bachmann voted against a bill that outlined appropriations and standards for K-12 schools and school districts, including early childhood. The total expenditures topped $8.8 billion. The bill passed 46-18. [SF 2359, 5/3/01]

Bachmann Voted Against Immediate Emergency Fuel Assistance For School Districts.
When public schools needed emergency energy relief for their high winter heating costs, there was a bill on the Senate floor to provide them with $30 million in reimbursement for the heating costs. Bachmann voted against the measure even though it was only three percent of the projected $924 million budget surplus. [Stillwater Gazette, 2/21/01; SF 228, 2/5/01]

Bachmann Opposed Funding for Education, Public Safety, Economic Development, Environmental Programs.
Bachmann voted against a bill that established the budget for much of the state government and included the following appropriations for 2006-07:

Over $13 billion for early childhood, K-12, and higher education
Over $340 million for agriculture and environmental programs [SF 1879, 3/23/05]

Bachmann Has Taken $50,000 in Contributions From Individuals Who Seek To Eliminate Public Education.
Karl Bremer wrote in the St. Paul Pioneer Press that Bachmann's campaign contributions include about $50,000 from people who have signed a proclamation from the Alliance for the Separation of School and State. The proclamation of the alliance states: "I proclaim publicly that I favor ending government involvement in education." [St. Paul Pioneer Press, 8/8/06]

Open letter: Comments ... make it so.

2006-10-20T13:45:00.000-05:00

People,

A few folks asked to make comments available so we've opened up the comment options. Let's experiment with it. But with excessive trolling, flaming and campaign staffers leaving their 2 cents, we'll be forced to "out" you and then tighten the reins again.

xoxox
stasis quo

The Whining Hypocrite

2006-10-18T01:24:00.000-05:00

You have to love the hypocrisy in the Republican party these days. Up is down, wrong is right, black is white. Quite an interesting view these people have.

For instance, Michele Bachmann decided to cry foul about a recent contact made by a member of the Wetterling campaign. She even put a nifty little press release about it, which was to double as a letter to the Minnesota Attorney General and US District Attorney's Office.

In the letter she claims the staffer tried to gain access to her campaign and used a false identity.

Now, nobody condones cheating on either side. I think the best idea is transparent elections. But she happens to be the one who just earlier this week was subverting election law when a church held a political rally for her.

And hey the Republicans are the party of personal responsibility! I mean that's why Denny Hastert resigned for covering up for a child sex predator and Donald Rumsfeld resigned for messing up at every turn in a failed Iraq War plan... oh.. wait.

Michele doesn't want dirty tricks in the campaign. That's commendable. Except her party is renowned for their dirty tricks.

In 2003, GOP staffers hacked Democratic computers in Congress to find out election and political stratagies. They were doing it for months and didn't show any outrage until they were caught.

After that Orrin Hatch gave the guilty party just what he deserved.

Paid Administrative Leave.....

Oh and a job as a GOP Lobbyist with twice the pay he was receiving before. Republican justice is so cruel!

Well hey it was one mistake... the GOP would never hack another Democratic computer, especially in an election. Dirty tricks, pfft, not in the GOP! Well except in Pennsylvania Congressional races, I suppose.

Well I suppose hacking, slightly different than misrepresenting yourself right? Calling to tell someone you want to work for their campaign has to be as bad as, say, calling Democrats and saying you're from the Dem Headquarters.
Then you tell them they might as well not bother to vote because
they're not registered. And best of all... you are a Republican and none of this is true!

Or better yet, putting out flyers misrepresenting the date of the election to keep you home!

Now THIS has to be worse right? I don't know, someone calling my campaign and pretending to want to volunteer might be the end of the world for my campaign. I better keep trying here...

Oh I got one!

How about voting illegally in a political party's primary to change a close race to reflect the result you want? Pretending you're on my side to screw with the democratic process, that's got to be better than this right? I know it is! Someone calling me to volunteer... worst. thing. evah! Like, for sure!

Darn. Getting voters to cheat is still not as bad as someone calling to pretend volunteer for me.

I think I finally got one.

How about illegally phone jamming the get out the vote efforts of the rival party on election day? I mean if they can't get those calls out and get voters to the polls....

Wait. Who am I kidding anyway? Nothing is worse. Nothing... Whether or not election law even covers this
(and I suspect it does not),
this person would have had to sign up on my website with...
*GASP* his EMAIL ADDRESS...
and then... *GASP* call my office to ask us for information.

I mean how could we refuse him information? He goes online or calls us and instantly we have no choice but to tell him EVERYTHING! It's like a gun is at our temples here! It's like we were being injected with a truth serum and we're being tortured for information... well wait... Michele might like that. Republicans after all, adore torture.

In the bigger scheme of things, this is nothing. It's an improper conduct by someone who was not going to find out CIA secrets in these conversations.

But if you ask the person whom on other topics has said she's "not a deep thinker". This is akin to Watergate or worse.

Get real.

Rp

Minnesota Poll: Wetterling is ahead of Bachmann 48% to 40%

2006-10-17T00:13:00.000-05:00

The Patty Wetterling for Congress campaign must be doing something very right. These numbers from the Minnesota Poll emphasize the fizzling of Michele Bachmann's campaign as the Wetterling camp continues to out-hustle her on the ground, on the phones, in the press and at the bank.

A SurveyUSA poll three weeks ago showed Wetterling behind the Haskel-esque Michele Bachmann by 9 points.

Then two weeks ago the same poll had Wetterling down, but within the margin of error, a statistical tie. Same SurveyUSA polling company as the last one, but a significant drop off for Bachmann. And the polling was done before the Foley scandal. Word from respondents on the second poll was that it was a push poll. From two seperate people polled in the 6th, the first question was who they would vote for (Answer: Patty Wetterling). The second question was, "Are you sure you don't want to vote for Republican Michele Bachmann?" Even with this push Bachmann only squeaked out a 3 point lead.

Blood in the water anyone?

Last week a Majority Watch poll had Wetterling up by five points. The negative TV ads and negative mailers from the National Republican Congressional Committee weren't making a dent against Wetterling.

This morning the Pioneer Press picked up the FEC numbers from the campaigns. In about a month Wetterling raised twice as much as her opponent.

One thing to remember - Bachmann's numbers included her Presidential fundraiser.

Blood in the water? We may have a gusher here folks...

Definition of Dominionist

2006-10-16T00:19:00.000-05:00

Dominionism

Dominionist

2006-10-15T22:15:00.000-05:00

Dominionism

No, it's not Jerry Farwell running for office on an agenda of misdirection, hate and homophobia. It's Michele Bachmann. She's been an obstructionist in the Minnesota State Senate, shutting down the last legislative session as she lobbied again and again to get a civil union ban into the state constitution.

Now "god" has told her to take her side-show to congress. Witness the video below, realizing that Ms. Bachmann's church refers to the Pope as the "anti-christ"...

"In the midst of him making this calling sure, what's occured in this particular race is that this congresssional seat - one of 435 in the country - has become one of the top 5 races in the country and in the last week has become one of the top three races in the country and you may have seen now God has in his own will and in his own plan has focused like a laser beam after this scandal that came up about a week or so ago he has focused like a laser beam with his reasoning on this race."

President Bush won the Minnesota 6th Congressional District by a 14 point spread (57-43). Two years later the Congressional race is a tie with her opponent, Patty Wetterling, leading in the latest polls. God is looking down on you Michele - and pparently this is going to be the best way to remove you from politics. Praise God.

New Poll: Wetterling 50; Bachmann 45

2006-10-12T15:04:00.000-05:00

http://constituentdynamics.com/mw/2006/index2.php

Cross-tabs: http://constituentdynamics.com/mw/2006/pdf/MN6.pdf

abyss2hope: A rape survivor's zigzag journey into the open: If You Are Going To Say A Democratic Candidate Is Exploiting Foleygate Don't ...

2006-10-06T20:19:00.000-05:00

abyss2hope: A rape survivor's zigzag journey into the open: If You Are Going To Say A Democratic Candidate Is Exploiting Foleygate Don't ...

Bell gains support

2006-05-29T13:14:00.000-05:00

Candidate achieves Bergland endorsement

By Kyle Johnson
Herald Staff Writer

Ford Bell has run an under-the-radar campaign for Mark Dayton's soon-to-be-vacant Minnesota U.S. Senate seat so far, a sharp contrast from opponents Amy Klobuchar and Mark Kennedy. But support from a well-known Democrat is beginning to change this.

Bell, a veterinarian and philanthropist, garnered the support of Roseau, Minn., farmer Bob Bergland in late April. Bergland's political career included six years in the U.S. House of Representatives, a stint as U.S. secretary of agriculture during the Carter administration and serving as a regent of the University of Minnesota from 1996 to 2002.

The two met during Bergland's regent days, as Bell was teaching at a college during that time.

"We're thrilled at the endorsement from such a revered political figure," Bell spokesman David Lilly said. "It was a real shot in the arm to the campaign."

Bergland originally had planned to offer only advice to Bell, but decided to endorse him after a brief meeting during the campaign's infancy.

"He's sort of the Eugene McCarthy of this time. He won't necessarily go with the flow, and will not take the easy side on the issues," Bergland said.

Judging by Bell's platform, Bergland's statement is accurate. Bell has called for a complete withdrawal of troops from Iraq by the end of the year, a stance that has likely cost him voters already. If that were not enough, Bell also has endorsed a single-payer universal health-care proposal, an issue that has scarred the campaigns of many a candidate.

Bergland said this kind of definitive stance on controversial issues may be just what the voters are looking for, however.

"The odds are against him for sure, but maybe the public will see the wisdom of Bells' ideas by election time," he said.

No stopping him

The pressure has been mounting for Bell to quit the race, but recent statements suggest he'll do no such thing.

During a debate last Friday with fellow Democrat Klobuchar, Bell said he will not seek the Democratic endorsement next month and instead will challenge likely endorsed candidate Klobuchar in the September primary.

Precinct caucuses in late March showed that Klobuchar, the Hennepin County attorney, held a commanding lead over Bell. U.S. Rep. Mark Kennedy is the only Republican candidate for the race.

Bell said he would step aside if Klobuchar committed to supporting his "core values" of withdrawal from Iraq and a change to the country's health-care policy, something that is not likely to happen.

"These are issues we just can't ignore anymore," Lilly said. "The time is right for someone to take a stand and do what's right."

Bergland said that Klobuchar is well regarded and would a good senator. "But I think Bell would be one notch better," he added.

Criticizing the Democratic tactic of "beating up on the Republicans without offering a better alternative," Bergland said an open and straightforward campaign such as Bell's is what the Democratic Party needs to score a victory this fall. He also believes that political unknowns need to be given a chance to run if the party is to succeed.

"We tend to go with the candidates we know the best," he said. "But Bell's a man of integrity, and I think his style would give the Republicans fits."

###

Warms the heart

2006-03-05T12:22:00.000-06:00

Iowa for Feingold

'nuff said

DFL candidates for Minnesota's US Senate seat debate

2006-03-03T01:04:00.000-06:00

Veterinarian Ford Bell and attorney Amy Klobuchar, both vying for the U.S. Senate, debate on Minnesota Public Radio's "Midday" starting at 11 a.m. today.

Video shows Bush, Chertoff warned before Katrina

2006-03-02T00:11:00.000-06:00

Big hat tip to the always outstanding Crooks & Liars crew for hosting the Associated Press video

Video-WMP Video-QT

WASHINGTON - In dramatic and sometimes agonizing terms, federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees, put lives at risk in New Orleans' Superdome and overwhelm rescuers, according to confidential video footage.

Bush didn't ask a single question during the final briefing before Katrina struck on Aug. 29, but he assured soon-to-be-battered state officials: "We are fully prepared."

The footage — along with seven days of transcripts of briefings obtained by The Associated Press — show in excruciating detail that while federal officials anticipated the tragedy that unfolded in New Orleans and elsewhere along the Gulf Coast, they were fatally slow to realize they had not mustered enough resources to deal with the unprecedented disaster.

Linked by secure video, Bush expressed a confidence on Aug. 28 that starkly contrasted with the dire warnings his disaster chief and numerous federal, state and local officials provided during the four days before the storm. (more)

Now it's a race - Bell gains in MN US Senate contest

2006-03-01T23:31:00.000-06:00

Out of town for a 3-day weekend and look what happens (oh yeah, the Minnesota legislature is back in session too)

Minnesota Senate: Bell Gains Ground

Leap frogging past Rep. Mark Kennedy in the latest Rasmussen Report poll of the Minnesota US Senate race Ford Bell is in a statistical dead-heat with primary opponent Amy Klobuchar.

Both Bell and Klobuchar now enjoy a 3-point lead over Kennedy. Since Rasmussen started to publish polling results in January, Klobuchar has dropped 4 percentage points in a head-to-head match-up with the White House backed Kennedy. During that same time Bell has surged up a staggering 13 percentage points. The question over the next month will be whether both these trends will continue.

Of the 500 likely voters, 42 percent would vote for Kennedy over Klobuchar while only 40 percent would choose Kennedy over DFL candidate Bell.

All this should make Friday's two debates more interesting (yes debates, with rebuttals and everything). The first will be between Bell and Klobuchar on Minnesota Public Radio's "Midday" starting at 11 a.m. The second will hosted by the MetroNorth chamber of commerce. Here are the details from the group's website:

SENATORIAL DEBATE
Friday, March 3, 2006
The Mermaid
Mounds View, MN
Event Time: Noon
Attendance Fee: $18.00 (Prepaid Only)
Why is this debate being held?
This debate is being held among candidates for the US Senate seat to be vacated by Mark Dayton. Confirmed candidates are Congressman Mark Kennedy (R) and Democrats[sic] Amy Klobuchar and Ford Bell.
For More Information:
E-mail Deb or call 763-783-3553 to RSVP.

The ticket charge and work will probably keep me away from the luncheon, though curiosity begs two questions; do you think Bell and Klobuchar will car pool from the MPR studios to the Mermaid? - and - do you think Kennedy will be listening in on his Walkman while pressing the flesh at the Chamber?

For those about to caucus / We salute you

2006-02-27T21:51:00.000-06:00

One week now until the DFL precinct caucuses. Here are some handy sites to help you find your way there.

Q: What precint do I live in? Precinct finder
Q: Where is my precint caucus? Caucus finder

rock on

Update: Go to the DFL's one-stop caucus site - precinct, caucus location and starting time from one site.

Friday night is for drinking, but...

2006-02-24T23:29:00.000-06:00

Sir Elton John says Saturday night's alright for fighting so maybe there will be some pre-convention show downs at the "Straw Poll" happening tomorrow.

February 25, 2006
7:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.

Local 879 UAW Hall
2191 Ford Parkway; Saint Paul, Minnesota
Cost: $10 to get in the door.
There will also be a cash bar.

Straw poll voting will begin at 7:00 p.m. and stop at 10:00 p.m. Only one vote per person! Vote totals will be announced as the evening progresses with the final results announced shortly after 10:00 p.m. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call Stuart Algar at (612) 961-5334

That's all for tonight, gotta unwind at the local establishment. But you should check out our friend Norwegianity before you call it a night - after listening to both candidates on MPR's Midday he endorses Ford Bell. (audio links of both interviews on his website for a short time).

And remember kids - cronyism is okay!

2006-02-24T02:25:00.000-06:00

Hey ladies! Fight for your right to be a power-mongering, syncophant-rewarding asshole too!

Sarah Janacek seems to raise the hackles of knee-jerk reactionaries like few others. So her column about female candidates, particularly Amy Klobuchar, not being judged by some ridiculous double standard blew people's minds.

But before joining other feminists in applause because she's seen the light, let's take a moment for a Prog Prog annecdote;

Have you ever tried to give a dog a pill? Shoving a small tablet into a puppy's throat can be a frustating experience. So what you should do is wrap it in something they like - watch them gobble it up!

Under the guise of feminism, Janacek slips in her poison. Since, "the supposed sin of hiring people who support their ambitions," is good enough for, "Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Sen. Norm Coleman or Klobuchar's likely GOP opponent, U.S. Rep. Mark Kennedy," then gosh darn it, hiring people who support Klobuchar's ambitions is okay too.

FYI: Hiring people who support ambitions = cronyism.

Why didn't she throw President Bush into that GOP lineup? Has Klobuchar ever said, "Brownie, you're doing a heck of job" to one of her appointees? If she has, well according to Janacek, you must be an anti-feminist to even to call this into question.

Here's the point Janacek - The message to Klobuchar is: "DON'T USE YOUR OFFICE FOR POLITICAL GAIN AND CRONYISM! Janacek implies that somehow it is okay for Pawlenty, Coleman and Kennedy to give their toadies political appoitments- it's not- and that to deny Klobuchar the same ambititous "right" is somehow wrong. Really? I thought doing so would be striking a blow for clean and transparent government.

It's not okay if Republicans et. al. engage in cronyism, just as it was wrong and disasterous (in the case of FEMA) for President Bush to engage in it.

Prognosis Ludicrous - Cowed into thinking that opposing women is wrong no matter, the DFL endorses newly minted resident Ann Coulter over Al Franken in the 2008 Senate Race.

Prognosis Progressive - Listen to what all the candidates say. Blow past all the facts, figures and opinions and ask, "what will you do about (fill-in the issue)?" If they can answer the question and you agree with candidate "A" more often than candidate "B", then vote for candidate "A"! You might just find yourself voting for Ford Bell or Becky Lourey. Being gender blind - that's what feminism is really about.

Public Airwave Cage Match!!

2006-02-22T23:13:00.000-06:00

The Star Tribune reports that Minnesota Public Broadcasting is suing over the "The Current" radio station. Seems they have a trademark infringement beef with Current TV's name.

Current TV, which was co-founded by Al Gore, is a cable/satellite channel and website featuring alternative news and "citizen journalism" by amateurs who send in their news and videos. Both entities routinely use only "current" as an identifier.

Why should we care? We really shouldn't, other than both are great and hopefully these public paragons don't tear each other down (whoa ... for a second there I thought I was talking about the convention endorsement battles). While not entirely frivolous I don't see this working out for MPR. I base this on the Fox network empire never suing anyone over the use of the word "Fox", especially considering all the radio stations who call themselves "the fox" (thus setting up a similar media vs. media comparison). And after the whole "fair and balanced" fiasco they had with Al Franken, you know they probably tried.

This cartoon off of Current TV cracked me up (the others in the series aren't that great)

Prognosis Boring - Judge throws out the suit.
Prognosis Extreme - Current TV forced to change name back to original INdTV and pay court fees back to MPR.
Prognosis Ludicrous - Current TV counter-sues and wins. Judge awards plaintiff both the public radio station and half of Bemidji as settlement.
Prognosis Progressive - Just listen/watch and all will be well.

Need more Ford Bell baby

2006-02-21T21:47:00.000-06:00

Guess what? I got a fever! And the only prescription ... is more Ford Bell! See the original SNL cowbell sketch

Sorry folks, but the Bell radio ads are gettin' to me.

If you listen to Air American out of the Twin Cities you probably heard the first and second commercials. With a loud bell sound, followed by a woman saying, "clear as a bell" the ad snaps you out of the commercial block haze. My first reaction was "cheesy", but they're growing on me, much like the Will Ferrell/Christopher Walken sketch.

Now there are four more, though I don't know if they're on the radio yet. Until then check out the other 4 ads on the front page of Bell's website.

Meanwhile, at the Hennepin Co. office...

2006-02-20T22:19:00.000-06:00

After a 3-day weekend in which workers' complaints were received and systematically ignored, tomorrow might be the most uncomfortable Tuesday morning in Hennepin County courthouse history.

In spite of Local 2938's objections, the AFSCME Council 5 once again endorsed Hennepin County Attorney Amy Klobuchar. Local 2938, which represents about half of the 400 employees in the Hennepin County attorney's office (including investigators and 112 non-management lawyers), was similarly snubbed four years ago when it asked Council 14 to withhold the endorsement from Klobuchar.

These recent events center on two of my favorite subjects - Democrats and unions - and more specifically why these two subjects have drawn ire and become less effective over the last two decades.

I believe that this slow downfall is mainly brought on by a disconnect and unresponsiveness between the organizations and the very people they attempt to serve. In short, they're no longer populist.

Some of this simply bad education and poor public relation efforts. Ironically, neo-conservatives have expertly misinformed and been responsive to the demographic groups liberals espouse to help. This is why you'll often hear party hacks moan, "why do people vote against their own best interests?" They're voting for the people who speak to them, not those who try to speak for them.

At the center of this is the political hack or organizer. Often the same person will bounce between working for unions and then Party, bringing with them their peculiar allegiances. This insider track leads to a cycle of endorsement recommendations for candidates who play ball with the party and candidates getting insider knowledge to get endorsements. But often left out of this loop is the membership. This is by no-way all encompassing, and the overwhelming majority of organizers want to see people enjoy a higher quality of life, but denial can't hide that it happens.

Having said all that, let's go to the dueling AFSCME letters, articles and some other statements made in the last 2 days. Then I'll give my final prognosis.

However, [Eliot Seide, executive director of AFSCME Council 5] said, there are larger issues in a U.S. Senate race than any employer-employee relationship. - "Klobuchar's work with staff is focus of a union battle," by Patricia Lopez, Star Tribune February 19, 2006.

While this statement is arguably true, unions were founded on employer-employee relationships. As unions stray further away from representing the opinions of those employees who pay membership dues it shouldn't be shocking that fewer and fewer people join unions or organize. Reiterating my earlier point; unresponsive to those they serve.

"With this settlement, Mr. Appleby has no reason to write such a mean-spirited and angry letter." Letter from Paul Scoggin Managing Attorney, Violent Crimes Division Hennepin County Attorney’s Office to AFSCME Council 5 President Michael Buseing.
"But it seems to me that the letter is little more than politically motivated complaints of an employee who got a 15% pay raise instead of 22%." "BREAKING: AFSCME Endorses Klobuchar," Matt, MN Publius February 19, 2006 01:32 PM.
"Clearly, Klobuchar deserves the AFSCME endorsement she received today despite the petty grudge of one employee that received a 15% wage increase instead of 22%." Ibid.

These statements are perhaps the most damaging, anti-union words I've heard not coming from the mouths of corporate public relations people. For years anti-labor proponents have focused on the idea that unions only care about money and thus eventually drive companies out of business. The spin on this subject is apparently complete, as two supposedly pro-labor sources destroy the unions from within by reinforcing the idea that the complaint is only motivated by financial greed. But the sources are dubious at best if not duplicitous:

This is pure speculation as I cannot ascertain if Mr. Scoggin is a union member of the Local, but as a Managing Attorney he could be in his position because Klobuchar's, "priority has been to choose candidates who support her ambitions."* Both Scoggin and Pete Cahill, Klobuchar's chief deputy attorney, would both seem to fall under this statement which would explain their Klobuchar-apologist quotes in Lopez's article. *Local 2938 President James Appleby on behalf of the Executive Board of Local 2938
MN Publius continually states that the letter is from one disgruntled employee, rather than the President of the county employees' Local, on behalf of the executive committee, responding to the concerns of their members. That's a lot more than one person! But MN Publius has consistently shown themselves to be the media arm of the Klobuchar campaign (like FOX is for the Republican Party), so they're just doing their job.
If the letter is only about the last pay-raise dispute, then why did the local oppose Klobuchar's endorsement 4 years ago? Maybe it actually has something to do with the next point...

"only 'a couple of grievances a year' had made it to [Cahill's] level during the five years he had been Klobuchar's chief deputy." Lopez, Star Tribune, February 19, 2006.
"If this had been about serious grievances one would expect there to have been some record of increased registered complaints in the office or a wider range of complaints levied against Klobuchar, but neither of these occurred." Matt, MN Publius, February 19, 2006 01:32 PM.

The second point above is so blatantly false it's staggering, but its inclusion is there only to solidify the earlier statement that MN Publius is shilling for Klobuchar's campaign.

Working conditions are overwhelming why unions were originally forged, despite resistance and bloodshed, in the early years of the 20th Century. And while no one at the county office is in danger of losing an arm (we hope) addressing complaints is the main reason people do choose to organize. So only "a couple" get to Cahill in a year? That is still more than the one grievance former County Attorney Mike Freeman had "during his 8 years as county attorney starting in 1991."*Lopez

In fact... let's see... 8 times 2 (couple)... 1 divided by 8 (years) ... if my math is correct that's 2 reported incidents a year versus .125 per year under the previous boss - a 1600% increase. And remember, these are only the complaints that got to Cahill's desk. This does not address what the letter, on behalf of the Local, says involved "informal disciplinary matters in which the union was asked to intervene on the employee’s behalf." Also...

Scoggin's letter does not address the grievances.
Seide said the council has met with members of Local 2938 and hopes to resolve any issues. "These attorneys have legitimate issues with their boss and we are working with the County Attorney to resolve them," he said. Asked if that was the case, Appleby said, "I sure hope so." "State AFSCME endorses Klobuchar in Senate race," Janet Moore, Star Tribune, February 20, 2006.

I sure hope so? Met with members? Obviously the council is not letting the elected Local 2938 representatives in on the proceedings. Kind of reminds me of President Bush saying he's meeting with members of congress on wiretapping concerns, but not with the ranking Democratic committee members... you know, the ones filing the complaints.

So wrapping it up, tomorrow should be uncomfortable at the county courthouse. The Republicans have laughabley issued a challenge for Klobuchar to "come clean about her 'Hostile Work Environment'." Sure thing, right after the President can think of any mistakes he's made while in office. Hopefully this would all be handled internally, but with Klobuchar out the door I don't see labor standards improving until the next County Attorney is sworn in. The Local 2938 members can breath a sigh of relief though, because win, lose or draw in the primary Klobuchar won't be the boss anymore.

Prognosis Boring - Members grumble and stay home during caucuses and primaries, wait for things to get better.
Prognosis Extreme - In retaliation toward being blown off a second strait time, Local members vote to reorganize, leaving Council 5, and work against Klobuchar every step of the way.
Prognosis Ludicrous - After the laborer uprising is put down, the survivors attend mandatory (and unpaid) re-education seminars - which will be on the schedule until moral improves.
Prognosis Progressive - AFSCME Council 5 internally withholds endorsement until, using its endorsement clout, the first steps toward improving conditions are taken.

Tags: Amy Klobuchar, Ford Bell, MN Senate 2006

Attorneys in Klobuchar's office ask their union not to endorse her

2006-02-18T13:35:00.000-06:00

(AP) MINNEAPOLIS - The local union representing the staff of Hennepin County Attorney Amy Klobuchar is asking its parent group, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, not to endorse her in her bid for the U.S. Senate.

Jim Appleby, an assistant Hennepin County attorney and local union president, said in a letter to union leaders this month that Klobuchar had denigrated lawyers at her office publicly and privately, taken credit for their work and "created a hostile work environment."

The two-page letter said Klobuchar's management style had resulted in increased grievances and that she used successfully prosecuted cases to give the public the false impression that she was actively involved in those cases.

The local union represents more than 300 employees in the office, including investigators, paralegals and all 112 of its non-management attorneys.

"Has it made some people angry that I've done some things differently? Yes," said Klobuchar, who held the office since 1999.

Klobuchar said the focus of the discontent seemed to be last year's contract negotiations and the charge that she did not support a wage increase for those employees.

But Appleby disagreed.

"It's about how our people are treated in the workplace," he said.

He said the union also asked that Klobuchar be denied endorsement in 2002, when she was running for re-election. That request was ignored, he said.

Veterinarian Ford Bell is also seeking to be the DFL nominee. The likely Republican candidate is U.S. Rep. Mark Kennedy, who faces only token opposition in his own party.