If You Value Your Life

Don't play the State of the Union drinking game.

Losers

The fainthearted faction.

Yes, Joe, you're still getting singled out because you are easily the most "liberal" senator from the bluest state on the list.

If you live in CT, or would just generally like to help Schmoementum, sign up for Ned Lamont.

Johnny Come Lately

The WaPo.

Now that most scientists agree human activity is causing Earth to warm, the central debate has shifted to whether climate change is progressing so rapidly that, within decades, humans may be helpless to slow or reverse the trend.

Sure took you long enough to realize it, even though it's been obvious for quite some time. And they could've ran this headline instead.

Kerry Craven?

According to Tinman, Kerry's support of the filibuster is nothing more than PR.

If he was serious about it he would have stayed in Washington, held press conferences, lobbied his colleagues and tried to generate as much attention as possible. Since it was just a PR stunt, it wasn't necessary for Kerry to change his travel plans.

The more I think about it the more I agree with this point opinion, but that doesn't mean Kerry's posturing is craven. I think at the very least it has him publicly committing to a progressive position that he can be held accountable for later, unless he wants to succumb to the flip-flop. If we can make our leaders unafraid to come out in support of progressive positions, whether it's political maneuvering or not, then we've started to win the long battle.

Note to WaPo

Read Lakoff.

Link.

Losers

The gang of 14.

The real question is how the media fallout from the Alito vote is going to affect the SOTU tomorrow night.

Grr.

What Goes Around

Paraphrasing Richard Perle in the 80s:

You should leave and let the sort it out for themselves. If you leave the problem solves itself.

This was a line delivered to the Soviet ambassador to the U.S. about ending Soviet occupation in Afghanistan and letting the mujahedeen and Afghans decide their own democracy.

Well I'll be damned.

(From the Power of Nightmares, available at Internet Archive)

Matt Stoller

is dead on.

Wingnuts and Wingnuttier

Coulter "jokes" about killing Stevens.

Alito Debate Blogging

The Alito debate is still going on. I just saw Mark Dayton give a scathing criticism of Bush. His point was that the exemptions Bush has claimed from hundreds of bills that he's signed is blatantly unconstitutional, because nowhere in the Constitution is there a provision for an exemption. The President must either sign or veto a bill. Alito would seek to give more power to the executive, which is unconstitutional. Congress makes the law, it is the President's duty to execute that law. What does it say about a President who nominates someone like that?

I don't know anything about Dayton except that he's retiring, but he was good. Anyone have any info?

Kerry's up now, and slamming Bush and Alito. He's finally got the frames right: this isn't about yes or no, or just a judicial nominee, it's a fight over the future of this country between two competing ideologies. Some might say that it's politically better to wait and vote for Alito, but if we pass on opposition, then what good are we? What good are we doing for this country? The Republican ideology would drive this country backwards. GOPers have been arguing that a justice's duty is to solely interpret the law, but isn't it more important for them to protect every single American? To find that in the law that the weak can be represented against the strong? Alito stands against the weak and those who don't have voices that can compete with the strong. Alito is a replacement for Harriet Miers, and that's really saying something. Alito's interpretation of the unitary executive is narrow and incorrect.

I'm also glad Kerry's been posting on kos. Why do our nominees only get good after they lose?

Chris Matthews is a Bald Faced Liar

and his Grey Lady guest has the gall to compare the truth to a "swiftboat."

The man is disgraceful.

Fig Leaf

Republicans are just trying to look good on the outside.

On the inside, they're still all money and black as coal.

Dr. Gumby

This is sheer genius.

President Bush will propose that Americans be allowed to take tax deductions on more of their out-of pocket medical expenses, as part of an initiative the White House believes will rein in soaring health costs by shifting responsibility toward individuals, according to congressional and other sources familiar with the administration's thinking.

The new tax breaks for personal health spending, to be included in the 2007 budget Bush will release in less than two weeks, are designed to help the uninsured and to allow people with insurance to write off a greater portion of the money they spend on co-payments, deductibles and care that is not covered. Under current tax rules, people can deduct medical expenses only if they exceed 7.5 percent of their adjusted gross income.

What this country needs now is more tax cuts at a time when the deficit is almost tangible enough that it will swallow you up. Did it ever occur to Bush that people who are uninsured do not have enough money to spend on health services to begin with? That these same people probably don't file taxes, or if they do don't care to deduct the expenses? The govts soaring health costs will be reined in because sick, old people will not be able to afford health care any more, and will suffer. This runs completely counter to the idea of healthcare, which is exactly what Bush wants.

Bush's plans for individual healthcare, health savings accounts, and more tax deductions are disasters for the American people. Health premiums will go up for those who are very sick, and they will no longer be able to afford. Have you seen Medicare lately? What we need is a system that catches you if and when you fall, for everyone. Not simply for the people who can afford it at their leisure. Millions upon millions of people will be hung out to dry and suffer if Bush has his way.

Bush Admin to U.S.

Fuck you.

The Bush administration, citing the confidentiality of executive branch communications, said Tuesday that it did not plan to turn over certain documents about Hurricane Katrina or make senior White House officials available for sworn testimony before two Congressional committees investigating the storm response.

The White House this week also formally notified Representative Richard H. Baker, Republican of Louisiana, that it would not support his legislation creating a federally financed reconstruction program for the state that would bail out homeowners and mortgage lenders. Many Louisiana officials consider the bill crucial to recovery, but administration officials said the state would have to use community development money appropriated by Congress.

We don't care about what you think, we're not responsible, and we certainly don't care about poor, black people. Drop dead.

It makes me want to tear out my eyes.

Media Narrative

Peter Daou's latest.

King George and His Grey Lady

I pity the fool who don't get it, T gets it.

The White House opened a weeklong media blitz Monday in defense of the National Security Agency's eavesdropping program, with President Bush saying he found it "amazing" to be accused of breaking the law by ordering a secret program to intercept international calls and e-mail messages.

Bush didn't break the law by intercepting calls in general, he broke the law by intercepting calls without obtaining a warrant, which is obtainable retroactively up to 72 hours.

As for the article, which is approximately 1,200 words long, the following is the only time given to the opposing argument, 120 words long.

Democrats and some Republicans have attacked the program as illegal and unconstitutional, and an analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has strongly questioned its legal underpinnings and the limited briefings that Congressional leaders were given about it. Leading Democrats said Monday that they found the White House's latest line of defense to be unpersuasive, with Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate Democratic leader, saying Mr. Bush's speech reflected a refusal to "come clean" with the public.

"I am eager for the Bush administration to level with the American people and participate fully and openly in upcoming Congressional hearings," scheduled for Feb. 6 in the Senate, Mr. Reid said. "We can be strong and operate under the rule of law."

The entire piece is stenography of General Hayden's recent press conference, and quotes him thoroughly. If this piece was about Hayden's press conference, fine. If I want to read what he said I'll get a transcript. This isn't reporting, it's vomit. If this reporter actually cared about the issue at hand, all he has to do is google for "Bush" "NSA" and "Constitutional" and I'm sure he can find something. Instead, he's just regurgitating talking points. This is pathetic, but what I've come to expect from the NYT.

Channeling Dishonesty

Atrios articulates it well.

Haliburton Poisons Troops

Ok, I'm actually surprised.

Chris Matthews Is a Tool

If you haven't seen the video of Tweety comparing Osama to an over-the-top Michael Moore, please do. Besides the obvious ridiculousness and hypocrisy of this moment, which has been enumerated by the blogs, and even John Kerry, I was struck by a comparison to a similar event.

It was back in June when Dick Durbin (D-IL) read an FBI report aloud in the Senate that described conditions at Gitmo and then said that you'd expect to see that in a Soviet gulag or somewhere similar, but not the U.S. The GOP and the media went batshit on him, calling on him to apologize and attacking him for hurting this country and the almighty war on terror, which he eventually did.

A Democratic member of Congress read aloud from an FBI report, and offered an interpretation. He is sacked.

This time around, a member of the supposed non-partisan and unbiased established media offers a comparison between a known mass murdering terrorist and an outspoken far left filmmaker. There is no outrage. No one in the media cares or even runs this story. Matthews is doubly a tool because 1. the association is ridiculous, and please fill me in on the last time Michael Moore killed thousands of people, and 2. he's a member of the "unbiased" media, not a member of the opposing party in Congress.

Chris, you're soooo brokeback.

Hillary's Center

Here she goes again: First we had the "plantation" comment last week, now she needs to balance that out by trying to appear strong.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) accused the Bush administration of playing down the threat of a nuclear Iran and called for swift action at the United Nations to impose sanctions on the Iranian government.

Guess what, lady? You can't out-Republican a Republican. Especially not you. Everyone sees you for what you are, and no one likes you for it.

Johnny Come Lately

I can hear it now: we care about the troops.

Under pressure to speed the delivery of armor to troops in Iraq, the United States Army has awarded an emergency contract for ceramic plates to protect the sides of soldiers' torsos from insurgents' attacks, military officials said yesterday.

The move, expected to shave three months off the typical contracting process, comes amid a more sweeping effort by the Army to improve its body armor.

Then why has it taken you 2 YEARS to properly equip the troops. This is the federal government of the U.S. It can do almost anything, especially buy better armor for its troops. What the hell have they been doing? So have a drink on yourselves, but I hope it's a drink of evil.

Link.

Washington Post to Truthiness

STFU.

I mean, seriously. Deborah Howell wrote a piece that featured the GOP talking point of "Abramoff gave to both Democrats and Republicans." The fact is that this is not the truth, and Howell could have discovered this via a simple Google search, which she chose not to do, which is another sign of how shoddy her reporting is. Her entire piece carried water - water full of lies - for the GOP, and when commenters on the Washington Post blog complained about it, she had the comments on the blog shut down because some of them were hateful and used profanity.

At its inception, the purpose of this blog was to open a dialogue about this site, the events of the day, the journalism of The Washington Post Company and other related issues. Among the things that we knew would be part of that discussion would be the news and opinion coming from the pages of The Washington Post and washingtonpost.com. We knew a lot of that discussion would be critical in nature. And we were fine with that. Great journalism companies need feedback from readers to stay sharp.

But there are things that we said we would not allow, including personal attacks, the use of profanity and hate speech. Because a significant number of folks who have posted in this blog have refused to follow any of those relatively simple rules, we've decided not to allow comments for the time being. It's a shame that it's come to this. Transparency and reasoned debate are crucial parts of the Web culture, and it's a disappointment to us that we have not been able to maintain a civil conversation, especially about issues that people feel strongly (and differently) about.

How is this any different from Bush's "we need to have an open and honest debate about the war, but Democrats are hurting America by engaging in that kind of speech." This is the kind of reporting I'd expect out of a propaganda outlet, not an institute that practices journalism. How can commenters remain civil when Howell disrespects all of them by publishing her dishonest column? That's a slap in the face to everyone who reads it.

I'm going to get some popcorn and wait for the next "blogs don't have standards and are inferior to established journamalism" article. Maybe some nachos. But no Snickers bars.

Update: Here's Howell's lame response with all the comments before the WaPo shut it down. The comments are awesome. The only profanity I've found so far has been one instance of "shit." One of my favorites:

Dear Mrs. Howell,

Gilligan, the Skipper, the Professor and Mary Ann all voted you off the island.

Thurston Howell III says he wants a divorce.

Better start looking for a raft.

Heeee :)

White House Pest Briefing

Just now on C-Span I saw an elderly white guy ask Scotty: (paraphrased)

Gay, lesbian, bisexual, transvestite and transgender people have threatened to show up and be first in line for the White House's easter egg hunt. What is the President going to do to prevent these activists from assaulting family values?

and

There have been reports of 200 Mexican soldiers on the border and inside the U.S. What is the President doing to protect the integrity of our borders?

Does anyone doubt that the WH is purposefully letting wingnuts in to spread GOP talking points and give Scotty softballs? Journalistic integrity my left asscheek.

Oh, and this was great:

Scott, what about Abramoff in the White House?

Scott: I've said we're not going on a fishing expedition... This was a man who contributed to both Republicans and Democrats.

AND

Scott, do you have anything to say about Abramoff?

Scott: Some of you want to engage in partisan politics, but I'm not going to do that.

Fuck you Scottie, it's not a fishing expedition when it's true, and Abramoff NEVER contributed to Democrats. That's a blatant lie.

Gore v. Abu

Abu is Gored.

The Administration's response to my speech illustrates perfectly the need for a special counsel to review the legality of the NSA wiretapping program. The Attorney General is making a political defense of the President without even addressing the substantive legal questions that have so troubled millions of Americans in both political parties.

There are two problems with the Attorney General's effort to focus attention on the past instead of the present Administration's behavior. First, as others have thoroughly documented, his charges are factually wrong. Both before and after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was amended in 1995, the Clinton/Gore Administration complied fully and completely with the terms of the law.

Second, the Attorney General's attempt to cite a previous administration's activity as precedent for theirs -- even though factually wrong -- ironically demonstrates another reason why we must be so vigilant about their brazen disregard for the law. If unchecked, their behavior would serve as a precedent to encourage future presidents to claim these same powers, which many legal experts in both parties believe are clearly illegal.

Wham, bam, thank you ma'am. Gore responds correctly by not getting bogged down in detail, flipping the burden back onto Abu and framing the issue for what it is - a blatant violation of the law.

Bush v. Gore

Bush just got Gored.

A powerful excerpt:

Fear drives out reason. Fear suppresses the politics of discourse and opens the door to the politics of destruction. Justice Brandeis once wrote: "Men feared witches and burnt women."

The founders of our country faced dire threats. If they failed in their endeavors, they would have been hung as traitors. The very existence of our country was at risk.

Yet, in the teeth of those dangers, they insisted on establishing the Bill of Rights.

Is our Congress today in more danger than were their predecessors when the British army was marching on the Capitol? Is the world more dangerous than when we faced an ideological enemy with tens of thousands of missiles poised to be launched against us and annihilate our country at a moment's notice? Is America in more danger now than when we faced worldwide fascism on the march-when our fathers fought and won two World Wars simultaneously?

It is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they. Yet they faithfully protected our freedoms and now it is up to us to do the same.

Those are the words of a real leader.

Update: Here's a not-so-subtle shot at people like Lieberman:

I call upon Democratic and Republican members of Congress today to uphold your oath of office and defend the Constitution. Stop going along to get along. Start acting like the independent and co-equal branch of government you're supposed to be.

Nuff said.

Sunday Night Work Blogging

Stick em up and say yer prayers, Bushie:

By a margin of 52% to 43%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

snip..

The poll found that 52% agreed with the statement:

"If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."

You sure didn't have those numbers for the last president that some people tried to impeach.

9/11!!!!! Oh, wait...

Why am I not surprised.

The National Security Agency advised President Bush in early 2001 that it had been eavesdropping on Americans during the course of its work monitoring suspected terrorists and foreigners believed to have ties to terrorist groups, according to a declassified document.

The NSA's vast data-mining activities began shortly after Bush was sworn in as president and the document contradicts his assertion that the 9/11 attacks prompted him to take the unprecedented step of signing a secret executive order authorizing the NSA to monitor a select number of American citizens thought to have ties to terrorist groups.

Bush's first defense was that wiretapping was necessary because of 9/11, and Dick Cheney stated that if the federal govt. had been doing this earlier, it could have prevented 9/11. I think it's time they went and fucked the hell out of their black hearts of coal. Bush has been committing treasonous acts against this country, its people and its Constitution, which he has sworn to uphold. He is definitely impeachable, and this country needs to remind him what happened the last time we had a king.

Read the full article.

Six Times Dead

For Al-Qaeda's #2. Practice makes perfect.

Republican Talking Points

Get 'em by the dozen at the NYT.

Borkemada Blogging, Day 5

The Dems' witnesses are slamming Borkemada for limiting civil and voting rights. This is what the hearings should have been about, not Borkemada's kabuki.

In Bork's own words:

BLITZER: Very diplomatic answer, I must say. How do you think he handled himself?

BORK: Very well. He's walking away from a lot of things. That was one example.

BLITZER: Including you, right.

BORK: Yes.

BLITZER: So why do you say he handled himself very well?

BORK: The object nowadays is to get confirmed. People will say pretty much -- or avoid saying pretty much in order to get confirmed.

There you have it. After Borkemada's lovefest with Bork, it's not going to get any more honest than that. Bork may be crazy, but at least he's honest.

It would be a crime if this man is confirmed right after Martin Luther King Day.

Man of Many Names

Alito, ScAlito, BorkAlito, Borkemada, whatever.

Hunter nails him.

More BorkAlito Blogging, Day 4

The witnesses are up now, and the ABA's totally shilling for him. Everyone's doing the same dance around the CAP issue, but vaunting his integrity.

How can you utter those two things in the same breath when the CAP issue totally undermines his credibility? "I don't remember." Come on.

BorkAlito Blogging, Day 4

Well, the questioning is over. The Democrats are pissed, and I can't see any of the members of the judiciary committee voting for him, but Leahy could have used a little more fight in him.

Lindsay Graham is still a fuck, and so is the NYT. Graham was the only one who hit BorkAlito with those comments, not a single Democrat.

ReddHedd is still on it.

More BorkAlito Blogging, Day 3

Kennedy had a spat with Specter in which Specter got his ass kicked.

DeWine: Lavish us with your brilliant intellect.

Feinstein: You've shelved the trophy for equanimity. You suck.

Sessions (who loosk like an evil elf): Boy you're smart.

Feingold: You're full of it and you love the death penalty, that's pretty sick.

Graham: We'll scratch your back and let you off the hook for everything if you scratch ours and let us off the hook for everything illegal DeLay/Abramoff we've ever done. But Ted Kennedy is an embarassment.

I have lost any shred of respect I had for Lindsay Graham. His entire approach to making fun of
the hearings is nothing short of disgusting. He gave a tirade on how BorkAlito must be confirmed because of his stirling character, yet BorkAlito has lied about CAP, stare decisis, Bork, and Roe. That demonstrates a flawed and pathetic character. All the more reason to stop this nomination.

Schumer: You say you believe in settled law and Roe, but why can't you give us a straight answer on whether Roe is settled?

Alito: I think I was more forthcoming about those other settled law questions. I should've taped my mouth shut.

Cornyn is trying to prove that BorkAlito opponents are crazy because they were going to call a a witness who believes that the killing animals for food and other products is the same thing as the holocaust. What I want to know is how is this guy any more crazy than Sen. Coburn, who believes that we're schizophrenic because we're ok with prostitution but don't care for "unborn" people. If this isn't a tractor calling a spade, I don't know what is. Cornyn is as batshit crazy as Coburn.

BorkAlito Blogging, Day 3

Durbin: What the hell is up with your membership in CAP? The ROTC line makes no sense. Your former colleague is very troubled by it.

ScAlito: I've hired women, so I can't possibly be discriminatory. I don't remember anything about CAP, but I definitely joined it for the ROTC issue.

Durbin said he was going to question BorkAlito on CAP, and followed up true to form. BorkAlito's answer still makes no sense.

The scary line of reasoning I'm seeing from Brownback and other crazy GOP senators is that Plessy v. Fergusson was finally overturned, and therefore stare decisis is crap. They're going to try and use this to overturn Roe.

ScAlito, Don't Be a Thomas

Shorter Schumer: Thomas lied to us about his views on stare decisis, don't go there.

After ScAlito said that he believed that stare decisis holds in almost all cases, Schumer pointed this out:

SEN. SCHUMER: Okay. Well, let's see who said that one. It was Robert Bork when he came before this committee to be nominated.

Now, here's what Justice -- Judge Bork wrote in the National Review Online just a few weeks ago. He wrote, quote:

Overturning Roe v. Wade should be the sine qua non of a respectable jurisprudence. Many justices have made the point that what controls is the Constitution itself, not what the court has said about it in the past.

And even before his hearing, by the way -- he sort of cut back on what he said at the hearing, I guess -- it may have been in different context, but here is a quote that he'd said a few -- a year, I think, before he came before us. He said

I don't think that in the field of constitutional law, precedent is all that important.

He said, in effect, that a justice's view of the Constitution trumps stare decisis.

. . . And one of the things I'm concerned about here is that what you wrote about Judge Bork in 1988. And by the way, this was not when you were working for someone or applying for a job. As I understand it, you were the U.S. Attorney in New Jersey, well ensconced, very good U.S. Attorney, and it was with some New Jersey news outlet. I saw the site, but I didn't know what it was.

And you said about Justice Bork:

I think he was one of the most outstanding nominees of this century. He's a man of unequaled ability [and] understanding of constitutional history.

. . .

JUDGE ALITO: Well, I certainly was not aware of what he had said about stare decisis when I made those comments. I have explained those comments. They were made when I was a -- an appointee of President Reagan, and Judge Bork was --

SEN. SCHUMER: But you weren't -- excuse me. You weren't working in the White House. You were a U.S. attorney prosecuting cases. There was no obligation for you to say what you said, right?

JUDGE ALITO: No, but I had been in the Department of Justice at the time about --

SEN. SCHUMER: You know, but it was a voluntary interview with some New Jersey news outlet. Is that correct?

JUDGE ALITO: And I was asked the question about Judge Bork, and I had been in the department at the time of the nominee -- at the time of his nomination, and I was an appointee of President Reagan, and I was a supporter of the nomination.

This judge is simply not up to the challenge of telling the truth.

ScAlito Evening Blogging

Schumer: (totally on stare decisis) Don't be a little Thomas. He lied to us about his views on stare decisis. You just said you believe it's strong, but is not always applicable, yet your favorite jurist is Bork, who said that stare decisis isn't worth shit. What's up with you? Who's your daddy?

Alito: I don't know, we gotta see what will happen.

Alito got really flustered at this point.

Cornyn: Let me stop sucking your cock for a few minutes so I can congratulate you, and poo poo those left wing senators for beating up on you, Samsy-Wamsy.

More ScAlito Blogging

Back from the break...

Kyl: Aren't there different kinds of liberty? And doesn't someone lose out?

ScAlito: Yep.

I think I just saw a shocking admission of moral relativism from a conservative. The fundies should be howling by now. But furthermore, that's just a green light from ScAlito that he will be deciding in favor of someone's liberty, where someone will probably be male, corporate, and heavily powerful.

Kyl: Damn, you're smart and I like you. I'm going to spend the rest of my time proving that there are instances your 4000+ case history in which you don't fit the left wing stereotype. You've agreed with O'Connor before, therefore I'm sure you'll make a proper replacement.

Kohl: What's up with you? There's reasonable disagreement and then there's you. Don't you know about protecting right and individuals?

ScAlito: Well, the Constitution's awful general in some places and super specific in others. Although exactly how I'm not going to say.

Kohl: We can see your judicial philosophy in who you admire. In an interview, you said you'd like to pork Bork.

ScAlito: Well, I guess I'd pork him, but only on my terms. Roe is still touchy for us, and I don't like it when Bob gets fussy, and I'm trying to put on a show here. Also, I was just doing my job as a shill for a Republican administration with a deluded executive. I'd never do that again.

Kohl: Tradition values?

ScAlito: I love the 50s. There was a lot of crime in the 60s. Crime bad.

Kohl: It's pretty obvious you have no regard for average working men and women.

ScAlito: Based on a technicality in the law, I cannot.

Kohl: I know you don't like commenting on cases that might come up again, but what do you think about Bush v. Gore?

ScAlito: As you say, it stands against my principles, but I really have no idea because I don't know it. It really wasn't that big.

DeWine: Distortions of your record that differ from how we'd like to spin you and make you seem crazy bother me. I'm going to whine for a while. (Why are Republicans ashamed of themselves?) Anyone's record can be distorted, and it's not fair. (WTF is up with GOP moral relativism today?) I like you and would like to bear your children because you're so excellent. Now I'm going to ask you pointless questions that show off how large your brain is and how much knowledge it contains.

DeWine: Now I've got your back if you want to overturn Roe, I don't like it one bit. Super precedent also doesn't exist for things that aren't justified and that I don't like.

DeWine really is not shutting up and has been blathering for quite some time now.

DeWine: Stop being such a pussy and own up to your conservative cred. Now what about the power to stop porn from destroying our country?

ScAlito: Stop making me look bad. Ok, fine, the internet has changed everything, and I think we might have to enact sweeping powers to stop the internets. We also can't undermine parents who don't understand technology. Children need to learn their place. In the shed with them, now!

Feinstein: What do you think about the commerce clause? Specifically, Lopez?

ScAlito: I'm just going to dodge any real question you throw at me. See? Missed me.

Feinstein: What about abortion?

ScAlito: Well, it's complicated.

Feinstein: Care to elaborate?

ScAlito: Not really.

Sessions: Who's ready for some softball? Philosophy. Character. Now how about that now.

ScAlito Blogging, Day 2

Shorter Specter/ScAlito exchange this morning:

Specter: So, we've got these things like the Constitution, stare decisis, limits on presidential power. How bout 'em?

ScAlito: Well, they are there and they're respectable. But we'll see what happens.

I missed the other senators before the break this morning, I'll try to catch up later, but in the meantime ReddHedd is doing a great job on blogging the hearings. I agree with her that it looks like Graham's coaching is showing - a lot of vague platitudes, no specifics, and a lot of lying.

It's the Dollar, Stupid

This is what happens when you create enough debt that it no longer becomes attractive.

China has resolved to shift some of its foreign exchange reserves -- now in excess of $800 billion -- away from the U.S. dollar and into other world currencies in a move likely to push down the value of the greenback, a high-level state economist who advises the nation's economic policymakers said in an interview Monday.

This will only go a ways to depressing the dollar, which needs to happen as a result of the boneheaded economic policies Bush enacted. The dollar drop will lead to a decline in imports and with any luck will hamstring our ever-expanding trade deficit. The world is losing confidence in the U.S. economy, which has largely been buoyed by them buying our debt for the past 10 years. When we no longer have cheap and easy access to funds and are no longer able to live a lifestyle built on debt, reality will hit home and the average consumer is going to find himself in a huge hole.

ScAlito Hearings

Let the games begin. Watch live on C-Span here.

(12:56 pm) Grassley seems a little miffed about the Alito's flirtations with dictatorship, but he's going to vote for him.

(12:58 pm) Biden's calling ScAlito out for what he is. Why can't he be this good all the time? Why does he have to sponsor MBNA legislation?

(2:20 pm) Graham: It's OK to lie to get employed (like ScAlito lying to the Reagan administration about Roe), so you're OK with us. Translation: You will do as we say. IOKIYAR.

(2:24 pm) Graham: This is revenge for Ginsberg. BURN COMMIES! BURN!!!!!!

(2:30 pm) Schumer: You're out of touch with the 3rd circuit, bitch. You may be all down with worshipping King George, but we're not. Baseball metaphor: you'd make a crappy umpire.

(2:38 pm) Cornyn: You are the son of god and I could not kiss a finer, whiter ass. Democrats who vote against you are liberal special interest groups who worship Satan. Liberals are out to push an agenda so pinko that they will never pass the mainstream while conservatives and reactionaries are all about the mainstream and have no agenda. (Aside: I love how these Repubs never actually discuss actual laws and facts)

(2:42 pm) Cornyn: The Supreme Court has been repressing religion (WTF?). You have a good, neutral record on the 3rd circuit. Porn should be outlawed.

(2:46 pm) Durbin: You bear the burden of proof to see if you can succeed O'Connor. The SC is what gave us racial integration and marriage, not Congress. We all know you're a rightwing nutjob, why can't you just own up to it?

(2:55 pm) Brownback: ScAlito has stood up for minorities, 4 times. Count it. On both your hands. And feet. Four times. Politics should be politics, legal should be legal. (When will people realize that there's no clear line between the two? Besides, doesn't Congress make laws?) The courts can't write or execute law, but they can say what the law is.

(3:04 pm) Brownback: Zygotes are people too, and the left are mass murderers.

(3:06 pm) Coburn: When did we decide it was legal to kill our unborn children? (Just a definitive issue here, but if it's unborn, how can it be a child?) We can protect sodomy but not prostitution. We need a foundation created by god in order to govern.

(3:35 pm) ScAlito: I'm a big supporters of women's education. (Then PLEASE explain your involvement with CAP)

I forget when, but Feingold came out guns blazing. He's still our man.

Cough, Hack

From the WaPo:

A majority of Americans favor the confirmation of federal appeals court judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the U.S. Supreme Court and an even larger proportion believe Alito would not vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 high court ruling that legalized abortion, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll.

That's kinda funny, because a majority of Americans do not favor overturning Roe or expanding presdiential power to dictatorial status. Because that's what we'd get with ScAlito. Nevermind that first paragraph is just shoddy reporting designed to cover up the actual results.

According to the poll, 38 percent predict Alito will vote on abortion issues in ways that do not significantly alter Roe. Another 26 percent said they expect Alito to favor greater restrictions on abortion but not to strike down the ruling. Slightly fewer than one in five--18 percent--say they believe he would vote to overturn the decision.

Simple addition, which I learned after many, many grueling courses in college, and apparently is not a requirement in life, much less journamalism, says that 26 + 18 = 44, which says that 44% of Americans believe that ScAlito will restrict and make harder the ability to receive an abortion. The Post, or Richard Morin in particular here, comes to that large proportion that believes that Roe will not be overturned by subtracting 100 - 18 = 72. That clouds what is really at stake here - how much people are worried about their right to privacy. It's even more ridiculous to say that a majority of Americans favor confirmation when your number is 53%, and later in the bowels of your text you state:

The Alito nomination has yet to galvanize opposition among Democratic rank-and-file, the survey found. Democrats remain split over Alito, with 40 percent supporting the appointment while 39 percent oppose it. Even among liberals, those who oppose him (44 percent) narrowly outnumber supporters (38 percent).

Three in four Republicans--76 percent--favor confirmation while slightly fewer than half of all self-described political independents say Alito should be approved.

Lord only knows what kind of question they actually asked to get 40% of Democrats supporting the appointment. But the fact remains that fewer than half of all Democrats and indepedents support the nomination, and only 76% of all Republicans. Beats me how that turns into a majority of Americans. This is some seriously shoddy reporting and pollwork, and during the course of writing this post I figured MyDD would have something similar on this topic, and lo and behold they do, so read on for the Alito Polling Myth.

Update: For more polling fun, check out the Harris poll.

The Wolf Who Sighed Boy

Sorry Terry, NO Democrat accepted any money from Abramoff.

via C&L, here's people powered Howard to take you down.

Took You Long Enough

From today's Washington Post:

A report by Congress's research arm concluded yesterday that the administration's justification for the warrantless eavesdropping authorized by President Bush conflicts with existing law and hinges on weak legal arguments.

I was going to let it go at that until I saw this:

The findings, the first nonpartisan assessment of the program's legality to date, prompted Democratic lawmakers and civil liberties advocates to repeat calls yesterday for Congress to conduct hearings on the monitoring program and attempt to halt it.

Are you kidding me? If by nonpartisan you mean ostensibly Republican controlled, then yes, it's the first. Where the hell has this paper been? And how the hell have they forgotten who John Dean is? I guess it took one of their Republican overseers to land the first blow before being courageous enough to hint at the truth.

Leader is Dead, Long Live New Leader

Delay gives up.

Oh, You Mean That War

Still going.

Military officials Friday announced the deaths of six more U.S. troops killed in the recent violence that’s swept Iraq, bringing to 11 the number of Americans slain on the same day. Thousands of Shiites in Baghdad protested the bloodshed and what they claimed was American coddling of Sunni Arab insurgents.

A Marine and soldier died in the attack by a suicide bomber who infiltrated a line of police recruits in Ramadi on Thursday, killing at least 58 and wounding dozens. Two soldiers were also killed in the Baghdad area when their vehicle hit a roadside bomb, the military said Friday.

Keep reading, there's still more.

9/11!!!!!! NINE ELEVEN!!!!!!!!!

I guess Republicans have been so disoriented of late that they almost forgot to use this one:

Vice President Cheney said yesterday that the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks might have been prevented if the Bush administration had had the power to secretly monitor conversations involving two of the hijackers without court orders.

They do not disappoint. 9/11 gave them the freedom to do everything.

Hypocrisy

Is a gay bashing preacher getting his gay on.

Link.

If Bush Had a Time Machine

Brought to you by the Poor Man Institute.

Happy New Year! (again)

Such a good way to kick off 2006.

Former high-powered lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty today to three felony charges in a deal with federal prosecutors that helps clear the way for his testimony about members of Congress and congressional staffers in a wide-ranging political corruption investigation.

It's only the beginning.

Paper Tiger

If it has not yet been clear that our foreign policy has in fact had the opposite effect of emboldening states who are not part of the world order and weakening our power, it is now:

Iran said today that it will resume nuclear fuel research, and appeared to toughen its bargaining position on a Russian proposal meant to head off a showdown with the United States and Europe over Tehran's nuclear program

By pouring our resources into Iraq we have left ourselves unable to assert our power elsewhere, and we have also demonstrated how unprepared we are to complete the mission in Iraq.

Republicans: Weak on defense, Weak on the U.S.

The Power of Nightmares

I just began watching a BBC documentary on Islamic fundamentalism and neoconservatism titled "The Power of Nightmares." You can watch it here. It's actually quite good.

I've only watched the first part so far and I really like it. The thesis I've caught about the births of these two philosophies is that they were reactions to the emptiness and moral decreptitude of liberalism and selfish individualism that threatened to destroy society.

I think the absence of morality in liberalism is something that has ultimately lead to its downfall, as is the absence of empathy. Although progressives believe in a degree of moral relativism, not only do we believe that is a moral right in and of itself, but also there are certain fixed morals out there. Furthermore, a progressive's chief value is empathy - the ties that bind us together. I think progressivism is the best answer we have right now to neocons and for the country and the world.

This has also got me thinking about the seemingly inherent contradiction of progressivism - that we are essentially utilitarians (Bentham) but we believe in love thy neighbor (Kant). How exactly are those two intertwined?

The More Things Change...

Stirling's take on natural resources and war.

The More Things Change...

Stirling on the future of resource wars.

In Case You Thought This Was Legal

It was not. Gonzo can make excuses left and right for how anything that impedes Bush's dictatorial powers is bad for the country, and therefore protecting the Constitution, but even their own know better.

The unusual meeting was prompted because Mr. Ashcroft's top deputy, James B. Comey, who was acting as attorney general in his absence, had indicated he was unwilling to give his approval to certifying central aspects of the program, as required under the White House procedures set up to oversee it.

Face it, Republicans have no respect for law.

Link.