Politics | UnFox News - Not a Propaganda Arm of the Republican Party

Obama Student Loan Overhaul Endangered

Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:23:47 -0600

With Democratic Congressional leaders and the White House struggling on Wednesday to finalize the details of major health care legislation, House Democrats were desperately trying to prevent another of President Obama's top legislative priorities - an ambitious overhaul of student loan programs - from becoming a casualty of the health care battle.

But Democrats in the Senate, where the private student lending industry has strong allies, predicted on Wednesday night that the education bill would not be part of an expedited budget measure containing the final revisions to the health care legislation. Some Democrats said that such a move would stall the student loan changes at a minimum for several months, and perhaps kill the overhaul altogether.

Bill Maher Weighs In On Massa Resignation, 'Closet Cases' In Congress (VIDEO)

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 23:15:58 -0600

Bill Maher unloaded on former Congressman Eric Massa Wednesday night during an appearance on "Countdown with Keith Olbermann," telling guest host Lawrence O'Donnell that Massa predictably blamed a list of cliche factors for his decision to resign.

"When I see this creep give every possible excuse that he could when he was first defending himself, I thought 'wow,'" Maher told O'Donnell. "He goes right down the list. First he blames it on health, then he mentions his family. Then it's the climate in Washington. I thought 'OK, are we gonna get to personal responsibility? Are you gonna get to that part?' And darn-it if he didn't do it. 'Yes, I disappointed myself, cause I'm usually such an awesome dude.' And I thought 'Wow, you stuck the landing dude. You got every single one of them. Now please go kill yourself.'"

Maher wondered aloud how many repressed and closeted lawmakers work in Congress. "I would love to be a fly on the wall in that congressional steam room and see how many closet cases there are in this congress. I think the Vatican has less repressed homosexuals than the United States Congress."

WATCH:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Paul Abrams: Middle Class Bailout: Celebrating Harry Hopkins' 120th Birthday with 4 Million Jobs by August 17th.

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 23:09:08 -0600

The middle class needs a bailout for the same reason the banks needed a bailout--long-term systemic risk. If the (much smaller) government during the Great Depression could hire 4 million people in 4 months, why can we not do that today, now, immediately during the Great Recession?

Like the as-yet to be incurred, but already embedded, long-term costs of the Iraq War, the psychological and career trauma inflicted by prolonged unemployment are yet to be felt. But, they are real, they are profound, and they are increasing every day.

We bailed out the banks because of the risk their failure posed to the entire economic system. The systemic risk of unused and traumatized human capital is just as real and just as profound.

On August 17th of this year, Harry Hopkins, FDR's chief of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA), Civil Works Administration (CWA) and Works Progress Administration (WPA), would have been 120 years old.

August 17th is a good target date for a middle class bailout to celebrate Hopkins 120th birthday and his achievement during the Great Depression.

In 4 months Harry Hopkins hired 4 million people. They built and repaired 200 swimming pools, 3,700 playgrounds, 40,000 schools, 250,000 miles of road, and 12 million feet of sewer pipe.

Many of those pools, playgrounds, schools, roads and sewer pipe are still around. One can bet that many of them need repair or replacement. And, perhaps there are some of the miles of road that, instead, can be high-speed railroad track, some of that sewer pipe can be the electric grid, and so forth.

But, let us not get so far into the weeds that we miss the key concept--hired. Yes, that evil doer, the Federal Government (OMG, no wonder we had a financial meltdown 75 years later, it was all due to government hiring) itself was their direct employer. And people, real people like the ones who live next to you and me, were working--building things of lasting value, bringing home a paycheck, feeding their families, clothing their children, and regaining a measure of pride and self-respect.

But what about cost, what about cost, what about the deficit, help, save us, what can we do, great idea but important to panic first, isn't it, so the idiocracy can yap on TV about family budgets that bear no relevance to government debt in a Great Recession.

If it costs, say, $40,000 fully-loaded for each employed worker, that's $160B or less than Â¼ of the cost to bailout the big banks. {As Federal employees they get health care coverage like the Members of Congress who passed the middle class bailout].

True, that is only about half the jobs we need to make up. Equally true, the money only covers one year's employment.

But, the private sector should be able to make up the other half with the pump-priming the first half creates. We can, if necessary, appropriate another $160B next year to keep the 4 million employed on these useful projects if we have to, and still be half of what it cost to bailout the big banks. Since, we are told, most of that TARP money is being repaid, then "voila!", we will still be running at net positive. And, of course, some of that money will come back as taxes.

On August 17th, let us bake a big cake, and blow out 120 candles to celebrate 4 million jobs--and Harry Hopkins' 120th birthday.

Illinois Republicans nominate anti-gay state lawmaker as gubernatorial candidate

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 23:00:00 -0600

State Sen. Bill Brady's nomination comes on the heels of his proposal that would have amended Illinois' Human Rights Act to allow certain religious institutions to opt-out of the law.

Senate passes $149 billion for jobless aid (Reuters)

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 22:45:06 -0600

Reuters - The Senate on Wednesday passed a $149 billion package of jobless aid and tax breaks, as Democrats continued efforts to lower the 9.7 percent unemployment rate before congressional elections in November.

Aaron Zelinsky: Liz Cheney Announces New "Unpatriotic Seven": Alexander Hamilton "Irate"

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 22:10:49 -0600

Following her call to remove the "Al-Qaeda Seven," Liz Cheney has released a list of seven additional U.S. officials whose work on behalf of enemies of the state makes them unfit to serve their country:

John Adams defended British solders accused of perpetrating the Boston Massacre; he even had the gall to call it "one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country."

Alexander Hamilton represented Crown Loyalists following the Revolutionary War and advocated against expelling them from the United States.

Abraham Lincoln defended the accused murderer of Lincoln's former commanding officer in the Black Hawk War.

Henry Clay defended Aaron Burr, who was accused of trying to make war on Mexico.

Felix Frankfurter publicly argued for a retrial of alleged anarchist murderers Sacco and Vanzetti.

Robert Taft aided Nazi war criminals by criticizing the Nuremberg Trials.

Telford Taylor, chief prosecutor at Nuremberg Trials, turned soft and defended Communists during the 1950s.

Cheney's office declined to comment on reports that she is aggressively pursuing the abolition of the penny and the ten dollar bill.

Sudan’s Divorce Proceedings – Borglobe

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 21:03:45 -0600

Sudan's Divorce Proceedings
Borglobe
With two violent conflicts on the brink of escalation, a president indicted for war crimes, and an election next month, Sudan is set to explode. …

and more »

More: continued here

Bill Shireman: Glenn Beck and Michael Moore Agree: 10 Reminders for the Ruling Parties

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 20:47:10 -0600

Glenn Beck and Michael Moore agree on one thing: If we could just beat the Republicans AND the Democrats this November, maybe we'd have a shot at solving the enormous challenges we face.

But since that's not likely, I would like to offer ten reminders to each party, to help them avoid some of the failings of their past and present.

10 REMINDERS FOR DEMOCRATS

1. Looking compassionate is not the same as being compassionate.
2. Crutches disable as often as they enable - use them briefly and wisely.
3. Giving power to government is not the same as giving power to people.
4. Most profit is virtuous. It is a reward for creating value, not taking it.
5. It's more important to create value than redistribute it.
6. You can't give away what you don't own.
7. Government is to advance justice and order. Business is to advance ingenuity and prosperity. Don't hire one to do the other's job.
8. More work does not mean more jobs.
9. Most evil is the work of good people doing what's best for their family.
10. There is no "them." There is only us.

10 REMINDERS FOR REPUBLICANS

1. Rigidity is not Strength. Close-mindedness is not confidence.
2. You can't promote the Bill of Rights by violating it.
3. You can't advance democracy by imposing it by force.
4. Brave and Free, not fearful and insecure, are the qualities great leaders inspire.
5. 300,000 deaths do not avenge the murder of 3,000.
6. Killing terrorists requires precise aim.
7. You cannot protect 300 million rich by frightening 3 billion poor.
8. In military matters, Smart is as important as Strong.
9. Those who seek liberty through security lose both. Security is the result, not the foundation, of liberty.
10. The "Last Resort" should be the last resort.

And one reminder for ideologues from both sides: Things aren't that bad - yet - and those enemies of yours not that evil. Go ahead - talk to them, and us. Let's work some things out.

What The Voters Want: As Washington Dithers, Public Demands More Jobs

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:29:02 -0600

WASHINGTON — They just don't get it in Washington.

There's a gaping disconnect between what Americans care about and what President Barack Obama and Congress, Democrats and Republicans are actually doing. A new Associated Press-GfK poll tells the story: contempt for lawmakers, a bare majority approving what Obama's doing.

Or just listen to Robert Watson.

He backed Obama in 2008. He lost his job at a direct mail company in the Great Recession. And he's been looking for work ever since. Neither Obama nor Congress, Watson says, is addressing what really matters: "I'm still unemployed."

"There's nobody doing any hiring," he says. And when they are, "100 people are going for the same job." He wants Obama to focus more on creating jobs, Congress to stop the partisan games and both to remember who sent them to Washington.

"They just can't seem to agree on what's important for this country," laments Watson, 59, of Annapolis, Md. "It's just a mess."

Now look at Washington.

The White House and Congress are consumed with the partisan gridlock on overhauling health care. That issue is overshadowing everything else – even legislation in the House and Senate to provide unemployment relief.

The Senate did vote Wednesday to extend many elements of last year's economic stimulus, including help for the jobless. But that isn't final: The vote merely sends the measure into talks with the House, which is wary about some Senate provisions.

At the same time, Democrats and Republicans are jockeying for the upper hand on every issue they can ahead of this fall's midterm elections. Corruption is the latest: Each party has spent the past week painting the other as more tainted.

Job creation and economic recovery – and cooperation in Washington to achieve them – are too often taking a back seat.

The gulf between what voters are focused on and what Washington is talking most about seems as wide as the anger is deep in America, and that helps explain why people are so turned off, so furious at politicians of any stripe.

Only 22 percent of Americans – less than at any previous point in Obama's presidency – approve of Congress, the new AP-GfK poll shows. Just over half like what Obama's doing. Frustration is directed at both Republicans and Democrats. Half of all people say they want to fire their congressman.

Unemployment and the economy are among the issues Americans are most concerned about; health care trails behind those issues as well as terrorism and the federal budget deficit.

Despite promises to do things differently, Democrats and Republicans alike are engaged in the politics of usual, maneuvering for election-year advantage. And that's exactly what their constituents say they don't want. People are tired of the games. And why wouldn't they be?

Nearly 10 percent of Americans don't have jobs, and the prospects for finding them anytime soon are bleak. The Labor Department reported Wednesday that unemployment rose in 30 states in January, evidence that jobs remain scarce in most regions of the country. From coast to coast, Americans are questioning whether anyone they've elected is on their side – and actually working for them.

Even voters who supported Obama and his Democrats have soured on Washington. That's a danger for the party in power as it looks to hang onto control of the House and Senate in November. Angry voters tend to reject the status quo; that's how Democrats rose to power in Congress in 2006 and Obama won the White House in 2008. Today, voters are still furious with Washington – if not more so. And now Democrats could be blamed.

Simply listen to voters, and you'll hear their priorities – and their frustrations – loud and clear.

"The jobs, the economy is a much bigger issue for this country than trying to push this health care bill through," says Republican John Campbell of Del Rio, Texas. He wants both Obama and Congress to shift the focus – and work with each other.

"There needs to be some bipartisanship," says Campbell, 52, a warden at a federal detention center.

College student Claire Hatton of Wellington, Ohio, seems jaded at age 19.

"It doesn't seem to me like a whole lot is getting done except politics in Washington," says this self-identified independent. Enough with the arguing, enough with the fighting, she adds. "They should be working together and trying to get more things accomplished to benefit everyone."

And Obama?

"He should be doing more of what he said he would be doing," Hatton says. "He's straying off of campaign promises."

Retired kindergarten teacher Ann Heffernan of Memphis, Tenn., who doesn't belong to a political party, also questions Washington's agenda.

"They should be trying harder to get jobs for people," says Heffernan, 84.

Congress, Obama – "they just seem to be working against each other, and I don't see either one of them making big progress," she says.

"There is such a polarity" in Congress, bemoans retiree Carl Cheney, a Democrat from Wellsville, Utah.

Is government working for him?

"Heavens no," Cheney, 76, says, and launches into a blistering critique.

"Their most important job they feel is to get re-elected, and they have no concern for the nation or the public" – or what matters most to voters. His advice to lawmakers: "Try to develop a little statesmanship instead of individual greed and interest in their jobs."

Democrat Benny Newman, 79, of Tulsa, Okla., recently lost his job in a local school district because of budget cuts.

He says neither Obama nor Congress is doing right: "Just bundle them in the same bag."

"They're spending too much money," he says, adding: "The economy is not well enough to support some of the things that they're doing."

Judging by what both Obama and Congress are wrestling with, he says: "I don't think either one of them is interested in the general public."

Or, more to the point, listening to it.

___

EDITOR'S NOTE – Liz Sidoti is the AP's national political writer and has covered national politics since 2003. Christine Simmons has covered Washington for the AP since 2007. AP Writers Ann Sanner and Natasha Metzler contributed to this report.

How Reagan’s Propaganda Succeeded (Middle East Online)

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:03:28 -0600

From his insider vantage point, McClellan cited the White House’s ‘carefully orchestrated campaign to shape and manipulate sources of public approval’ – and he called the Washington press corps ‘complicit enablers’.

More: continued here

War Crimes Trial Of The Century – OpEdNews

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:03:08 -0600

War Crimes Trial Of The Century
OpEdNews
The war crimes trial of the century will be the World Court versus George W Bush and Dick Cheney. …

and more »

More: continued here

Joanne Doroshow: Time to Reform That Other Insurance Industry

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:01:27 -0600

We all depend on reasonably-priced insurance to function and I'm not talking just about heath insurance. Without affordable property-casualty insurance, we couldn't drive cars or own homes, doctors wouldn't be able to practice medicine, small businesses like day care centers wouldn't exist and local governments couldn't function. Having insurance is not an option. For better or worse, the property-casualty insurance industry is a critical sector of the U.S. economy.

It's also one of the least regulated, and most influential, profitable and unaccountable industries in the nation, answering to no federal agency and regulated by a nation of mostly weak state agencies. It is exempt from federal anti-trust laws. Most state insurance departments have little ability to control insurance rates. With few exceptions, these departments have neither the funding nor political will to exercise proper control over this industry, save its main regulatory job - to prevent a company's insolvency. Policyholders have very little protection otherwise. The result is an industry that can make extraordinary claims and demands on lawmakers that go nearly unchallenged.

Indeed, it is an industry capable of threatening major damage to a state's economy. It usually gets what it wants. I recall that back in 1986, all five West Virginia medical malpractice insurance companies threatened to pull out of the state unless insurance industry regulatory laws were repealed. The state Supreme Court stopped them but the legislature capitulated anyway and repealed these laws.

This kind of power has made states incredibly slow to act when it comes to regulating insurers. The one big regulatory success story - Prop. 103 in California - came about in 1988 when voters, tired of inaction by the legislature, rose up in the face of massive insurance industry spending and voted in strong regulation. (See the Consumer Federation of America's report finding years later that California was the top-performing state for keeping rates down and providing comprehensive consumer protection.)

But then look at Illinois, one of the least regulated insurance markets in the nation. When Illinois lawmakers passed their clearly unconstitutional "cap" on compensation for medical malpractice victims a few years ago, they also passed insurance reform with strong rate oversight and new transparency requirements. Suspecting the "cap" would be invalidated (almost guaranteed since two prior "caps" had been struck down), the industry demanded, apparently with the backing of the medical lobbies, that a "non-severability" clause be added. That meant that if the cap were struck down, the industry regulatory laws would be thrown out as well. This happened last month.

The real tragedy is that the Illinois Division of Insurance believes that these new insurance reforms (and not the cap) so greatly improved the medical malpractice insurance environment with expanded coverage and lower premiums for doctors, that it is now practically begging lawmakers to repass it.

Why don't doctors get this? They complain, correctly, that they are being price-gouged by their medical malpractice insurers, but refuse to join with consumer groups to push for strong insurance industry regulation. I once asked the then head of the American Medical Association, Dr. Donald Palmisano, about this - on live television. I said politely, "I do not know why people like Dr. Palmisano and the rest of the AMA do not join with consumer groups like ours to advocate for strong reforms of the insurance industry." He responded by attacking us and complaining about the U.S. legal system - as usual. Medical societies do a tremendous disservice to their members by taking such a view.

Unfortunately, this attitude continues to pop up. In Kansas, for example, there is a case right now before the state Supreme Court challenging a broad and brutal "cap" on compensation that has been in effect since the 1980s. No one really knows what will happen but the Kansas Medical Society is getting ready - and not in a good way. Instead of reacting like the Illinois Division of Insurance and focusing on insurance reforms that could actually increase competition and stabilize rates for doctors, the medical society announced they will work to change the state's constitution. Perhaps this shouldn't be surprising since a Kansas Medical Society affiliate insures most Kansas doctors.

It might be a good idea for doctors in Kansas to listen to a few insiders, though. In 2002, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) repeated some illuminating industry quotes on the Senate floor, like one from the American Insurance Association: "[T]he insurance industry never promised that tort reform would achieve specific premium savings." These quotes reminded us of an even earlier remark from the Assistant Vice President for State Farm, who in 1986 sent a letter to the Kansas Insurance Department warning that premiums won't drop because, "[W]e believe the effect of tort reform on our book of business would be small. ... [T]he loss savings resulting from the non-economic cap will not exceed 1% of our total indemnity losses." Didn't matter. The "cap" passed.

The property-casualty insurance industry exercises political clout with impunity because of its dominant position in the economy and because lawmakers are intimidated by its power. It is going to take strong political leadership to rein this industry in. We hope someone tries.

Mike Nellis: Democratic Senate Candidates Running on the Public Option

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:50:36 -0600

This is a big piece of momentum for real health care reform advocates.

As the Progressive Change Campaign Committee continues to whip Senators on passing a public option with reconciliation, Democratic Senate candidates in Arkansas and North Carolina are taking a populist tone as they start campaigning on the public option. Mother Jones published a piece on this yesterday morning:

North Carolina Secretary of State Elaine Marshall, who is looking to challenge Republican Senator Richard Burr, has become one of two Democratic Senate candidates to sign onto a letter ...urging the Senate to pass the public option through reconciliation in the current reform bill. The other is progressive favorite Bill Halter, who has issued a high-profile primary challenge to Senator Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas.

Full disclosure, I am consulting on Elaine Marshall's campaign. But as you can see, it's easy to work for candidates who are willing to take strong progressive stands.

Elaine was the first candidate in the country to sign onto this letter and is proud to join other health care progressives like Bill Halter. She remains the only candidate in the race who is running toward and on the public option -- and this isn't the first time she's made it a point in her campaign.

She's spoken about it several times on Daily Kos, and even launched a petition in October calling the Senate to pass a public option right away. Here is an excerpt from the petition:

As North Carolina citizens and voters, we call upon Senator Richard Burr to put aside politics and vote in support of the public option and health care reform. At some point in the past two years, 34.5 percent of North Carolinians went without health coverage...
The current health care bill being debated in the U.S. Senate is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make real, effective change for America.

Elaine understands what real health reform looks like and isn't afraid to push forward and do what's right for the people she represents. I hope you'll join me in supporting her as North Carolina's next Senator.

Chris Weigant: Banning Earmarks

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:25:22 -0600

While all of Washington is in a frenzy over ex-Representative Eric Massa's groping and tickling, some actual news (and actual progress, one would like to hope) is being made on the subject of ethics in Congress. Sure, it's more fun to watch Massa's implosion on nationwide television, or to come up with headlines that just write themselves (how about: "Weapon of Massa Self-Destruction"?), but we shouldn't allow this sideshow to distract us from what could shape up this year as a contest between Democrats and Republicans over who can denounce earmarks the loudest. And not just denounce -- but actually ban the practice.

House Democrats, led by Appropriations Committee Chair David Obey and Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chair Norm Dicks, have just announced that for the upcoming budget, no earmarks will be allowed which are directed to a specific for-profit company. This will ban the practice of steering Pentagon money to singled-out companies in individual districts -- which are essentially no-bid contracts outside the Pentagon's fiscal control.

This is not as much of a "giant step" in ethical earmark reform as it might initially sound, once you decode the parsed language. Earmarks are generally defined as line-items in budget bills which direct money to be spent for a very specific purpose. They are usually inserted by individual members of Congress to benefit entities in their state or district. These entities can be governmental, non-profit, or for-profit.

From a press release by Speaker Nancy Pelosi:

Today's proposal totally bans corporate earmarks -- critical reform that addresses concerns that many Americans have. It ensures that for-profit companies no longer reap the rewards of congressional earmarks and limits the influence of lobbyists on Members of Congress. This ban will ensure good stewardship of taxpayer dollars by the federal government across all agencies.

To prevent any conflicts of interest, this initiative will empower the Defense Department -- not Members of Congress -- to choose which businesses and projects will receive funding. It will open the doors of the Pentagon to small start-ups with no inside connections. It will also require federal agencies to audit 5 percent of all earmarks directed to non-profit entities, to help ensure that non-profit earmarks go for their intended purpose.

In other words, we're only banning corporate earmarks, not all the rest of them. And it started out as only a one-year (coincidentally, also an "election-year") ban, so you'll have to forgive me if I take a wait-and-see approach to what actually happens in the future. Republicans are still figuring out how to respond to this opening bid, and one of the things they're reportedly discussing is to come out against all earmarks. In other words, they're considering raising the ante in this game.

I should point out that this is all happening only over in the House, at least so far. The Senate isn't particularly interested in banning earmarks, mostly because senators generally get bigger earmarks into the budget than representatives. Neither party in the Senate is likely to embrace banishing earmarks completely, or even partially. This, if the House is successful in any sort of ban, could set up a inter-house budget battle later this year.

This is all to the good, as far as I'm concerned. To have both parties trying to outdo each other on who is going to clean up the lobbyist swamp faster is the type of debate I'd certainly like to see more of from Washington. And one which could resonate deeply with the voters. Because the alternative is to stand firm with lobbyists and a corrupt system, which is not going to be very defensible on the campaign trail this year, I'd wager.

Nancy Pelosi certainly deserves some credit on ethics reform. The Democrats passed a sweeping ethics reform law when they came into power in the House, and they got the House ethics watchdog committee working again (it had been completely broken by the Republicans, previously). But the House ethics panel is simply not good enough to take on the inherent problem. Because every single politician in Washington firmly believes something which is absolutely untrue -- that campaign contributions never (never never never!) buy any influence or access or favoritism when it comes time to write legislation. This is so laughably not the case that it's not even work the ink (photons?) to rebut here.

For instance, here is the House Ethics Committee itself, on its investigation into seven members for their use of earmarks to get carve-outs from the Pentagon budget for their favorite donors (this investigation likely spurred today's announcement by Democrats, by the way):

Simply because a member sponsors an earmark for an entity that also happens to be a campaign contributor does not, on these two facts alone, support a claim that a member's actions are being influenced by campaign contributions.

And if you believe that, I've got a "bridge to nowhere" to sell you. Here's how the story ran in the Washington Post, for contrast:

The House ethics committee, in an investigation of five Democrats and two Republicans on the subcommittee that funds the Pentagon, found that the seven lawmakers steered more than $245 million worth of earmarks to clients of a single firm and collected more than $840,000 in political contributions from the firm's lobbyists and its clients in little more than two years. Most of those clients were for-profit contractors, several of whom told congressional investigators that they thought believed [sic] their donations made it possible for them to win support for their projects.

Even as the Justice Department continues a criminal investigation of this practice, the ethics committee found no "direct or indirect link" in the earmarks-for-contributions allegations, saying the lawmakers each made their decisions independently of the donations. Democratic leaders effectively rejected that ruling Wednesday by declaring the need to forbid such earmarks, although some are pushing for further steps.

Politicians in Washington are used to this doublethink being unquestioned and unquestionable truth -- that campaign contributions buy nothing from them, and that they simply are never influenced by any donor on any issue whatsoever. The fact that it is sheer bunkum escapes them.

But it doesn't escape anyone else. And picking a fight on who can ban more earmarks right now has the possibility of turning the subject into a major campaign issue this year. It feeds into the whole "deficit-hawk" and anti-corruption feeling out there. Personally, I wouldn't mind in the least if every politician being interviewed anywhere on the campaign trail had to answer the question: "Are you for banning all earmarks, and if not, why not?" Because it would force them to defend the practice, which (again) politicians in Washington see as normal behavior, but voters see as rank and rancid corruption of the political process.

John McCain did try to make this an issue in the last presidential campaign. But then, during last year's budget process, the press got confused and tried to hold President Obama to McCain's promises. The net result was earmarks were banned from one budget bill, but not from all of them (making it a shell game, in essence). But McCain had a point. The process is utterly and completely out of control. In one year's budget, thousands of earmarks are now routinely inserted. This isn't the way it used to happen -- earmarks used to be comparatively rare.

Because the process is so absolutely out of control -- and because it is so obviously institutionalized corruption -- the only answer may be to just ban the whole process itself. While Democrats have made an interesting opening bid in this political game by banning all for-profit corporate earmarks, I will be interested to see where the issue goes from here. I would thoroughly approve of an all-out bidding war between Democrats and Republicans on who can ban the most earmarks, and who can make the ban more permanent. It might not help much on the overall size of the budget (earmarks are actually a pretty small fraction of the total budget, in dollar amounts), but ethically and symbolically (and, not least, politically) it would be the right thing to do. For both parties.

Chris Weigant blogs at:

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

House bans some earmarks amid ethics concerns (Reuters)

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:12:49 -0600

Reuters - Democrats in the House of Representatives moved on Wednesday to limit the ability of lawmakers to tuck pet projects into spending bills amid mounting election-year ethics concerns.

The ‘al Qaeda Seven’ – Wall Street Journal

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:03:17 -0600

New York Times

The 'al Qaeda Seven'
Wall Street Journal
Many liberals seem to believe that while it was a war crime to agree with Dick Cheney's antiterror methods, it is somehow a lawyer's patriotic duty to …
Why the Al-Qaeda Seven MatterAINA
Thiessen brings "shameful" attacks on DOJ lawyers to FoxMedia Matters for America

all 88 news articles »

More: continued here

Ian Welsh: Kos Calls For Progressive Civil War

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:03:03 -0600

Kos is threatening Dennis Kucinich, of all people, with a primary if he doesn't vote for health care "reform."

Let me get this straight, Kos wants to primary one of the most reliable and principled progressives in Congress (perhaps the most principled one) because Kucinich doesn't want to vote for a bill which will force Americans to buy crappy health insurance from private companies?

First they came for Massa, and now, not being able to find any dirt on Kucinich, they're putting the pressure on, and Kos is going along with it?

Because, lord knows, what progressives should spend their time and money on this year is primarying someone like Kucinich. What they should do is start a left wing fucking civil war so that Obama, Hoyer and Rahm Emanuel can sit back and laugh as the left wing tears itself apart over a bill which, whether you want it passed or not, no one who is on the left wing should think is better than mediocre.

Be very clear, if "progressives" like Kos want to primary Kucinich, many other progressives will defend him and fight for him. So, instead of picking up new seats, we'll be wasting time and money fighting over a seat already held by a progressive.

Those who want to go after Kucinich are acting as Obama and Rahm's heavies. Acting as enforcers for a President who believes in indefinite detention without trial, who has expanded the war in Afghanistan, gutted civil rights and who wants to force every American to buy health insurance from private companies.

It's time for Kos's 15 minutes to end. The man's stupidity, hubris and willingness to be used by a president who is objectively a conservative means he is now doing more damage to the left than good.

Peter Scheer: California voters to Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown: Show us the records!

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:59:57 -0600

BY PETER SCHEER--As California voters begin the process of selecting the next Governor of the ungovernable Golden State, the leading candidates owe them a demonstration of their commitment to government transparency.

All politicians are supportive of open-government "in principle;" the question is whether they are committed in practice. The best test for that is a candidate's willingness, before an election, to disclose information about himself that is not legally required to be disclosed-but that voters nonetheless want, with good reason, to see.

For Republican candidate Meg Whitman, the test will be whether she decides to release her tax returns. For Attorney General Jerry Brown, presumptive democratic nominee, the test will be whether he opens wide the door to the records of his previous governorships.

Whitman thus far has resisted journalists' requests for a copy of her tax returns. She is, of course, within her rights, legally, in doing so. But in 2010 that is not a right on which a candidate can stand and still expect to be competitive in an election for high office.

Voters' interest in a candidate's tax returns is not just voyeuristic. In the case of a wealthy candidate like Whitman, the former CEO of eBay, tax returns can be a window on her character, showing, for example: whether she is generous with charitable contributions and who benefits from her giving (her alma mater? people in need?); whether she has been aggressive in the use of tax shelters to avoid tax; and how her tax rate compares with the rates that most voters pay.

These data points are both revealing and a matter of legitimate interest to voters. Disclosing tax returns is part of California's political culture for governors. Schwarzenegger has released his taxes. So did Gray Davis and Whitman's fellow eBay millionare, Steve Westly. If Whitman's tax returns contain information that is embarrassing, all the more reason to release them now, before public attention focuses on the governor's race. An embarrassing tax return can even be spun positively--for example, as proof that Whitman is a true outsider who never planned to enter politics.

But disclose the returns she must.

As candidate for Governor, Jerry Brown has left a long paper trail. Not just his years as AG or as mayor of Oakland, but also his two terms as Governor from 1975 to 1983. But don't go looking for the records of his governorship, which are stashed in an archive at University of Southern California in Los Angeles. Under an obscure provision of the Public Records Act (Gov Code section 6268), governors, once they leave office, have the option of locking away their gubernatorial records for a "period of 50 years or the death of the Governor, whichever is later."

Jerry Brown has exercised this option, which means that all the public records of his governorship-including the anti-tax groundswell that resulted in Prop 13, Brown's opposition to the death penalty, his battles with California's oil companies over tax and environmental issues, and much more-are exempt from the Public Records Act.

Put aside for a moment the absurdity of California's 50-year secrecy rule (the records of US presidents, by contrast, are closed off for only 12 years). Brown's pledge of government transparency can't be taken seriously as long as he continues to invoke the Public Records Act's exemption for his gubernatorial records-records which were public while he was governor, which were paid for by taxpayers, and which are now more than 27 years old.

In fairness to Brown, he is willing to pry open the door to these documents on a case-by-case basis. In response to the First Amendment Coalition's record request, Brown, through his lawyer, offered to "waive the fifty-year access restriction . . . as to" the organization's executive director, and he has done the same for several reporters. But the point is that no government official should get to pick and choose who can see public records.

Selective access to information and freedom-of-information are mutually exclusive.

The test for Brown is whether, in advance of the election, he will waive-for the public generally-the 50-year exemption for his gubernatorial records, giving access to all (subject, of course, to the exceptions in the law that apply to any public records). Brown can do this with a stroke of the pen, just as he invoked the exemption in the first place.

If he refuses, voters will not only have reason to doubt Brown's open-government credentials. They will wonder if there's something in the archive that he is trying to hide.
----
Peter Scheer is executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, a nonprofit organization advocating free speech and government transparency.

Adam McKay: An Open Letter to the State of Alabama

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:37:11 -0600

Hey Alabama, first off, congrats on the stellar season the Crimson Tide had. Wow. That defense is nasty. I spent some time in Alabama when we shot Talladega Nights. We stayed in Birmingham. I had what may have been the best ribs ever and also found a great restaurant that made amazing mojitos.

We shot during an actual race at Talladega and I'll never forget that massive crowd and the crazy fun of the infield and the parties they had.

So clearly you're a state that loves America, believes in hard work and God. I got the sense that Alabama is a place where people don't want handouts and don't much care for people talking out of the side of their mouth.

So here's my question: why do you keep electing Senator Shelby?

I know that with all the news being owned by big corporations it's hard to get real information. And with having to work or look for work it's even harder to search for the true story so that's why I thought I'd let you know what Shelby's been doing in the Senate Banking Committee. Currently he's doing everything he can do to kill the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency. This is a watchdog agency that would be created to make sure working people don't get ripped off by big Wall Street Banks and credit card companies.

So why would Senator Shelby fight against the interests of the people of Alabama? Simple. Cause those same banks and credit card companies are the ones who give him a ton of cash. Here's a list of his biggest donors.

I can't imagine any person I met in Alabama being cool with their elected official doing the bidding of giant financial institutions over the working families he's supposed to represent.

Now I know some of you might think I'm some liberal Hollywood type but that's also not true. I was born in Colorado and grew up in Pennsylvania with family in Texas and Oklahoma. The big banks and credit card companies, and health insurance companies have spent billions trying to get you to dismiss truths like this by dismissing it as liberal agitating.

If you don't believe me please call Shelby's office and ask -- (202) 224-5744. They might tell you he is supporting creation of a financial protection agency but they're not being completely truthful. Shelby and Democrat Evan Bahy from Indiana both want the agency to be under the control of the Federal Reserve which is made up of...you guessed it, the very same private, for-profit banks the agency is supposed to regulate. Sneaky shit, eh? Ask them why they think that will work. At the point they will give you some answer about the Federal Reserve being an institution of integrity. Then you know they'll BS'ing you. Tell them you're from Alabama and for them not to treat you like a fool. Then say the magic words: if Senator Shelby doesn't support an independent Financial Protection Agency I won't vote for him.

A few dozen calls will get his attention.

The other problem is that we the people don't have billions of dollars to fight for this. All we have is our vote. But it's powerful. Without it Senators like Shelby and Bayh and Leiberman and McConnell have to go home.

One other question you may have is "why do you care Mr. Hollywood?" Well once again, I've only lived in Los Angeles for five years and I care because I have kids and I love this country. If these banks and credit card companies keep raising rates and charging crazy fees our country will go into another great depression. That means people will be out of work and we as a whole will suffer. That's why I care.

Please forward this to other people in Alabama. America needs you.

Or feel free to forward videos we made to get this message out with a few laughs attached.

None of us were paid a dime to make this and several of the participants were Republicans as well as Democrats. This is a right vs. wrong not a right vs. left issue. And if we get Shelby to wake up on this issue, when we make Talladega Nights 2, I'm buying the ribs and beer.

Andrew Reinbach: Democrats Can Win--Why Don't They Try?

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:34:11 -0600

Democrats can win the mid-term elections and re-build a stable, long-term governing majority -- if they want to.

Whether they do is another thing. To chose just one issue: they've bungled the health care debate by talking about equity, cost reduction, the cost of quality of care, and how to cover the uninsured, when the winning argument is... jobs.

That's right. Our overseas competitors for contracts big and small are eating our lunch because they don't have to pay their employees' health care. And every contract an American firm doesn't win because they have higher overhead means lost American jobs.

Ever hear a Democrat make that argument? Of course not. Democrats are too busy responding to phony GOP claims about death panels and socialism to make a strong case for crucial legislation.

What about the Great Recession? The broad consensus is that it was caused by weak-to-no regulation under the Bush Administration -- especially of the financial sector -- combined with the cost of servicing the $12 trillion national debt created by Republican tax cuts. Even now, Republicans are insisting the cure for what ails us is less regulation, and lower taxes.

Do we hear Democrats blaming Republican ideology for wiping out $14 trillion in household wealth, causing the worst unemployment since the 1930s, triggering the slow-mo foreclosure crisis, creating mountains of debt for our children to re-pay, and tipping the political balance in favor of corporations? Not really.

Meanwhile, the Republican Party -- or what's left of it -- is not only dug in on the wrong side of history on almost every issue; it's marginalized itself almost out of existence. In a recent Gallup Poll, only 23 percent of the electorate admitted they were Republicans, compared with 34 percent who confessed to being Democrats. Its governing right wing has driven every moderate voice out of their party and is still purging itself of suspicious characters like John McCain and Kay Bailey Hutchinson. And it's adopted postures that almost guarantee the party permanent minority status, because most of America's African-Americans, Hispanics, women and gays will never vote for one of their candidates.

To make things more interesting, that rump GOP is under pressure from really extreme groups to its right -- groups that insist the party adopt their platforms or else. The Tea Party is just one such example. Meanwhile, every right-wing assertion, however ridiculous, gains credence and apparent immortality in what Robert Byrd deliciously called Glenbeckistan. In fact, it's not much of a stretch to claim that much of what calls itself the Republican Party today actually lives in a sort of Bizzaro World in which no hysterical claim is too extreme -- as long as it's made about Democrats.

This is the party that expects to sweep the this Fall's elections -- a party that believes it represents the majority of Americans, and gets stronger as it gets smaller. It's really a shame, because you can't have a two-party system without two major parties.

But do we hear anything about these delusions from Democrats? Noooo.

And while some Democrats might think that Woodrow Wilson gave the right advice when he said you should never kill a man who's committing suicide, the Democratic leadership might also consider that the main reason for rank-and-file disenchantment is a real hunger to shoot back at the Republicans, instead of wasting time singing Kumbaya. There are even rumors around Washington that the Republican leadership is only interested in victory.

In fairness to what's left of the Republican Party -- not that they deserve it -- all this hysterical rhetoric is just an attempt to dodge blame for all the problems they caused with their so-called ideas. They know they can't defend their record, so they're trying to change the subject.

Luckily for the Democrats, Republicans are trying to do that with blatant lies, easily exploded. Screaming that Obama's deficit spending saddles future generations with debt, when $11 trillion of that $12 trillion debt was created by Republicans, is only one.

Why we don't hear more about this from Democratic officials -- not to mention more Democratic columnists -- is a mystery to me. It's almost as if they're suffering from a legislative version of battered wife syndrome -- afraid to leave, but afraid to fight back.

Republicans have chosen to become a shrinking, aging party. They seem to long for the America of pre-1960s Hollywood movies. And they seem to think that to get there, they need a party unsullied by most gays, most African-Americans, many Hispanics, and all pro-choice women -- plus people who live in this universe. In sum, they've renounced any danger they may have had, after the Bush years, of being able to claim possession of a ruling majority.

Looking at this train wreck, the reasons Democrats and their supporters in the media are only banging on these subjects soto voce is puzzling, at best. After all, it alienates their own constituencies, who want more than anything to take the fight to the Republicans, and are beginning to suspect that Hillary Clinton would have made a better president, after all. History, the issues, and the facts all favor the Democrats, but they can't seem to man up for the job.

Why not, I can't say. But maybe it's not that important. It's not like the future of the country is at stake.

Myriam Miedzian: No More Funds for Philanderers

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:20:15 -0600

"I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore" -- the celebrated mantra of the 1976 film, Network, kept going through my mind as I read about New York congressman Eric Massa's announcement that he would not run for reelection, followed by his decision to resign "due to health reasons." Yes, he had another bout of cancer in December, but his resignation comes as the House Ethics Committee is scheduled to investigate a male staffer's allegations of sexual harassment!

Attracted by this retired military man's anti- Iraq and Afghanistan war positions, my husband and I supported Massa financially, and my husband raised money for his campaign.

Attracted by John Edwards's focus on poverty and universal medical coverage, we supported him generously, and helped his presidential primary fundraising efforts.

We were also strong supporters of Elliot Spitzer and Bill Clinton.

Many Republican donors must feel the way we do. Shortly after Massa's announcement, California State Senator Roy Ashburn, a vehement opponent of gay rights, was arrested for drunk driving with an unidentified man in his passenger seat -- after leaving a gay nightclub.

While Democrats mostly get caught cheating on their wives with girlfriends or prostitutes, Republican sex scandals tend to be on the more seedy side. For example, Congressman Jon Hinson was arrested for having sex in a House Men's Room after a previous arrest for exposing himself to an undercover police officer. Republican Senator Larry Craig pleaded guilty to lewd conduct in an airport men's room.

More in the Democratic sex scandal tradition, South Carolina Republican Governor Mark Sanders, married and father of four, was caught having an affair with an Argentine woman.

All these men, and others like them including Gary Hart (D), Mark Foley (R), James E. Mc Greevey (D), David Vitter (R), to name only a few, risked their careers and betrayed the people who helped them get elected.

Why? Is it all about testosterone?

Research indicates a two-way relationship between testosterone levels in men and the attainment of power and dominance. Higher levels of testosterone lead to increased dominant and aggressive behavior. Higher levels of power and dominance, in turn, lead to increases in testosterone levels. Because higher testosterone levels are also linked to increased sex drive, powerful men are likely to be particularly sexually driven.

Higher levels of testosterone are also a factor contributing to the self confidence and hubris -- the belief that one can get away with anything including supporting anti-gay legislation while trying to pick up men in toilets, or having an affair while presenting oneself as the caring and devoted husband of a woman with terminal cancer -- that so many politicians exhibit. When Edwards confessed to his affair, he explained, "I started to believe that I was special and became increasingly egocentric and narcissistic." -- psychoanalytic jargon for a bad case of hubris.

Are some politicians driven to go beyond the risk inherent in illicit sex and take extreme risks to further enhance their enjoyment?

When Republicans like Hinson or Craig expose themselves to strangers, or solicit sex in men's rooms, they are taking risks far beyond the risk of having an illicit affair. Spitzer didn't just have extramarital sex, but went to call girls. Since he himself had passed anti-prostitution legislation in New York State, he had to be aware that his removal from office -- highly desired by his political enemies -- was a certainty if his illegal Empire Club escapades ever came to light.

From a young age, many boys and men are drawn to adrenaline raising risky behaviors. Engaging in life-risking sports and dangerous driving are among the factors that lead to much higher male than female accidental deaths rates. Men are more likely to be compulsive gamblers and to engage in impulsive violent behavior. A 2005 Merrill Lynch study concluded that when it comes to stock investments, men tend to take more risks than women, which leads them to make more mistakes.

It is likely that the history of the last 20 years would have been radically different were it not for political sex scandals. Gary Hart, not George Bush, might well have been our 41st president, were it not for his affair with Donna Rice. If so we may have been spared the disastrous presidency of George W. Bush. Did the distraction of his politically motivated "Lewinsky impeachment" lead Bill Clinton to not focus as much as he might have on Al Quaeda? Could 9/11 have been prevented? Wouldn't a scandal-free Clinton presidency have led to Al Gore becoming President?

Sex scandals lead to the nullification of voters choices. Spitzer was widely admired as a reformer and was elected governor of New York by 70% of the electorate -- an extraordinary vote of confidence. Many of his reforms have been nipped in the bud as a result of his resignation, and New Yorkers became saddled with a governor they did not vote for.

I am all in favor of the European attitude towards sex and politicians -- as long as it's legal and not contrary to their stated political positions, their sexual behavior concerns only them and their mates. While it wouldn't take care of sex scandals a la Spitzer or Craig, it would represent a giant step in the right direction. But that's not about to happen. There's no way the media is going to refrain from seedy and steaming news that attracts readers and viewers.

And so my husband and I have agreed -- no more risk taking with our political contributions. From now on we will support women candidates exclusively.

Eric Massa's Navy Files: Former Congressman Notorious For Making Unwanted Advances Towards Subordinates

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:11:41 -0600

According to Peter Clarke, a Navy shipmate, Massa was notorious for making unwanted advances toward subordinates. He tells the story of his friend Stuart Borsch, with whom Massa shared a hotel room while on leave during the first Gulf War. "Stuart's at the edge of the bed," Clarke says Borsch told him at the time, "and [Massa] starts massaging him. Massa said, 'You'll have to get one of my special massages.' He called them 'Massa Massages.'" Ron Moss, a Navy shipmate and Borsch's roommate, confirmed that Borsch told him this story at the time.

Bob Cesca: The Tea Party Is All About Race, Part 2

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:01:41 -0600

Last week, I wrote a piece about the tea party movement and the obvious through-line of race, race-baiting, racism and the use of the Southern Strategy within the movement. The responses were mostly positive and supportive, while the responses from the far-right and tea party people were predictably obnoxious, contradictory and fact-free.

The dominant theme throughout the most outraged responses was, essentially: We're not racists, but here's why we're pissed about blacks and immigrants. For example, here's a particularly illustrative e-mail, reprinted as it was received:

The Tea Party is NOT about race, it is about me paying taxes to support every non contributing individual that has the ability to pro create. It is not my/our fault that the majority of NON contributors are minority. It is not my/our fault some refuse to learn English, thereby limiting their employment opportunities. Hell, the whole race thing is nothing but bullshit for losers such as Garafolo and yourself to capitalize on. Rest assured Booby Boy we no longer give a damn about what you think do or say The main reason the Tea Party exists is Obama's Marxist/Socialistic COMMUNISTIC leanings that will ultimately cost me, part of the 50% that pays taxes, as opposed to the 50% that DON'T PAY!! An ideology that will transform this Country into a third world nation. Try having some honest debate Booby and you might gain cred. Until then you're shining Garafolo's shoes. Sounds to me like you may be an immigrant yourself with an axe to grind. Is that the case Booby? If so you can always go home! Careful moron that light you're looking at is a train not the end of the tunnel......

Smart. I have dozens more just like it. Several of them tell me I'm an idiot for suggesting there's a racial component, followed closely with a line about how I should "go back to Cuba or Africa." Nope. No racism there. Nevertheless, no matter how unhinged the above message might be, it proves an important point -- my point.

Each topic abstractly hinges on race.

The insistence that the tea party movement is more about taxes, big government and personal freedoms is partly true. And many tea party people honestly believe it. But if you dig below the surface into the details underlying these banner themes, it's not difficult to find that, yes, it's about taxes -- taxes on the rich to finance the extravagant lives of layabout welfare queens, or big government "ramming health care down our throats" as a means of slavery reparations to African Americans, and personal freedoms being stripped away by a liberal fascist Nazi who wants to give money and handouts to minorities in the form of health care subsidies and mortgage relief. You know, typical Nazi behavior. If I had a dollar for every Nazi who wanted to funnel government cash to immigrants and minorities...

It's the subtext that gurgles just below the surface of these three topics that composes the tea party version of the Southern Strategy.

Developed by Republican strategists like Harry Dent and Pat Buchanan during the rebuilding of the GOP in the post Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act era, the Southern Strategy's goal was to win over southern whites by demonizing blacks using subterfuge, dog whistles and coded language. As I mentioned last week, the late Republican mastermind Lee Atwater described the use of the Southern Strategy as being all about the use of "abstract" issues that imply race without explicitly using direct racial epithets or even the words "black" or "white."

Atwater described some of the abstract issues of his era as "forced bussing" or taxes, and framing these issues in a way that subconsciously fuels white resentment towards blacks, and serves to coalesce white votes around Republican candidates. After all, Republicans will readily admit that trying to win over black voters has been a lost cause since LBJ, so why not exploit that loss by playing to white racial bias and thus locking down larger chunks of the white vote?

When Atwater was discussing this issue with political science professor Alexander P. Lamis (reported by Bob Herbert in the New York Times), the topic was Reagan and his cuts in food stamps and legal services in urban communities. Even though the Republicans had already won over the South, Atwater explained, these Reagan-era moves tended to reinforce white turnout and Wallace types. Again, it's not about direct racism, but it's borne out of a racial component.

That's the Southern Strategy. It's as old as the Civil War and the Southern white "fire-breathers," but only in the last 40 years has it become a significant subheading in the fear chapter of the Republican Party playbook.

In other words, this isn't a figment of my imagination or a wacky far-left conspiracy theory. The Southern Strategy was and still is very real. Look no further than the Willie Horton ad. The White Hands ad. The 2006 "Harold! Call me!" ad which set off white dog whistles in Tennessee about a black candidate having sex with a clearly naked blond white woman. Not ancient history by any stretch, nor have been the various attempts to fuel racial animosity against President Obama during and following the campaign.

Likewise, no one in charge of the tea party movement, save for obvious racist Dale Robertson (he of the pirate form of "niggaaarrrr"), is out there gathering members while sporting white headgear and spouting off obvious white supremacy slogans. This would backfire, as Atwater said during his Southern Strategy remarks. The subconscious racial element would suddenly become obvious and scare away supporters who aren't necessarily racist, or who are in denial about their racism. Instead, they rally supporters around issues like taxes, big government and personal freedoms. But with a not-so-hidden Southern Strategy wink.

The flimsy and contradictory policy arguments only make the winking racial subtext more obvious.

For instance, the president cut taxes for the middle class. According to the CBO, a full third of the projected national debt -- $3 trillion over the next 10 years -- is due to the president retaining middle class tax cuts and rolling back the alternative minimum tax so it doesn't absorb middle class earners. Tax cuts. So how, then, can the tea party reasonably claim that President Obama is all about taxing the middle class "to death," as some e-mailers argued?

For the tea party leadership, it's all politics, and politics is power. It's about saying "join us" so we can oppose "them" and their taxes to pay for the poor (wink, we mean blacks) and their health care handouts (for reparations to blacks, wink). Consequently, tea party organizers and their PR wing at Fox News and on talk radio are able to consolidate political and financial power.

Glenn Beck, this week, was at it again, suggesting that the U.S. Census was scheming to give lopsided representation to minorities. This on top of his ongoing line that President Obama hates white people and that health care reform is all about reimbursing black people because of slavery. Yeah. He's not so "abstract," as Lee Atwater once said.

In Beck's case, sure, he spends a considerable amount of time talking about freedom and something about red phones and assembling acronyms that spell out non-words like "OLGIARHY." But the race argument is ever present. As obvious as it is, he doesn't say that he hates black people or immigrants. He probably doesn't. But he's clearly stoking white resentment for ratings and financial gain. Beck, like it or not, is a major player in the tea party movement, as is Fox News Channel. Together, they've spent countless sums of cash promoting tea party rallies and endorsing tea party causes. They are inextricably linked. And the use of the Southern Strategy right out there in plain view.

To date, for all of their protests and e-mails, I have yet to hear or read about any tea party participant who has denounced Beck. Or denounced Limbaugh for his daily race-based grabassery (yesterday is was a pun about Eric Massa, Governor Patterson and the racial epithet "massa"). Or denounced the scores of people who turn up with witch doctor signs and other racially-insensitive agitprop.

And finally, no. I'm not implying that everyone who disagrees with President Obama is a racist. Hell, I disagree with him on a number of issues. And no, not every member of the tea party movement is an outright racist. There are surely some earnest, decent (though politically misguided) people who are unaware of the race-baiting that's happening around them, and it's reasonable to suggest that there are more than a few people who simply don't recognize racism when they see it. But it's clear that a major component of the tea party movement -- the movement -- is the use of race, anti-immigrant sentiment and abstract racism as a strategy. Naturally, it wouldn't be used if there wasn't anything to gain. Sadly, however, the target demographic for the tea party movement are low-information white middle class voters who have a tendency, no matter how subconscious, to respond to dog whistles.

No matter how loud and obnoxious they might become, the urgency is to make sure the tea party isn't taken any more seriously than its backwards and contradictory positions on the issues, its phony Astroturfing, and its Southern Strategy politics. This is essentially a corporate-driven assembly of angry white people gathered around abstractly racial issues for the purposes of venting rage while financially benefiting the far-right power elites who are pulling the strings. The broader conservative movement, say nothing of anyone who takes seriously the issues confronting the nation, would do well to stay away from the tea party, leaving it to flail in the margins where it belongs.

-
Correction: Atwater's discussion took place with Alexander P. Lamis, and was first reported by Bob Herbert.

Listen to the historical the Bob & Elvis Show presented by iClips. Thursdays at 10 a.m. EST.
Follow Bob Cesca on Twitter
Bob Cesca's Awesome Blog! Go!

Michelle Obama Almost Calls Hillary 'President Clinton' (PHOTOS)

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:55:22 -0600

*Scroll down for photos*

It's that time of year again! On Wednesday, Michelle Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton presented the 2010 International Women of Courage Awards at the State Department in Washington.

The first lady wore purple (just like last year) and made an entertaining slip in her opening remarks.

MRS. OBAMA: Well, thank you. This is indeed a pleasure and an honor to be here with all of you today. You all look fabulous. (Laughter.) This is a wonderful occasion.

Let me thank my dear friend, Senator -- Secretary Clinton. (Laughter.) I almost said, "President Clinton." (Laughter and applause.) But let me thank you for that kind introduction, and most of all thank you for your friendship, thank you for your support, and thank you for your indispensable advice in getting me through this first year and helping me figure out how to get my family settled in our new life in D.C.

Full remarks below.

Here they are presenting the award to to Sister Marie Claude Naddaf of Syria. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

FULL REMARKS:

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the First Lady

________________________________________________________________

For Immediate Release March 10, 2010

REMARKS BY THE FIRST LADY

AT THE INTERNATIONAL WOMEN OF COURAGE AWARDS

U.S. Department of State

Washington, D.C.

3:35 P.M. EST

MRS. OBAMA: Well, thank you. This is indeed a pleasure and an honor to be here with all of you today. You all look fabulous. (Laughter.) This is a wonderful occasion.

Let me thank my dear friend, Senator -- Secretary Clinton. (Laughter.) I almost said, "President Clinton." (Laughter and applause.) But let me thank you for that kind introduction, and most of all thank you for your friendship, thank you for your support, and thank you for your indispensable advice in getting me through this first year and helping me figure out how to get my family settled in our new life in D.C.

I think it's fair to say that this woman here set the standard in her last post in a presidential administration -- and she's once again setting a terrific standard doing outstanding work as the Secretary of State for the Obama administration. (Applause.)

I also want to recognize Ambassador Melanne Verveer for her extraordinary work as our Ambassador at Large for Global Women's Issues. Melanne. (Applause.)

And again I have to thank Andrea Jung and Reese Witherspoon. That's a tremendous contribution on the part of Avon. Thank you for being with us, thank you for your commitment and your dedication and your words here today. It's just an exciting opportunity.

It's hard to believe that it's been 15 years since Secretary Clinton spoke those words that inspired women across the globe to think differently about themselves and about their place in the world, and to demand that others think differently, as well: "Women's rights are human rights" is what she said; the five simple words that weren't just a statement of fact, but a call to action. (Applause.)

And we're here today to honor 10 women who have devoted their lives to answering that call in just tremendous ways.

You've heard about them, but, again, there's Ann Njogu who left a comfortable job as chief legal officer at an insurance company because she couldn't bear to stand silent in the face of corruption and violence against women in Kenya. And even after being arrested and assaulted by the police because of her work, she continues to speak out.

Then there's Colonel Shafiqa Quraishi of Afghanistan who began her career with the Afghan National Police. And today, as an official in the Ministry of the Interior, she's fighting to ensure that women in the police force get the promotions they deserve and that women get the benefits they need to do their jobs.

And then there's Dr. Lee Ae-ran who spent eight years of her childhood in a North Korean prison camp. And after a harrowing escape to South Korea, she became a tireless advocate for North Korean refugees and the first defector to run for Korea's National Assembly. (Applause.) Upon receiving an award for her work, she replied, very simply, "I was only doing what I was naturally supposed to do."

These are the kind of battles that women we honor here are fighting all over the world. They're educating girls. They're getting more women into the workforce. They're working to end human trafficking, labor abuses, discrimination against minorities. And they're giving women a voice in the courtrooms and in the parliaments, helping to change laws and transform lives in every corner of the globe.

Now, there are certainly easier paths these women could have taken. Much easier. They could have chosen to keep their heads down and their mouths shut. They could have shrunk their aspirations to fit the expectations of others -- and accepted the place reserved for them on the sidelines and in the shadows.

But instead, they decided to stand up for what they believed in and for what they hoped. They decided to say the things that no one else would say and take risks few others would endure. As a result, they've faced hardships that few could bear.

Jestina Mukoko of Zimbabwe was abducted from her home, she was tortured, she was interrogated for hours while forced to kneel on gravel -- all for the simple act of speaking out about the government's human rights abuses. Yet, she emerged unbroken. And as she put it, "I came out of this experience not a bitter person, but a better person." That is the thread -- (applause) -- that's the thread that runs through all of our honorees' stories -- that ability to draw strength from suffering, the determination to not just advance their own lives, but the lives of others, as well.

That's what makes these women so extraordinary -- that they not only refuse to be victims of injustice and oppression, they also refuse to be bystanders.

And that's one of the reasons why we've invited some young women to join us today -- the young women from the White House girls mentoring program, along with young women from the Bell Multicultural School, to join us today. Okay, ladies, raise your hand. Let's see where you are. (Applause.)

You're here for a reason. We love you dearly, but we also want you to learn from these women, and we want you to be inspired by these women's lives. So listen carefully. Listen to their stories. We invited them because we wanted to say to these young girls -- to you, young women, like so many girls across the country -- that if these women can become lawyers and journalists and military leaders, if they can run their own organizations and run for office -- then surely you can find a way to follow your own dreams and be the leaders in your own communities right here in America. That's what we expect from you. (Applause.)

Listen closely, because if these women can endure relentless threats, brutal violence, and separation from their families as they fight for their causes -- then surely, you all can keep going when you face struggles and obstacles in your own lives.

If these women can start developing their passion for justice as teenagers, if Sonia Pierre could stand up and protest and demand better conditions for migrant workers at the age of 13 -- an act for which she was arrested -- (applause) -- then none of you are too young to start making a difference. Right? (Applause.)

And if these women can make so many sacrifices to help so many people -- then the least we all can do in this room, in this country is to shine a light on their work and honor their contributions. (Applause.)

That is the purpose of these Women of Courage awards. We know the difference this kind of recognition and encouragement can make. It really matters.

I'm thinking of a story that I heard, of Ginetta Sagan, a human rights activist who was first imprisoned during World War II for helping Jews in Italy escape from the Nazis. And during her time in jail, she was brutally beaten, raped and tortured with electric shocks. And then one day, one of the guards threw a loaf of bread into her cell. And inside that loaf was a matchbox. And on that matchbox was written the word -- one word in Italian -- "corragio" -- and it was courage. Ginetta spent the rest of her life working to free prisoners of conscience. And every time she came across prisoners who had started to lose hope because they feared that no one knew of their plight, she thought of that moment in that cell.

And so today, we say to you women, our sisters, we say "corragio" -- courage. (Applause.) America stands with you. We are so incredibly proud of you and your contributions. And know that we are praying for you and we are thinking about you every day. And we have young women here who are going to follow in your footsteps. Right, ladies? (Applause.)

Thank you all so much. (Applause.)

END 3:45 P.M. EST

House bans some earmarks amid ethics concerns (Reuters)

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:23:35 -0600

Reuters - Democrats in the House of Representatives moved on Wednesday to limit the ability of lawmakers to tuck pet projects into spending bills amid mounting election-year ethics concerns.

Iraqi Shoe-Thrower Stars In Colombian Detergent Commercial (VIDEO)

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:20:09 -0600

Your cross-cultural ad of the day comes courtesy of Blancox, the makers of fine laundry detergent in Colombia, where fabric freshness and softness is treasured. In it, Blancox switches the shoes thrown at President George W. Bush by Iraqi journalist Muntadhar al-Zeidi -- Folgers Crystals-style! -- with beautiful bouquets of flowers.

Based on recent lawsuits over the appropriation of identities for commercial purposes, Muntadhar al-Zeidi will now probably sue the makers of Blancox for $100 million.

WATCH:

Iraqi Shoe Thrower Pitching Detergent To Colombians from ANIMALnewyork.com on Vimeo.

RELATED:
Iraqi Shoe Thrower Pitching Detergent To Colombians [Animal NY]

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Matt Taibbi, Charles P. Pierce At Mark Twain House On March 13 (Hartford Courant)

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:03:56 -0600

Two opinionated and funny writers, the sort who would have warmed Mark Twain’s heart, will give “A Pen Warmed Up in Hell” series talk Saturday at 7:30 p.m. at Mark Twain House & Museum, 351 Farmington Ave., Hartford.

More: continued here

Senate passes $149 bln for jobless aid, tax breaks (Reuters)

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:34:19 -0600

Sanders: Obama Has Tragically Lost The Youth, Antagonized Unions

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:34:13 -0600

A trio of the Senate's leading progressives expressed concern on Wednesday that President Obama has squandered the transformational political coalition that propelled him into office, concluding that he will pay a price for it.

Speaking at a progressive media summit, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) called it a "tragic mistake" that the White House fruitlessly chased Republican votes on health care rather than take advantage of the ripe environment to pass legislation.

"What is very sad is we had hopes that [the] election was transformational in the sense of bringing people into the political process who have never been in it before," Sanders said. "I tried very hard in Vermont to bring young people into the political process. It is very hard to do. Obama did it. But you know where those young people are now? They are not in the political process. They really aren't. We have lost them. We have antagonized trade unionists. We have not done well with seniors. I don't think we have done well with women. And I think that was a tragic mistake."

Certainly, the Vermont Independent was tossing red meat to the liberal crowd. A cadre of bloggers, talk show hosts and radio personalities at the forum repeatedly pressed the senators in attendance to be more aggressive at selling the Democratic agenda -- whether on television or in discussions with the White House.

Alongside Sanders, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) acknowledged that the president's commitments, specifically in regard to health care reform, had come up short. Discussing the idea of Medicare expansion, he said that the Senate didn't have the will to pursue such a policy because "the president wasn't going to fight for it."

"I know that a lot of you are discouraged about what has happened in the last year," Brown said. "Discouraged that the conservative, moderate wing of the Democratic Party too often seems to holds sway over both caucuses."

Echoing the Ohio Democrat, Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich), admitted that frictions exist within the party over the best path of governance. And, as a result, the message and achievements suffered.

"Not only do we struggle among ourselves because of our differences. But we are not all on the same page all the time," she said.

The harshest indictment (certainly when it came to assessing the job done by the president) was delivered by Sanders. The Vermonter proclaimed that it was a tactical error to start the health care process by stressing the need for legislation to get 60 votes. And he called it only practical that constituencies -- most prominently the nation's youth and its union members -- will sour on the president after he backtracked on campaign promises.

"I happen to believe that Obama ran the best campaign I've seen in my lifetime," Sanders said. 'I think the mistake was made after the election -- that we forget about the grassroots in this country, we forget about the trade unions and we say to them, 'Well, when we campaigned we [were] telling you we were opposed to McCain's tax on health care benefits, but now we have changed our mind.'"

"I think what we have got to re-engage in, is a progressive clear agenda," he added. "I think we have got to go out and rally the American people, get the young people involved again... and engage the grassroots in this country in a significant political battle as we bring forward simple straightforward progressive legislation that takes on the special interests."

Patrick Kennedy: Press Corps Is 'Despicable' For Not Covering Afghanistan War Resolution

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:28:11 -0600

Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.) excoriated the national press on Wednesday during a debate over the war in Afghanistan, charging reporters with shirking their duty to cover the issue and instead focusing on the peccadillos of former Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.).

"There's one, two press people in this gallery," he thundered. "We're talking about Eric Massa 24/7 on the TV. We're talking about war and peace; $3 billion; 1,000 lives and no press! No press!"

The House is debating a resolution written by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), which would require the military to withdraw from Afghanistan within 30 days or longer if it couldn't be done safely that quickly.

"You want to know why the American public is fit? They're fit because they're not seeing their Congress do the work that they're sent to do," railed Kennedy, who is retiring at the end of this term. "It's because the press, the press of the United States, is not covering the most significant issue of national importance and that's the laying of lives down in the nation for the service of our country. It's despicable, the national press corps right now."

Jim Wallis: Biblical Social Justice and Glenn Beck

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:11:29 -0600

Glenn Beck says Christians should leave churches that use the word "social justice." He says social justice is a code word for communism and Nazism.

But since the Catholic Church, the Black Churches, the Mainline Protestant churches, more and more Evangelical and Pentecostal churches including Hispanic and Asian-American congregations all consider social justice central to biblical faith, Glenn Beck is telling all those Christians to leave their churches. Of course, Christians may disagree about what social justice means in our current political context -- and that conversation is an important one -- but the Bible is clear: from the Mosaic law of Jubilee, to the Hebrew prophets, to Jesus Christ, social justice is an integral part of God's plan for humanity.

Beck says Christians should leave their social justice churches, so I say Christians should leave Glenn Beck. I don't know if Beck is just strange, just trying to be controversial, or just trying to make money. But in any case, what he has said attacks the very heart of our Christian faith, and Christians should no longer watch his show. His show should now be in the same category as Howard Stern. Stern practices pornography and Beck denies the central teachings of Jesus and the Bible. So Christians should stop watching the Glenn Beck show and pray for him and Howard Stern.

Beck also said that if his church was about "social justice" he would report his church to the church authorities. What authorities? Church bodies as diverse in their theology as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the National Association of Evangelicals have explicitly endorsed social justice as a biblical imperative.

So here's an idea: how about reporting ourselves to Glenn Beck as church members and pastors who practice and preach social justice.

Since Sojourners' mission is "to articulate the biblical call to social justice," I'll be the first to turn myself in. And I invite you to join me in turning yourself in to Glenn Beck as a Christian who believes in social justice. Let's send him thousands of names.

Jim Wallis is the author of Rediscovering Values: On Wall Street, Main Street, and Your Street -- A Moral Compass for the New Economy, CEO of Sojourners and blogs at www.godspolitics.com.

Charles Kolb: Sarkozy and Obama Pursuing a Shared Policy Agenda

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:07:19 -0600

Written by Charles Kolb and Ioanna Kohler

Can American president Barack Obama and French president Nicolas Sarkozy strengthen the ties between our two great nations? We think so and urge them to make rapprochement a high foreign-policy priority when they meet in Washington on March 30.

Along with the Free City of Ragusa (now called Dubrovnik), and Morocco, France was among the first sovereign states to recognize American independence in 1776. France helped by secretly providing much-needed weapons and supplies as the British colonies rebelled. For nearly 250 years, France and the United States have been close allies and partners -- and only occasionally adversaries. De Gaulle and NATO; Chirac and Iraq come to mind.

But generally, there has been solid collaboration between our leaders who did not always share ideological or political views. Socialist president Francois Mitterrand, without prompting and without a quid-pro-quo, gave conservative Republican president Ronald Reagan vital intelligence from a KGB defector being "run" by French intelligence about Soviet theft of American scientific know-how.

President Obama has emphasized the importance of repairing and restoring America's international image, and President Sarkozy seeks a more global role, especially in diplomatic and economic crises. These two leaders' temperaments, predilections, and challenges make them likely allies with common aspirations.

Many Americans cheered when the energetic, pro-American Sarkozy succeeded Jacques Chirac. They were stunned to learn that Sarkozy loved American pop culture -- including Westerns and Elvis Presley -- and vacationed in New England. The French gave candidate Obama a hero's welcome to Paris months before the 2008 U.S. election. Sarkozy's physical embrace of Obama conveyed warm support and a welcome to the international arena.

The George W. Bush administration's missteps -- "Freedom Fries" and a last-minute, January 17, 2009, tariff on Roquefort cheese -- obscured the serious mutual interests of both countries. These interests go beyond membership on the U. N. Security Council, the reintegrated NATO military command structure championed by Sarkozy, and in the various annual economic summits. At a more "granular" level, French and American citizens and their leaders share similar concerns, policy problems, and future goals that suggest benefits from a concerted effort to learn from each other.

A potential common working agenda might include:

nuclear power - France obtains over 70% of its domestic energy from nuclear power. The comparable U.S. figure is 20%. President Obama wants more U.S. nuclear power plants.The U.S. can learn from France in building new nuclear-energy sources and in applying better nuclear-waste disposal and recycling technology.

health care reform - the United States outspends the rest of the world but experiences poor outcomes in longevity, income mortality, and obesity, and makes inadequate use of information technology. By contrast, France -- whose health care system has been ranked # 1 by the World Health Organization -- spends far less (3,449 per capita versus6,714 in the U.S.) and has a much healthier population that lives longer. The French enjoy basically free universal health care, whereas 47 million Americans lack health insurance.

workforce and aging - France and the United States are, demographically, aging societies; both need to rethink retirement policies. The U. S. is relatively better off because of higher immigration levels but faces enormous future budget deficits unless it reforms its Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid programs.

early education - through its state-funded (and therefore free) Ã©cole maternelle and crÃ¨che system, France has been a world leader in championing the needs of young children while encouraging women to remain in the workforce. By contrast, the U.S. is, embarrassingly, near the bottom of OECD countries in providing quality early education to its youngest citizens. President Obama supports universal pre-kindergarten. French public expenditure for early education and care represents 1% of the country's GDP -- versus 0.5% in the United States -- and includes high-quality programs that are also economically cost-effective investments.

access to higher education - both countries have higher education systems that train outstanding elites. Access has been a focus in the U.S., but the U.S. system is slipping due to the mounting costs, rapidly increasing tuition, and growing concerns about completion rates and quality. France, by contrast, has a more affordable system but has not "democratized" its higher education to large numbers of its citizens, especially its minorities. Color-blind admissions, such as the "percentage plans" implemented at the public university systems of California and Texas, have sparked growing interest in France where egalitarianism is highly valued and policy cannot consider racial factors as in the U.S.

immigration - both countries face similar challenges in integrating minority populations into their economic and cultural mainstream. France experiences serious difficulties with its second-generation northern African immigrant population that has large numbers of unemployed youth, and has drastically toughened immigration policy. The U.S. still cannot control its borders and has not yet lifted the economic and educational well-being of its Hispanic and African-American minorities.

capital markets and economic reform - as developed, capitalist market economies, both countries are experiencing a credit crunch and asset deflation associated with a burst global asset bubble. Monetary, fiscal, and regulatory responses must be timely and coordinated. Both countries should play leadership roles with other developed countries.

With younger leadership and serious pressing challenges, our countries can pursue a common agenda based on mutual interests and experiences that will reward both nations and their leaders. Globalization has shortened time horizons, created new challenges, and brought new players to the world's stage. It affords us opportunities to build upon and strengthen bonds that, although perhaps a little frayed in recent years, have served our two countries well.

Charles Kolb is president of the nonpartisan, business-led Committee for Economic Development in Washington, D.C., that also helped develop the Marshall Plan. He served in the George H.W. Bush White House as Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy. Ioanna Kohler is director of policy programs at the French-American Foundation in New York where she leads an effort to examine equal opportunity practices in France and the United States.

Matt Hooper: GoCause: Searching for Heroism in Populist Distress

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:01:05 -0600

"With great power comes great responsibility" said Uncle Ben to Peter Parker in Sam Raimi's first Spider Man adaptation. This is powerful, even revelatory advice in the morally simplified Marvel universe, yet it is still entirely unrealized in the Obamified, "change has come ... ?" universe this blogger inhabits. Weren't we supposed to be in the D.C. Comics world, here? A world governed by intellectualism, moodiness and billionaire hideaway caves? It's not that I don't still love Barack, or that I don't appreciate his cerebral, contemplative badassness, it's that I was expecting a Batman to Bush's Spidey, an American hero whose interest in urban community-saving stemmed from parental issues and a life-long, "outsider" mystique. Bush, like Peter Parker, got lucky with his powers -- nepotism was his radioactive spider; Obama, like Batman, has had to learn on the job with little more than his instinct and gadgetry to guide him.

Superheroes, as evidenced by box office receipts alone, carry more weight in twenty-first century global consciousness than any single elected official. They offer hope and excitement, are held accountable when they fail to save the day -- they don't seem an awful lot like politicians, for one thing, or worse, bankers. There's something wonderfully apolitical about men and women in tights and capes because we, the reader/audience/Everyman, are allowed to believe in something universal for a short time, not something Democratic or Republican in nature. "Good" must defeat "Evil" by the end of the hero's story, and both of these forces have been clearly established and personified from the beginning. Superheroes don't seem to fight over health care, or bitch about a "War On Christmas," or deny global warming, or credit a "pact with the devil" for Haitian suffering -- hell, they don't even tweet, it would probably ruin their secret identity. (What? You don't think @clarkkent would get found out in a heartbeat? "Totes kicked @lexilu's ass 2nite ... time 2 snuggle up w/ @llane. LOL.") All superheroes, not just Spider-Man, strive to live up to their inherited responsibility, all too aware it has come hand-in-hand with their crime-fighting, world-saving powers.

Them fat cats on Wall Street don't think that way. Obama, bless his Bruce Wayne-esque heart, holds pragmatism and political maneuvering above all else; his responsibility is to his country for a fixed period of time and to do the best job possible. He works to enact legislation from the Oval Office, he doesn't jump from building to building kicking criminal ass whilst reducing unemployment numbers through green jobs (though that's a cool visual, isn't it?). While he has the makings of a cooler, edgier superhero than many of his predecessors, our president isn't a superhero -- he is a smart man with a tough job.

There is still a place for heroism in our messy state of populist distress and repeated governmental reticence. I, for one, am still an Obama devotee, and am quite sure that his vision for our nation's future remains tangible. This is why I have decided to adopt a superhero alter ego: GoCause. GoCause is a beacon of hope for our country's progressive future, the personification of aid to non-profit groups and community organizations and a combatant of injustice nationwide. Below is a trailer for a new web series, "GoCause," which chronicles my efforts to lead the infamous double-life so many of our heroes have been known to live, lives caught in the crosshairs of civilian normalcy and kick-ass world-saving.

Now, to draw parallels between Ronald Reagan and the Green Lantern ...

GoCause from Alex brennan on Vimeo.

Check out "GoCause" at TakePart.com and GoCause.org

Follow me on Twitter: @mattyhoop

Senate Passes Bill To Provide Jobless Aid, Tax Breaks

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 14:50:31 -0600

WASHINGTON — The Senate voted Wednesday to extend a host of soon-to-expire elements of last year's economic stimulus measure, including help for the jobless and money to help financially strapped states pay for health care for the poor.

The 62-36 vote came over protests from conservatives who say the bill adds too much to the $12.5 trillion national debt. Six Republicans joined all but one Democrat, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, in voting for the bill.

The plight of the jobless and the political power of an annual package of tax breaks powered the measure through the Senate, even though it would add more than $130 billion to the budget deficit over the next year and a half.

The measure is the second piece of the Democrats' much-touted "jobs agenda" to pass the Senate this year, with more elements promised, such as help for small businesses suffering from a credit crunch. Concern over out-of-control budget deficits are a big challenge to the success of the agenda.

The vote sends the measure into talks with the House, which is wary about some Senate provisions included to defray the measure's impact on the deficit since they may want to use such "offsets" to help finance an overhaul of the health care system.

Democrats also hope to finish work this week on a far smaller job-creation measure blending additional highway spending with new tax breaks for companies that hire the unemployed.

The bill would provide unemployment benefits of up to 99 weeks in many states for people mired in joblessness as the economy slowly recovers from the worst recession in decades.

The measure illustrates the great extent to which direct help for the jobless and the poor makes up a large portion of Democrats' election-year agenda on jobs – and threatens to squeeze out other items amid concerns about a budget deficit.

The sweeping bill cleans up a host of unfinished congressional business from last year that languished as the Senate focused on health care. It would also prevent doctors from absorbing a 21 percent cut in Medicare payments and extends through December a generous 65 percent subsidy of health insurance premiums for the unemployed under the COBRA program, at a cost of $10 billion.

Wednesday's larger bill also provides the annual extension of $26 billion worth of tax breaks for businesses and individuals that are popular with senators in both parties.

The $66 billion cost of providing additional months of unemployment checks – the core benefit is 26 weeks – is added directly to a budget deficit expected to hit $1.6 trillion this year. Federal cash to help states with Medicaid adds about $25 billion more.

But Democrats said it would be heartless to cut off unemployment benefits to the long-term jobless and contended that the benefits inject demand into the economy, helping to lift it.

The tax breaks include a property tax deduction for people who don't itemize, lucrative credits that help businesses finance research and development and a sales tax deduction that mainly helps people in the nine states without income taxes.

Jodi Jacobson: Connie Saltonstall, Pro-Choice Candidate, Launches Primary Challenge Against Stupak

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 14:44:16 -0600

This article was originally published at RH RealityCheck.

Yesterday and this morning, I spoke briefly with Connie Saltonstall, the former county commissioner from Kent County, Michigan who is working on filing to mount a primary challenge against Bart Stupak.

While our conversation was brief and RH RealityCheck is scheduled to interview Saltonstall formally in the next two days, I asked if she was pro-choice. Her unwavering answer: "I am without a doubt pro-choice."

Saltonstall told the Detroit Free Press that she plans to run against Stupak for the Democratic nomination of Michigan's First Congressional District, citing Stupak's efforts to stop health care reform if he does not get his way on a full abortion ban.

Stupak, a former state trooper from Menominee, has held the seat since 1993. No one really knew who he was until he teamed up with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to bully his and their way into holding health reform hostage to their own fundamentalist Catholic agenda by threatening to derail the whole thing unless the "Stupak Amendment" was passed. He continues even now threatening to withhold votes, though many say his position is substantially weakened.

My take is that he would never have gotten this far if the mainstream media had done their homework on the amendment in the first place--it goes far far beyond current law--and if the Democratic Party were not still supporting him. Two months ago, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chair Chris Van Hollen, my own representative in Congress, called Stupak to urge him to run again. That was the day I vowed to withhold any further contributions to Democrats unless and until they stop supporting these anti-choice ideologues.

Satonstall told the Free Press that Stupak has let the district down:

"I believe that he has a right to his personal, religious views, but to deprive his constituents of needed health care reform because of those views is reprehensible."

Exactly. Something President Obama himself should have said some long time ago.

Saltonstall and her supporters are now trying to collect the 1,000 signatures needed to put her name on the August primary ballot in Michigan. She is a former teacher who was also a Charlevoix County commissioner. She ran and lost a race for state representative in 2008.

So here are my questions: What is Van Hollen and the DCCC doing for Saltonstall?

And what can we do for her? I know personally that there is huge pent-up energy in the women's and pro-choice communities throughout this country to have a truly--not just nominally "until-I-am-elected-and-pre-emptively-cave"--pro-choice leaders in Congress. As soon as she is ready, let's roll.

What more effective way to show that the pro-choice majority in this country means business and will take it to the polls then to start with Bart Stupak.