It is almost common knowledge that when tea partiers and the more nativist elements of the less intellectual talk radio world of conservatives talk about illegal immigration, it predominately refers to those migrating from Mexico.
But one prankster at a recent rally in Minnesota this weekend, actually tricked the tea partiers into railing against European immigration, for their ethnic cleansing, genocide, and economic injustices against Native Americans. All something they only belatedly realized.
A speaker at an anti-immigration rally in St. Paul, Minnesota, this past weekend got the crowd to support more than just the deportation of all illegal immigrants -- he got them cheering for the eviction of all European-descended immigrants to America who "stole this land through genocide and ethnic cleansing."
A crowd of some 40 people showed up to the steps of the Minnesota State Capitol on Saturday to protest proposed reform of US immigration law. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Friday that the Obama administration was pushing for immigration reform that would create a pathway for the legalization of undocumented immigrants.
Napolitano said she would like to see a "tough, fair" plan that would allow illegal migrants to gain legal status if they pay a fine, pass a criminal background check, pay all back taxes and learn English.
That idea brought 40 anti-immigration protesters to Saturday's protest, as well as 30 pro-immigration reform counter-protesters, according to FightBackNews in Minneapolis.
One of those protesters, going by the alias "Robert Erickson," got a speaking spot at the rally and used it to argue for the eviction of all descendants of European immigrants -- in other words, that contingent of white Americans who these days see themselves as "real" Americans.
Don't get me wrong, I am not one of those who thinks we should retreat from there immediately. After all Afghanistan is the war where there was a threat and where elements of Al-Queda have received aid and we should continue to battle to defeat or mollify such elements, though as we have seen in Iraq nation building is something that only bogs us down. People should remember that just because you throw money and soldiers at a problem does not automatically solve a problem, unless they have a solid strategy to guide them.
This past week Iran was once again in the headlines. A Summer of violence inflicted on dissidents by the military and security forces following the Iranian Presidential "election" in June, as well as fears that the Islamic Republic could soon acquire nuclear weapons; have gained the country much attention and has created much concern.
Now, as the United States remains mired in two Middle Eastern conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq (both countries next to Iran), some of the neocons in the United States think maybe two millitary stalemates aren't enough.
"What we're trying to do here eventually is get a regime change," he said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."
"Get a group of people in there that are more representative of the Iranian people, that we really can talk with in a way that might end up with a good result. I think it's very difficult to do that with the current leadership and especially the elected president," Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
My Pavlovian response to such rhetoric is usually a mix between a roll of the eyes, fear of another military adventure that ends in an outright fiasco, and anger that anyone could be stupid enough to be so cavalier after what we have endured with Iraq. But the so-called election this past Summer (and no Senator Kyl he isn't the "elected President" of Iran he stole the election at least as far as we can tell) shows that there is a reservoir of suspicion and resentment towards Amadinejad that has gone beyond him and was so audacious as to be aimed even at the Mullahs who hold the real power in the country.
Action should be taken for sure, and as of now it appears that Obama is attempting to adopt the approach similar to that George HW Bush took in 1990 following the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq; attempting to build legitimacy with the International community specifically within the UN membership to denounce and punish Iran, rather then the bungled neoconservative model of the Iraq war.
As Josh Marshall on TPM points out, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates even says that any sort of military action towards Iran would have limited results. After attacking any facilities what is to say that Iran won't immediately work to rebuild such capabilities? Would we once again be forced to militarily reconstructing the entire sociopolitical framework of a nation where we are viewed with suspicion and whose culture Americans by and large have little familiarity with? Such a move would further destabilize the global economy, driving further up the price of oil. Not all the weapons sites are likely known in Iran since U.S Intelligence in the country is scant at best if existent at all. It sits in a region where its two neighboring countries Iraq and Afghanistan have unstable, inept regimes that are seen as effective by much of their citizenry and are just possibly fragile enough to also be forced from power in reaction.
The international community would likely not stand alongside the United States and Israel in such an attack, and such talk would only cause Iran to expedite the development of a nuclear program and do something that this summer shows Ahmadinejad and the government were never able to do and that is make him legitimate in the eyes of the Iranian people. His tirades and fear mongering would be validated and any opening the U.S may have had with the Iran citizenry could be very well sealed shut if we are perceived as trigger happy. An attack on Iran could turn more of them against us and in the wake of such an attack we could see a flood of Iranians crossing into Iraq armed with a newly formed hatred in their hearts and thousands of U.S soldiers in their sights.
Finally, the government of Ahmadinejad is not the body that really hold the bulk of the decision making power is done by the mullahs and the Grand Ayatollah. In the larger configuration of things Ahmadinejad is a minute component in the more vast system of the Iranian elite.
If we have learned anything from nearly a decade of struggle and Afghanistan and our invasion of Iraq, its that War and regime change are something that is easy to spout off about, but violent, costly, and painstaking to carry out. We are already locked in two wars rebuilding two nations,to enter a third would be the most absurd and tragic of follies.
The contentious talk of health care reform has brought about many colorful and irrational characters and claims to the forefront. There are some legitimate questions in this often raucous dialogue (such as more specifics on just how the President hopes to pay for such reform), but the vitriol and personal hatred from those such as the "tea baggers", the non sense and stupid conspiracy theories of the "birthers", or Glenn Beck's "9/12" project, a conservative political group fronted as a post- 9/11 unity group. Its kind of like the Blair Witch Project, except the ghosts are whiter, older, and more monolithically far right.
Our politicians need to be held accountable and be transparent in thier actions and proposals to be sure. But if they are on grounds that are devoid of any sound evidence, then those who give voice to such overtly outlandish claims are fair game for ridicule.
Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA), owned a anti-health care reformer at a town hall meeting in his district. After a lengthy list of grievances and with out proof asserting that Obama will raise taxes to pay for health care and other claims dismissed by Obama in last week's speech before congress, the questioner said "Don't pee on my leg and tell me its raining."
Well it seems that the questioner had set himself up for a big slam down in terms of a comeback.
First reported by the San Francisco Chronicle and confirmed by a YouTube clip of the event, the longtime congressman made the remark after the participant launched into a long, but calm, litany about government inefficiency when it comes to nation's health care system. The man concluded his remarks with warning Stark not to "pee on my leg and tell me it's raining."
As the audience cheered, a calm Stark responded: "Well, I wouldn't dignify you by peeing on your leg. It wouldn't be worth wasting the urine."
There was a mixture of laughter and boos as Stark motioned for the next question.
Well its happened.President Obama has given his national speech that has been shown in classrooms throughout the country. A number of parents (most whom probably didn't vote for him and have a rabid loathing of anything to do with Obama) have objected, and a number of schools aren't showing the speech. But already it seems to have borne the fruit of socialism, thanks to the hypnotic power of Obama. Former Congressman, Club for Growth President, and Pennsylvania Senatorial candidate Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who has previously accused Obama of starting a dictatorship, has been brainwashed. His message? Stay in school!
Perhaps Toomey and Gingrich and other conservatives with at least a scintilla of reason, intellect, or political acumen realize just how stupid the rest of their peers sound. Back in the 1960s it was the conservative elements of America that voiced the most outrage about the message of "Turn on, tune in, and drop out". Now it appears that the post rational message of many conservatives seems to be that only commies stay in school.
Because Dick Cheney's feelings might be hurt. He mine as well have said as much on Fox News Sunday. Keep in mind this a preliminary investigation launched by Attorney General Eric Holder, as to whether those who formulated torture policies used in interrogations that go beyond the bounds of what is legal should be prosecuted.
Cheney's philosophy is best summed up by both his old mentor Richard Nixon said "If the President does it, its not illegal".
"I guess the other thing that offends the hell out of me, frankly, is we had a track record now of eight years of defending the nation against any further mass casualty attacks from al Qaeda,'' Cheney said. "The approach of the Obama administration should be to come to those people who were involved in that policy and say, how did you do it? What were the keys to keeping this country safe over that period of time?"
Also in that interview, he hocks his book and says that when he was Vice President he advocated the use of military force against Iran (because the invasion of Iraq that Cheney ran into the ground went so well). Maybe Cheney should move to a country with a totalitarian government instead of one with the rule of law and a Bill of Rights. He would likely feel more at home there.
As unseemly and tawdry as it may seem ( hey after all we are talking about politics here), just who could succeed the now late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) in the Senate is being speculated about.
The names of just who will succeed Kennedy are piling up. Former congressman and Lowell UMASS Chancellor Marty Meehan, as well as Congressmen Steven Lynch or Mike Caputano. State Attorney General Martha Coakley, as well as Ted Kennedy's nephew former Congressman Joseph Kennedy or Senator Kennedy's widow Vicki are being floated are being floated on the Democratic side.
On the other side, Republicans see themselves as having a once in a life time shot at an open senate seat, as a powerful incumbent is now gone and what all trends point to a good coming year for the Republican party nationally.
Some conservatives and pundits see former one term Governor, 2008 GOP (and almost certainly 2012) Presidential contender Mitt Romney (R-MA) as the ideal candidate. Romney ironically was a one time Kennedy rival who gave him a close run for his money politically speaking, for his senate seat in 1994. He himself is also a member of a political dynasty and with his Massachusetts as well as nationwide name recognition, deep pool of personal wealth, and boyish face could score a large political win.
Surprisingly enough, this brings things back full circle to Romney, who up to now has been busy laying the groundwork for another presidential bid in 2012. It would be an intriguing thing if, after waiting a day or two out of respect for the late senator, Romney were to downshift and announce he will be a candidate in the upcoming election to fill Kennedy's vacant Senate seat.
Such an announcement would likely be embraced immediately by the Republicans, who would like almost nothing more than to deny Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada his new, hard-won, 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority. As a self-funding candidate who has already been elected once statewide, Romney has nearly 100 percent name ID. And, in an environment where President Obama seems to be dragging the Democrats down, he would be a serious threat to the Democratic hegemony in Massachusetts's congressional delegation. Meaning Romney likely would win.
If he did, Romney would then have a platform to actually introduce legislation modeled on the proposals he put forward as a presidential candidate in 2008 and planned to put forward in 2012. No guesswork. No empty rhetoric. Real ideas, on the Senate floor, that could be evaluated, debated, and perhaps even voted on.
But Massachusetts is about as liberal as say Utah is conservative. As Allah Pundit says, Romney ran as a moderate to liberal in the Bill Weld tradition on social issues, but vacillated on a whole potpourri of those issues in 2008 (gun control, gay rights, civil unions, abortion, affirmative action, etc). That conversion of his views to the more conservative persuasion would turn the vast majority of Massachusetts voters off. Besides running for the Senate seat would almost certainly take him out of the running for the job he really craves, the Presidency. Romney seems to be the next in line and if he wants to be President 2012 could be his best and only chance.
The last part of this analysis also pretty much sums up why Romney would be a poor choice for the Senate (if in the unlikely event he chose to run for it). Romney as Governor had a legislative record that was short on significant and tangible policy. By and large he chose to try and run the state like a CEO and in 2006 by and large had abandoned the state in his quest for the Presidency. His 2008 campaign consisted of few policy ideas and relied mostly on conservative platitudes to appeal to the base and his telegenic looks, and Romney by a large is a politician who doesn't cloak his ambitions well. A seat in the Senate would put Romney on the spot and in the awkward situation of crafting substantive policies that would appeal both to the conservatives of the National Republican party and not alienate moderates and independents in his own state. A stance any seeker of the Presidency would be well to do without. Update (3:40PM/ET)-Nate Silver corroborates the point that well Romney may be a compelling candidate for National Republicans, a Romney victory in any general election, judging by his past numbers would most likely be beyond the reach of the possible.
Above is the famous 1980 Presidential speech by Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA), marking the end of his campaign for the Democratic Presidential nomination.
Massachusetts Senior Senator, "Liberal Lion", and the last surviving son of the Kennedy dynasty that illuminated Massachusetts, the United States, and the globe passed on last night at the age of 77, following a lengthy bout with brain cancer.
Kennedy was the youngest of nine children, including President John F Kennedy and Senator Robert F Kennedy. Kennedy became a U.S Senator from Massachusetts in 1962, filling the Senate seat once held by his elder brother John. Following the deaths of his brothers, who fell victim to political assassins in 1963 and 68 respectively he took the helm of leadership as patriarch of the iconic Kennedy family, steering them and a nation through the shimmering waters of prosperity and greatness and the dark waters of tumult and uncertainty.
Throughout his nearly half a century in the Senate he sponsored legislation and heralded such causes as: Civil Rights, Voting Rights, Fair housing, Medicare, health care, Title 9 which called fore fairness for women's school athletics, lowering the voting age to 18, ending Apartheid, and Peace in Northern Ireland to just name a few segments of that profound body of legislation that aided in broadening that great New Frontier, that idealism his elder brother John F Kennedy articulated in his 1960 Presidential campaign.
Kennedy of course was not without his sins, blemishes, and short comings. But his death and in life, despite often being the target and object of ire of conservatives, he marshaled bi-partisan respect and admiration.
HYANNIS PORT, Mass. (AP) -- Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, the last surviving brother in an enduring political dynasty and one of the most influential senators in history, died Tuesday night at his home on Cape Cod after a yearlong struggle with brain cancer. He was 77.
In nearly 50 years in the Senate, Kennedy, a liberal Democrat, served alongside 10 presidents - his brother John Fitzgerald Kennedy among them - compiling an impressive list of legislative achievements on health care, civil rights, education, immigration and more.
In a brief statement to reporters at his rented vacation home on Martha's Vineyard, Mass., President Barack Obama eulogized Kennedy as one of the "most accomplished Americans" in history - and a man whose work in Congress helped give millions new opportunities.
"Including myself," added the nation's first black president.
Senator Kennedy is survived by his last surviving sibling, his elder sister Jean Kennedy Smith, countless nieces and nephews, grandchildren, his three children Kara, Teddy Jr, and Patrick, two step children, his first wife Joan, and his wife Vicki.
“Edward M. Kennedy – the husband, father, grandfather, brother and uncle we loved so deeply – died late Tuesday night at home in Hyannis Port. We’ve lost the irreplaceable center of our family and joyous light in our lives, but the inspiration of his faith, optimism, and perseverance will live on in our hearts forever. We thank everyone who gave him care and support over this last year, and everyone who stood with him for so many years in his tireless march for progress toward justice, fairness and opportunity for all. He loved this country and devoted his life to serving it. He always believed that our best days were still ahead, but it’s hard to imagine any of them without him.”
Kathleen Parker writes about the use of Hitler comparisons and Nazi references at recent town hall meetings.
Hear, hear. Invocations of Hitler usually mean two things: one, a poverty of imagination, and two, a paucity of good arguments. It is nearly axiomatic that any protest against government action will feature Hitler in some form. Left and right are equally guilty. Trivializing such evil is an insult to the memory of millions who suffered and died by his order, as well as to the intelligence of all sentient beings.
It may no longer be possible in this country to have a serious debate about anything. Inevitably, substance devolves into silliness. Even the most dignified of statesmen become caricatures when juxtaposed with the ridiculous.
Whether it be the Jacobins on the left comparing Bush/Cheney to Hitler or the loony tunes on the right comparing Obama's health care reform efforts and big spending to Hitler and the Nazis (as if health care and spending were what defined Hitler and the Nazis policies as ghastly and atrocious)I have yet to hear of any argument or dispute in which a Hitler comparison provided a victory to anyone. Rather if serves only to silence the opposition, that increases tension, moments of of tense awkward silence, and usually signals the end of any sound arguments.
As always Frank (D-MA, 6) is animated and lively in his response to the Obama is Hitler nonsense from a questioner who called Obama's plan a "Nazi policy" at a Dartmouth town hall. According to Ben Smith (via the neoconservative "weekly Standard") the questioner may actually be a Lyndon Larouche supporter, the general of a group of rabble rousing conspiracy theorists. Props to Barney Frank on this one, whatever you may think of his conduct on the financial crisis.
Ex- Alaska Governor and former Republican Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin just days ago on her face book page embraced the right wing tall tales about Health care reform stating that a provision that will allow medicare to cover living wills giving those who choose access to "an end of life councilor" means Euthanasia will be in Obama health care legislation. As not uncommon for Palin at times she used her children even her young infant as a political prop to appeal to the most ardent elements of the conservative movement, the insurance lobby, and likely hopes to hook in a few misinformed or politically uninformed voters; by inferring that children with disabilities, the infirm, and elderly would have to go before a "death panel" and that health care reform is "down right evil".
ANCHORAGE (AP) — In her first communication since leaving office, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin said in an Internet posting Friday that President Obama's plan to overhaul the health care system was "evil."
"Who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course," the former vice presidential candidate wrote on her Facebook page.
"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil," Palin wrote.
An e-mail sent to Palin's spokeswoman to confirm authorship was not immediately returned Friday.
First off there is no death panel and honestly if Obama was pushing such a policy you would think he or anyone else wouldn't be stupid enough to call it a "death panel".
Anyway from her rhetoric ascribing evil policies to Obama and the obsession that the right currently has with comparing Obama and everything to the left of Ann Coulter with Nazis and Hitler, and sending signals of latent and sometimes overt racism that has begun to bubble up, especially among the least evolved minds of southern and bible belt whites above the age of 50. That is not to say there aren't legitimate issues and concerns about any health care legislation and that representatives should not be held accountable for what they vote and advocate, but that when someone hurls references to Hitler and the threat of Nazism around; it implies that action no matter by what means must be taken to defeat that figure and perhaps even eliminate them. Even when the left compared Bush to Hitler that was equally erroneous and moronic. But for some reason some conservatives are so ill-educated and consumed by hatred rather towards the policy, or Obama and Obama's background himself, they have dispensed with logic altogether.
But I digress, Ben Smith reports that on Sunday in a move that would make fellow conservatives Richard Nixon grin, the queen of conservatism with the June Cleaver vernacular has stated that she is disturbed by the ugly discourse without acknowledging her contribution to it.
"There are many disturbing details in the current bill that Washington is trying to rush through Congress, but we must stick to a discussion of the issues and not get sidetracked by tactics that can be accused of leading to intimidation or harassment," Palin wrote. "Such tactics diminish our nation’s civil discourse which we need now more than ever because the fine print in this outrageous health care proposal must be understood clearly and not get lost in conscientious voters’ passion to want to make elected officials hear what we are saying. Let’s not give the proponents of nationalized health care any reason to criticize us."
Seriously the conservative base that Palin represents is getting so predictable. Criticize a policy using histrionics and inflated rhetoric that demonize the opponents which riles the Janissary s, then after a brief time come out and disavow the fervor you helped brew. Her lack of policy and her polemics prove that Plain may be great at exploiting the resentment of white middle-aged undereducated straight church going Americans in the conservative populist mold of a modern day George Wallace, but that on policy and any grasp of it, her portfolio is thin to say the least and her interest seems to be even less. One can't help but start to see a little George W Bush or Richard Nixon behind that lipstick and thick framed glasses. We had George W Bush, a conservative in a similar mode for eight years, what makes anyone think she can implement Bush's policies with different results just because she wears high heels?
In a surprise to the U.S Senate, Florida's Junior Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL), announced that rather then continuing to serve the duration of his term as a Senator until his term is up in 2010, he will resign as soon as a replacement can be named.
Gov. Charlie Crist (R-FL), a popular moderate locked in a primary fight who is largely soon as a shoe in to keep that seat in Republican hands, would be charged with appointing such a replacement, though reports say Crist will not resign and fill the seat himself and instead replace him with someone else (who presumably would not seek re-election).
This appears to be a trend among Republican office holders this year. In July Governor and former 2008 Republican Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin (R-Alaska), announced that she would not only be not seeking re-election, but would resign on July 28. Earlier there has also been rumors circulating that Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) who is expected to be locked in a heavy Republican primary with current incumbent Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) who is vying for a third term as governor of the lone star state; would resign her seat sometime this Fall.
Martinez though, never seemed to me to be very comfortable as a Senator. Not a very vocal member, and a former Bush/Cheney loyalist who ran for the open seat in 2004 at the behest of Karl Rove and other administration allies, presumably so they could have another ally in the John Kyl- John Cornyn role in the Senate and be a different face that could usher Hispanics into the Republican party.
Sunday 2008 Republican vice Presidential Candidate and the now former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin resigned 17 months into her term as governor. Her lines attacking the media and those questioning Conservative (or in this day and age neo-conservative policies)made her sound like a bad cross between Dick Cheney and Cheney's old mentor Richard Nixon, who in a speech of his own conceding the 1962 California Gubernatorial race gave his famous "You won't have Old Nixon to kick around anymore" speech before a herd of reporters. Reports of her anger towards her critics also are consistent with the Nixon approach towards the press, politics, and governing.
But Ben Wyskida of Pinko Magazine, sees both similarities and contrasts between the Former Alaska Governor and the 35th U.S President.
Ahhhhh! It's like how when I see Sarah Palin talk I want to spear my eyes out, but some Americans see a "maverick." At least Nixon studied his policy. If he were alive today, I doubt that Nixon would tweet that "sealife near lush wet rainforests to energy housed under frozen tundra atop permafrost, God most creatively displays His diversity in AK," tacitly implying the support of God for arctic drilling. In a way that makes Palin scarier -- while Nixon was personally shy, and comparatively reticent about religion, Palin can be an outright zealot.
Like Nixon, Palin blames the media. "Stop making things up," she told the gotcha press on Sunday. The biggest similarity though, is the willingness of Palin -- like Nixon -- to just say some shit. Let's look at her speech. Objectively, Palin has achieved almost none of her core campaign objectives. How did she handle that? "Alaska: What I promised, we accomplished." Oh! Great. Why are you quitting Sarah? "Isn't it obvious?! A lame duck Governor can not serve their state." That's insane, of course -- by that standard, 15 governors should resign, or never should run for re-election, but then they would be lame ducks in their first terms, so there shouldn't even be Governors. Or something. It doesn't make any sense. She loves to just say some shit.
In my post from July 4th, I wrote that Palin's plan could work because the 2010 election presented an opportunity for her to roll out a killer stump speech, and go town to town to town (through "real America," the towns that hate cosmopolitan liberals) campaigning for Republicans and attacking "elitist" Democrats while exploiting lingering race and class tensions
Today in nations around the globe, including various cities across the United States there have been activities and protests to mark an international day of action against the Iranian regime, for its voting irregularities in the June Presidential election and the subsequent harsh and inhuman treatment of dissidents and Iranians across the spectrum.
Some protesters are demanding a new election, to rectify the lopsided results of the June election, all are calling for the release of dissidents and political prisoners from the bowels of Iranian prisons.
I wish I could have participated, unfortunately I just heard about these demonstrations last night and the nearest event in Massachusetts is in Boston. But just the same I and I think it is safe to say the plurality of Americans and people around the globe who believe in peace, egalitarianism, justice, and freedom; at least march with those protesters(especially those in Iran who are in many cases literally risking their lives)to voice their opposition and chart their own course in the vast sea of destiny.
LONDON (AP) -- Protesters across the world called on Iran Saturday to end its clampdown on opposition activists, demanding the release of hundreds rounded up during demonstrations against the country's disputed election.
Groups including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International backed a global day of action, with protests planned in more than 80 cities.
The protesters want Iranian authorities to release what they say are hundreds, or even thousands, of people detained during protests that followed the presidential election last month that returned Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to power.
Inside Iran, as well, Iranian police and pro-government militia attacked and scattered hundreds of protesters who had gathered in Tehran in response to the global demonstrations of solidarity, witnesses said.
Demonstrators in Vanak and Mirdamad districts chanted "death to the dictator" and "we want our vote back" before they were attacked and beaten by police Saturday. The witnesses spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation.
Interestingly the internal politics, even amongst the established order is fissured to some degree. Even amongst Mahmoud Amadinejad and the conservative ayatollahs composing the "Supreme Leader" Sayyid Ali Khameni are divided. Ahmadinejad had mulled choosing an Iranian Vice President who allegedly made some positive remarks aboutIsrael(or ones that weren't threatening to Israel anyway). Apparently the established order didn't like that too much, and after digging in his heals; Ahmadinejad finally capitulated and will not choose that candidate to serve as the top Iranian Vice President.
Some musings are traveling around that Ahmadinejad, long a fervent conservative ally of the Ayatollah's and to their strict doctrine; was seeking a more conciliatory cabinet. Some may wonder why Ahmadinejad, someone who has been such a hardliner would seek to placate these factions? Well the answer is simple; despite the elections that have been rigged in his favor Ahmadinejad is still a politician. Ever few years he is up for re-election again, and even if the process is completely fixed in his favor his authority could be diminished in others ways and order completely disrupted. The Supreme Leader on the other hand is not up for election and his linked by the system to Shia Islam. He unlike Ahmadinejad who is accountable to the Ayatollah's and to some degree the people; the Supreme leader who has the true power of state resting in his palms and no end to his term is accountable to nobody.
Ahmadinejad may be reckless, but he is not totally stupid. He is well aware that if he doesn't sway or ameliorate the outrage in some at least slightly conciliatory way; if not at least cosmetically; the unrest and opposition towards him will blossom further; either forcing him from power or severely chocking any policies or actions his administration may want to take. In short the difference between the two is the old adage by Lord Acton that "absolute power, corrupts absolutely".
Anyone who has turned on the news recently has heard that Obama's health care reform push is eroding in support. Despite being a country with over 40 million uninsured and premiums that rise to levels three times the rate of inflation, the majority of Americans would certainly agree that something has to be done. Our physicians, research departments, and medical technology may be the best in the world, but in terms of insurance our system is a disaster for those who can't afford it.
However the question over how to pay for it without increasing the astronomical debt and what that bill contains, as well as the political risk for politicians taking action on anything is thwarting that. Additionally though people might have a right to be suspicious not only about the financial cost, but because the process of crafting such legislation isn't being done as transparently as initially promised, a snag that cost the Clinton administration in 1993 and 1994 its health care plan.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington sent a letter to the Secret Service asking about visits from 18 executives representing health insurers, drug makers, doctors and other players in the debate. The group wants the material in order to gauge the influence of those executives in crafting a new health care policy.
The Secret Service sent a reply stating that documents revealing the frequency of such visits were considered presidential records exempt from public disclosure laws. The agency also said it was advised by the Justice Department that the Secret Service was within its rights to withhold the information because of the "presidential communications privilege."
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics said it would file suit against the Obama administration as early as today. The group already has sued the administration over its failure to release details about visits from coal industry executives.
Once again it is acts like this that are eroding the popularity that ushered Obama into the presidency after nearly a decade of closed government, scarce accountability, and the consolidation of Executive power. Yeah, these might not be the sexiest issues, nor ones that people really cite in public surveys of areas they are most concerned about or interested in. Nevertheless, it goes to the heart of every action our government takes. In the Bush/Cheney administration it was showcased repeatedly that lack of oversight, transparency, and the amassing of unchecked power leads to corruption, violations of civil liberties, disastrous policy, lack of trust in public institutions, and general ignorance. Whether it be human rights violations via torture, lobbyist scandals, corruption at the U.S Justice Department, the humiliating response by the government to Hurricane Katrina, the evaporation in prosperity for the Middle Class and thus the entire apparatus of our economy, or the folly of Iraq; lack of accountability, fortifying the offices and instruments and knowledge of power from the public, and lack of accountability is always destructive to our country, its people, and even the reputation and strength of our leaders.
Quite frankly if this approach is adopted by the Obama administration, they deserve to fail on health care. Unfortunately it is we the people who deserve better. Update (9:10PM/ET)- The White House has released the list of individuals representing the health care industry who visited the White house to discuss healt care reform.
Update (10:58 AM/ET)- Despite yesterday's concession by the White House in releasing the names of 18 healthcare officals who visted the White House to advise the administration on health care policy; they still insist that white house vistor logs can be kept secret. One step forward and two steps back.
And they wonder why the Muslim world hates us. Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) seems to be channeling Rudyard Kipling style jingoism for policy in the Middle East. Insisting that the best way to ease tensions in the Middle East is to make sure that our actions and policies are "firmly grounded in Juedo-Christian principles". I don't know which is more reckless and stupid; perhaps forgetting that p every nation with the exception of Israel has a Muslim majority or that he and other neoconservative zealots don't care.
WASHINGTON (JTA) -- Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told Christian Zionists that U.S. policies in the Middle East must be "firmly grounded" in Judeo-Christian principles.
"Reaching out to the Muslim world may help in creating an environment for peace in the Middle East, but we must insist as Americans that our policies be firmly grounded in the beliefs of the Judeo-Christian tradition upon which this country was founded," said Cantor (R-Va.), the House minority whip and the only Jewish Republican in Congress, in a speech to the Christians United For Israel annual conference in Washington.
I have said said it before, if one thinks that a majority white christian country can with a bible in one hand and an M-16 in the other can go to a region of the world that you are culturally and historically unfamiliar with (and whose culture and language you are so dismissive of), whose language you don't speak, and view it as some opportunity to convert them to Christians and make thier countries into a region in the mold of United States, you are in the minds of many netural parties in the region validating the claims of Al-Queda that Europe, the United States, and Israel are imperialists seeking to desecrate Muslim and Arab culture, as well as sovereignty; thus allowing our enemies to make this an even more nationalistic holy war and rallying more support for the anti-western sentiment.
I just hope that this was merely political pandering to the nut job neocons and not something that Cantor and any serious policy maker believes in. Because we are already fighting an enemy who seeks to spread a perverted and distorted form of a religion with missionary zeal through a-symmetrical millita -style means. The last thing we need is to become a power that with arrogance goes around the globe using the twin elements of fanatic missionary zeal and violence to do the same by using a twisted version of Christianity or Judaism, with our millitary. It would be futile, horrific.
Besides just because our nation is built on a Juedo-Christian philosphy (that at least according to the Treaty of Tripoli of 1796 is questionable in and of itself) doesn't mean that all nations are too. America is not the world. We have always espoused a principle of self-determination for peoples and lands throughout the globe, and those who actually believe we should exercise in Foreign policy a Judeo-Christian Foreign policy in a Muslim land, are not only ignorant but violate that principle of self-determination.
And another thing, if you want to be a religious evangelist that's fine. But don't do so in public office.
Well that is what the Huffington Post reports via Senator Sam Brownback's own blog. Ardent pro-lifer Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) wants to ban scientists from being able to create human animal hybrid species. Brownback is set to retire from the Senate in 2010 and run for governor of Kansas, and obviously now wants part of his national political legacy to be killing any possibility of centaurs and Arielle the Little Mermaid becoming a reality. Given Senator Brownback's intense "pro-family agenda" one would think he would want to encourage the good natured wholesome family fun that is a Disney movie in becoming a reality (maybe a tax credit for owning a blue genie or an elephant that can fly. Or how about one for guys who dress in strange costumes in the middle of the night and take children off to a .... oh wait, I was referring to Peter Pan not Michael Jackson).
Between this and Congresswoman Michelle Bachman (R- her own state of mind), seeking years back to ban the movie Aladdin in local Minnesota schools; one has to wonder what acid these lawmakers have been trippin on. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) is also a co-sponsor. The legislation now has 20 co-sponsors, but hey with the economy having recovered, us being out of Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran and North Korea disarmed, global climate change halted, health care legislation passed, and the budget deficit under control; I guess we now have time for more pressing concerns such as this! That's what we pay lawmakers for, and get those the Seven little bearded guys while you are at it.
While of course it was U.S Rep. Steve King (R,IA-05). Now being the lone dissenting vote against an action or legislation can be seen as a profile in courage, but when you do it standing in opposition to a plaque at the capitol Hill visitors center that acknowledges the role that slaves played in construction of the Capitol building in the name of protecting "America's Christian Heritage" you just end up looking like an idiot. But of course that is not uncommon for the Iowa congressman. But hey at least he gave some lip service to the cause of anti-slavery by saying that Christian abolitionists and Dr Martin Luther King Jr were good because they believed in God. The House vote by the way was 399-1.
Here is a statement King's office released on the matter:
“Last night I opposed yet another bill to erect another monument to slavery because it was used as a bargaining chip to allow for the actual depiction of ‘In God We Trust’ in the CVC. The Architect of the Capitol and liberal activists opposed every reference to America’s Christian heritage, even to the extent of scrubbing ‘In God We Trust’ from the depiction of the actual Speaker’s chair in the U.S. House of Representatives.
“This is just the latest example of a several year effort by liberals in Congress to scrub references to America’s Christian heritage from our nation's Capitol. Liberals want to amend our country’s history to eradicate the role of Christianity in America and chisel references to God or faith from our historical buildings.
“Our Judeo-Christian heritage is an essential foundation stone of our great nation and should not be held hostage to yet another effort to place guilt on future Americans for the sins of some of their ancestors. Christian abolitionists gave their lives by the hundreds of thousands to end slavery. Great American leaders like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. worshiped God just as our Founding Fathers did. We must never forget this important aspect of our heritage or use it as a political bargaining chip.
Yeah, because we certainly wouldn't want to look learn from the mistakes and atrocities of the past, or acknowledge the contributions of those who were forced to do agonizing labor to build our nation. You can you get much more Far right then not acknowledging the role slavery played in our nation?
Update (9:48pm/ET 7/9/09)- If you hear a loud sound don't worry that is probably just the knuckles of Rep. Steve King (R,IA) just dragging across the floor. Now King says that he voted against the plaque because for some reason he thinks that although he abhores slavery, that too few Union soliders perished in the Civil War when compared with the number of slaves held in the cruel bondage of slavery. He also said we need to take a balanced view of History. Does this guy even know what he is trying to say?
And of the 645,000 Africans that were brought here to be forcibly put into slavery in the United States, there were over 600,000 people that gave their lives in the Civil War to put an end to slavery. And I don’t see the monument to that in the Congressional Visitor Center, and I think it’s important that we have a balanced depiction of history.
A balanced view of history? What does he mean by that? First off the civil war was not initially fought to end slavery, but over confining slavery from being instituted in new territories and to keep the succeeding states from breaking with the Union. Secondly, just because in the sick and desperate mind of a fool like Rep. King the body count wasn't high enough for the Union soldiers, or that although slavery was abolished that we simply shed it as a part of our history, or that slavery is anything short of evil; is repugnant and outright stupid. It is this and incidents like the alleged discrimination against African-Americans at a public pool in Philidelphia, Pennsylvania shows that history does have consequences. And that although in terms of race relations in the U.S we have made extraordinary strides, there are still attitudes locked in the 19th century and some minds including one in congress that are demonstrating what is the intellectual equivalent of evolution in reverse.
Related item: Sen. Jim Demint (R-SC) arguably the most hardline conservative senator in the U.S Senate, while hawking his new book compares present day America to guess what???????? Pre-World War II Germany! Glenn Beck must be proud. Honestly, the Hitler America under Obama Presidency line is degrading and insulting to those who actually had to live under the agony and endure the atrocities of the Nazis. This isn't a political term that should be thrown around for the bread and circuses of the arch conservative movement, because it really is getting a little old. Get some new material, or propose sound policy alternatives that don't involve endless military conquests or enhancing the already wealthy at the expense of average working Americans. Until then about 75% of the country will look to you not for leadership but to ridicule.
This afternoon it became official. In one of the longest and most drawn out contest in American political history ex-Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN) has ceded his challenge to ex-SNL star and comic turned Democratic Senate Candidate Al Franken, following a legal tangle.
The state Supreme Court had ruled unanimously today, in favor of Franken, following legal challenges since Franken's narrow victory in November. The court stated Franken was entitled to have his election certified and to be officially seated, a process that requires the signature of Governor and 2012 prospective Republican Presidential contender Tim Pawlenty (R-MN). This now officially gives U.S Senate Democrats what is officially a filibuster proof majority if all Senators vote the party line.
Republican Norm Coleman has conceded to Democrat Al Franken in the Minnesota Senate race, ending one of the longest Senate races in American history and clearing the way for Democrats to hold a 60-seat supermajority in the Senate.
Coleman’s concession, given from the front of his St. Paul home, came just a few hours after the Minnesota Supreme Court on Tuesday unanimously ruled Franken the winner of last November’s Senate race. In a unanimous 5-0 decision, the court upheld a three-judge panel’s April 14 ruling that Franken defeated Coleman in the race by 312 votes out of 2.9 million cast. The 32-page opinion was remarkably decisive, picking apart and rejecting one Coleman legal claim after another.
In its final line of the ruling, the state Supreme Court said Franken is “entitled” under Minnesota law to “receive the certificate election as United States senator from the state of Minnesota.”
“The Supreme Court of Minnesota has spoken and I respect its decision and will abide by the result,” Coleman said. “It’s time for Minnesota to come together under the leaders it has chosen and move forward. I join all Minnesotans in congratulating our newest United States Senator – Al Franken
Everybody's favorite fictional and daft instrument of conservative populist platitudes Sam Wurzelbacher ( the so-called 'Joe the Plumber') has resurfaced again, according to Wonkette.
At a conference where Obama was once again compared to Stalin (how cliche), and "Joe"called for Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT)to be "Strung up" He also said the following:
Wurzelbacher has a reputation for being a blunt, politically incorrect speaker. Referring to Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., more than once, Wurzelbacher asked, "Why hasn't he been strung up?"
And he glosses over facts. Referring to the Constitution as "almost like the Bible," Wurzelbacher said of the Founding Fathers: "They knew socialism doesn't work.
Yeah Sam, inspirational point except that Marxism/ Communism was born in the 1840s. The Communist Manifesto in fact wasn't published until 1848; far after the crusade of our founding father's as laid out in the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence in 1776, and the foundation of our principles were laid when they were enshrined in the Constitution in 1787.
I am a college student with an associates degree in Communications. One day i aspire to be a journalist. This site is not meant to be a venue of objective journalism as it is to be a venue of self expression.
Note I take no money from sirius satelite radio or any other companies I may post links to or mention.
