Middle Earth Journal

Senator James Inhofe(Sociopath, OK)

2011-04-21T19:12:00.000-07:00

While peak oil may threaten our civilization peak water threatens our species. Hydraulic fracking is seen by some to be the next solution to the fossil fuel shortage but what about it's impact on water resources. While we are told that it can be done safely experience tells a different story. This from yesterday:

Gas Drilling Emergency in Bradford County

Officials said thousands of gallons of fluid leaked over farm land and into a creek from a natural gas well in Bradford County.

This of course is just the latest example of contamination resulting from fracking. Just hours after this latest contamination event Oklahoma's sociopathic senator, James Inhofe said this:

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) is perhaps Congress’ most reliable defender of dirty energy and evangelizer against the “hoax” of global warming. This morning, he took his message to Fox News host Brian Kilmeade’s radio show, where he extolled the virtues of hydraulic fracturing, a method of extracting natural gas known widely as “fracking.” Fracking is a relatively new and untested technique, but Inhofe insisted that there’s nothing to worry about, as he claimed fracking has “never poisoned anyone” nor ever contaminated groundwater:

Here's the audio:

Of course this is pure bull shit:

While fracking has the potential to create vast new American energy supplies, Inhofe’s claim that it is completely without risk is either stunningly ignorant or intentionally dishonest. Just yesterday, a blowout at a Pennsylvania natural gas well engaged in fracking spilled thousands of gallons of toxic chemical-laced water, “contaminating a stream and forcing the evacuation of seven families who live nearby as crews struggled to stop the gusher,” the AP reported. Inhofe referenced the Pennsylvania spill in his interview, but said that it has “nothing to do with fracking” because it was a stream, not groundwater that was contaminated.

But fracking has contaminated groundwater. As a recent New York Times investigation confirmed, waste from fracking has contaminated groundwater and even drinking water with toxic and radioactive chemicals. The process relies on pumping toxic chemicals deep underground to break rock, and between 2005 and 2009, “hundreds of millions of gallons of hazardous or carcinogenic chemicals” have been pumped into wells. Large amounts of radioactive material have been found in water supplies near fracking sites, many Pennsylvanians have gotten sick, the tap water in homes near fracking sites have caught on fire, and a home in Celveland, Ohio blew up.

It’s worth noting that the oil and gas industry has been Inhofe’s top contributor over his political career, giving him over $450,000 in the last election cycle alone, even though Inhofe wasn’t up for reelection. Inhofe’s single largest campaign donor is oil conglomerate Koch Industries.

Inhofe is a sociopath who will sell his soul to the highest bidder. That of course makes him a Republican Christian.

But They Won't!

2011-04-12T17:58:00.000-07:00

Matt Yglesias correctly points out that the Obama administration and the Democrats don't have to be held hostage when the rise in the debt ceiling comes up and he has a plan.

This isn’t a sudden “shutdown.” Nor is is true that we have to default on obligations to our bondholders. Rather, it means that government outlays are now limited by the quantity of inbound tax revenue. But for a while, the people administering the federal government (to wit Barack Obama and Timothy Geithner) will be able to selectively stiff people. So the right strategy is to start stiffing people Republicans care about. When bills to defense contractors come due, don’t pay them. Explain they’ll get 100 percent of what they’re owed when the debt ceiling is raised. Don’t make some farm payments. Stop sending Medicare reimbursements. Make the doctors & hospitals, the farmers and defense contractors, and the currently elderly bear the inconvenient for a few weeks of uncertain payment schedules. And explain to the American people that the circle of people who need to be inconvenienced will necessarily grow week after week until congress gives in. Remind people that the concessions the right is after mean the permanent abolition of Medicare, followed by higher taxes on the middle to finance additional tax cuts for the rich.

Of course this won't happen - because they really don't want to. Obama and the Democrats are owned by the same people that own the Republicans. We on the the progresive side used to say the Clinton was the best Republican president since Eisenhower. Well Obama has accepted the imperial presidency of George W. Bush which as I see it makes him the best Republican president since George H.W. Bush. While Clinton was to the right of Eisenhower Obama is to the right of Bush 41. He is owned by Wall Street and the military industrial complex. The most important paragraph in Elizabeth Gould and Paul Fitzgerald's Crossing Zero is this:

By late 2009 it was clearer than ever that both Congress and the State Department had come to rely on the American military to set the policy agenda. In fact, it appeared that it might even be impossible for Washington to return to a civilian-orchestrated strategy of nation-building anywhere, after thirty years of militarily enforced privatized foreign policy schemes. An entire industry now existed to lobby against any efforts to reverse the trend, change the status quo or even to make private contractors accountable for the taxpayer money they received. A book by Allison Stanger, One Nation Under Contract, outlined the dimensions of a problem where the private sector had become a "shadow government" operating outside the law with billions of federal dollars, but little to no accountability for how or where the money was spent.

It's impossible for congress to reduce military spending because they depend on money from defense contractors get reelected - the best government money can buy. Of course the same thing can be said for the too powerful to fail banks. The plutocrats are in the drivers seat. If the Tea Party figures that out they may prove to be our salvation.

The New Confederacy

2011-04-06T20:47:00.000-07:00

Dennis G. at Balloon Juice has a must read post, Making money the Confederate way. There are to ways to create wealth - you can create it or you can steal it. There are those who say the Civil War was not about slavery and in a sense they are right.

150 years ago the Confederacy launched the Civil War to protect an economic systems based on the theft. Slavery was the most obvious example, but the system also exempted the rich from taxes and the burdens of war. It also refused to support innovation, invention or infrastructure as tools to generate wealth. It was a Kleptocracy.

One of the Confederacy’s biggest gripes against Lincoln was that Old Abe wanted to invest Federal money in Education, railroads, ports, and other physical improvements. Worst from their POV was that Lincoln also wanted to invest in people and protect the rights of workers. Lincoln’s desire to limit the amount of wealth the elites could steal was why the South started the war.

That brings us to to Paul Ryan's budget plan:

Case in point is Paul Ryan’s very “serious” wealth redistribution plan. At its core it is a plan to steal the labor, savings and wealth from most Americans and redistribute it to the elites. It is just another plan—in an endless series of plans—designed to steal money while passing along the cost of social and environmental destruction to others. It is just theft, plain and simple.

And like the Confederates of old, Ryan and his fellow eunuchs of the the elites are against any Federal involvement in wealth creation through innovation, invention or infrastructure spending. That might create new winners and losers and we can’t have that in their Galtian wonderland.

Ryan’s plan is distinctly Confederate, but then again that could be said about almost everything offered by the Republican controlled House. All of their policies are an effort to turn the clock back to some time before the Civil War and recreate a distinctly Confederate economy—an economy controlled by an elite handful of old white guys who could steal anything they wanted and below them a mass of poor folks struggling just to survive.

Thom Hartman has said that the goal of the Koch brothers and their Republican lawmakers is to turn the United States into Charles Dickens' England. I think Dennis G's analogy is better. As conservative Clive Crook points out Ryan's plan will do nothing to reduce medical costs and in fact will not even reduce the deficit problem. What it will do is to further redistribute the wealth to the elites at the expense of the middle class and the poor - the Confederate model.

Dennis G's post is one I wish I had written but I didn't so go read the entire thing here.

The Black Hole Economy

2011-04-04T11:15:00.000-07:00

Richard Heinberg has a great analogy for the world economy - it used to be a star but it has collapsed and is now a black hole.

Maybe it is more accurate to think of the economy itself as the black hole. At its heart is a great sucking void created in 2008 by the destruction of trillions of dollars’ worth of capital. The economy used to be a star, spewing out light and heat (profits and consumer goods), but it imploded on itself. Now its gaping maw will inevitably draw all surrounding matter into itself.

You can’t see the black hole, of course; it’s invisible. It is composed largely of unrepayable debt in the form of mortgages, and of toxic assets (mortgage-backed securities and related derivatives) on the books of major financial institutions, all of which are carefully hidden from view not just by the institutions themselves but by the Treasury and the Fed. Added to those there is also a growing super-gravitational field of resource depletion—which is again invisible to nearly everyone, though it does create noticeable secondary effects in the form of rising energy and food prices.

As I noted here:

The world economic system is credit based and requires constant growth. That constant growth is dependent on cheap oil.

Peak cheap oil was already here but the events in the middle east have accelerated the rise in prices.

The trillions of dollars of toxic debt and the end of cheap oil are drawing the world economy into a black hole. What will we find on the other side? It won't look like anything we have now.

Tribal Warfare and the Budget Kabuki Dance

2011-04-03T21:25:00.000-07:00

Nearly 60% of Americans are in favor of a government shutdown to reduce spending, but of course Americans are painfully ignorant of where the money in the budget goes. As I noted here the Tea Party wants to cut the budget but they really don't want to cut anything that really matters. What they do want to cut are some rather insignificant budget items they don't like. The current budget fight is not about balancing the budget, it is tribal warfare. There is little or no talk of cutting military spending, the Republican base likes bombing brown people and Muslims and the Military Industrial Complex would not stand for it. There is little or no talk of cutting Medicare, many of the Tea Partiers are on Medicare and the Medical Industrial Complex depends on Medicare for much of it's revenue.

I leave Social Security out of the budget equation because it is not a budget item. Unless you object to repaying the Treasury Bonds you and I have been buying for over thirty years Social Security does not contribute to the deficit anymore the repaying any of the other treasury bonds.

The Republican party is the party of corporate America and corporate America does not like regulations that make the water and air clean - so they are on the chopping block. And then there is the war on the truth - the measly five billion dollars a year NPR receives is a target. The truth is not a friend of conservatives. Planned Parenthood equals abortion to the base which puts it in the cross hairs. When you look at the budget these programs represent a few grains of sand in a large bucket.

If you really want to reduce the deficit you have two choices:

1. Slash Medicare and defense spending

2. Raise taxes

None of these are on the table so the present discussion is little more than tribal warfare - a political Kabuki dance. And yes, it is bi-partisan.

Back in Business?

2011-04-03T21:11:00.000-07:00

I am going to start cross posting all of my Newshoggers and The Moderate Voice posts here. There won't be any original content but I would like to have a little more control. Continue to visit the above linked sites.

250,000

2008-09-12T19:59:00.000-07:00

Although there hasn't been a new post here for over four months I see MEJ has gone over quarter of a million hits. We still average over 50 hits a day.

Don't forget the pamphleteers are still busy.

Ron at Newshoggers

Jazz at The Moderate Voice

Chuck at Chuck For....

Middle Earth Journal

2008-05-06T18:04:00.000-07:00

Middle Earth Journal is now inactive although the pamphleteers aren't. Jazz can be found at The Moderate Voice , Ron can be found at Newshoggers and The Moderate Voice. Chuck can be found at Chuck For... .

MEJ

2008-05-01T19:24:00.000-07:00

Ennui, I've been afflicted myself several times in the last couple months. The Democratic Primary drags on, ugly. The economy is stinking. The stupidity of ethanol has gained traction. We are not paying attention to what is going on with oil trading. Our kids are dying in for one man's stupidity. Sometimes I want to either cry or break things or just sit.

Does blogging do any good? I don't know, to a certain extent it is preaching to the choir, it also gives concrete voice to what many cannot voice. Sometimes it is a fresh outlook or rationale, sometimes it is just reinforcement. Sometimes it seems an entire waste.

Ron has been one of my regular stops from the beginning and he flattered me with an invitation to post here. I 've been an irregular poster, trying to have something fresh for two blogs is difficult for me. I'll miss this place. I hope Ron decides to come back.

Anniversary and the end for now.

2008-05-01T10:47:00.000-07:00

This is the fourth anniversary of Middle Earth Journal and it seems like a good time to shut down for awhile. Jazz has a new a better soap box over at The Moderate Voice and I'm so discouraged I don't really have anything to say. I may be back - I may not, time will tell. I'm not really convinced it will really make any difference who is elected president in November. The country and the world's problems will not be addressed. We have reached Peak Oil and it's too late to avoid the pain. Climate change is real and the impact will be devastating. Now I don't know if it was ever possible to do anything about it but once again it's too late now. We are also at or near peak water and peak food. I think you could say we have reached peak people and there is nothing anyone can do. What will happen is the inevitable resource wars fought over not just oil but water and land where food can still be grown. They will make the War on Terror look like a minor play ground fight. So there is nothing I can do to make any real difference so I'm just gong to sign off for now. Thanks to everyone who has read and contributed to these virtual pages.

Dreaming of a Clintonless Democratic Party

2008-04-30T14:29:00.001-07:00

Still yet another reason to hope that the Clintons will simply go away:

It’s one thing for a good presidential candidate to embrace a bad idea. It’s worse when the candidate knows it’s a bad idea. It’s worse still when the candidate attacks her rival for failing to embrace a bad idea. And it’s the worst when the candidate feels so strongly about the bad idea that she starts running television commercials about it.

Of course he's talking about Hillary Clinton and her support of John McCain's incredibly stupid gas tax holiday. Now we know it's stupid because Fred Barnes thinks it's a good idea. It's so stupid that even Thomas Friedman thinks it's stupid and He's rarely right about anything. Jonathan Alter calls it what it is:
Political Pandering
Suspending the federal gas tax is a crass ploy for votes. Why Hillary Clinton and John McCain should know better.

Hillary Clinton has now joined John McCain in proposing the most irresponsible policy idea of the year—an idea that actually could aid the terrorists. What's worse, both of them know that suspending the federal gas tax this summer is a terrible pander, and yet they're pushing it anyway for crass political advantage.

Clinton and McCain have learned a destructive lesson from the Bush era: as Bill Clinton said in 2002, it's better politically to be "strong and wrong" than thoughtful and right. The goal is to depict Barack Obama as an out-of-touch elitist. By any means necessary.

I could highlight a long debate among economists on suspending the gas tax, but there is no debate. Not one respectable economist—and not one environmentalist or foreign policy expert—supports the idea, unless they are official members of the Clinton or McCain campaigns (and even some of them privately oppose it). To relieve suffering at the pump, send another rebate check or provide tax credits or something else, but not this.

So why is it so stupid? Alter explains:

* It's a direct transfer of money from motorists to oil companies, which are getting ready this week to again report record obscene profits. If the federal excise tax were lifted, oil companies would simply raise prices and pocket most of the difference. Clinton's proposal to recover the money with a windfall profits tax on oil companies sounds nice but won't happen. That tax was easily blocked by the Senate in December and would likely be blocked again.

* It offers taxpayers only peanuts. The Congressional Budget Office says the average savings to motorists this summer would be a total of $30. Did I miss something, or was that measly number somehow not included in Clinton's explanation of her support?

* It sends more hard-earned money to the Middle East, which is terrible for our national security. Remember, 15 of the 19 terrorists on 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia. How did they get the terrorist training? The madrassa indoctrination? Oil money.

* It worsens global warming by encouraging gasoline consumption. When you flee your house in 2020 because of flooding, remember which politicians pandered.

* It makes it more likely you'll have a car accident or will waste even more time in traffic. The proceeds from the gas tax go for highway construction and upgrades. Because the tax (24.4 cents a gallon on diesel fuel) was last raised 15 years ago, our infrastructure is a mess, with potholes and dangerous crossings practically everywhere. Thousands of repair projects will be further delayed.

* It will cost 300,000 construction jobs, according to the Department of Transportation. Makes it kind of ironic when Clinton starts her rallies saying she wants "jobs, jobs, jobs."

* It will cost the U.S. Treasury at least $8.5 billion and probably much more, according to state highway officials. For McCain that's no money at all—merely one month in Iraq. For Clinton it's money she's already spent. She has said in the past that any proceeds from a windfall profits tax would go for renewable energy. The $8.5 billion figure assumes the tax would be reapplied after Labor Day. Fat chance. The one-year costs are probably closer to $30 billion.

* It won't happen anyway because Congress isn't usually quite that stupid, and if it is, President Bush would veto the bill.

What I have heard few talk about are the reasons behind the sky rocketing fuel prices. Of course we have reached peak oil which I first discussed here almost four years ago. But that doesn't explain why the US is being hurt much more than Canada, Europe, Australia and New Zealand. The reality is that oil costs a lot more dollars because the dollar buys a lot less. A majority of Americans now realize that the occupation of Iraq is responsible for much of our economic woes. That includes the price Americans pay for gasoline. The occupation of Iraq costs about three billion dollars a week. That money is all being borrowed driving up the national debt and driving down the value of the dollar. Now an gas tax holiday won't increase the supply of oil and if anything will decrease the value of the dollar driving up prices even more.

Now John McCain has admitted he doesn't know anything about economics so perhaps he doesn't realize how stupid the gas tax holiday is. I can't believe that Hillary Clinton doesn't know any better making her support even worse.

McCain's 100 Year "War". The reality of the Germany and Japan comparison

2008-04-29T15:57:00.000-07:00

Much ado has been made of the so-called John McCain "flip flop" regarding his position on the fifty or one hundred year war in Iraq. Josh Marshall made quite a case about this, hinging on the fact that McCain was apparently "against having U.S. troops remaining in Iraq before he was for the idea." As was pointed out by Hot Air's Ed Morrissey, McCain's position may have evolved in light of facts on the ground and, he proposes, people should consider the fact that McCain is talking about a difference between war, occupation and "presence" where Americans are not suffering casualties and the occupied country is more of a partner with the Americans, such as in Germany and Japan. This, however, is exactly the area where I feel McCain has a tremendous weak spot which will be exposed if the media ever gets over the "honeymoon" period they have with Senator McCain as Josh Marshall notably points out.

My problem with this theory has long been that the difference between Iraq and Germany or Japan is not simply a difference of apples and oranges, but apples and aardvarks. They aren't even in the same phylum, class or family. This week I decided to go to some of the real experts on the subject and arranged a pair of original interviews. For the topic of Japan, I spoke today with Dr. John Dower in the first of a two part interview. (Look for a full interview transcript next week here on TMV.) Professor Dower is not some political hack or pundit. He is a historian and expert on the history of post-war Japan, the author of many numerous books on the subject, the recipient of multiple Pulitzer Prizes, National Book Awards and the Bancroft Prize, all on Japanese history in the modern era. In our brief introductory session this week I asked him if there was any evidence of an insurgency against Americans by the Japanese during the occupation period of 1945 to 1952, similar to the Iraq insurgency. His answer was short and to the point.

Zero. There was zero evidence of any form of insurgency against the Americans in Japan during that period.

He went on to describe some of the key differences between the two scenarios. They fall into three areas, which are also mirrored in the conditions we find in post-war Germany. First, there is the matter of how America treated the invasion and post-war occupation of these countries. The United States had pummeled Japan's major cities with air bombardments long before the nuclear bombs hitting Hiroshima and Nagasaki. After the surrender in 1945, America treated Japan as a defeated nation. No dissent was tolerated and control was absolute.

The second area is the response of the defeated country to the occupiers. Japan was in great danger of being totally destroyed by the Chinese. They had been fighting with China since 1931 and China's death toll at the hands of the Chinese is estimated to have been in excess of 15 million. China was ready, willing and able to wipe Japan off the face of the Earth and America was the only force standing in the way of that. Combined with the Emperor's orders to obey the Americans and recognize the surrender, we were very nearly welcomed with the "flowers in the streets" which we never received in Iraq.

The third factor is in the inherent national identity of the Japanese. They were already an incredibly ancient culture, dating back well past the time of Christ. There were certainly periods of internecine warfare in their feudal era, but there had been a national sense of "being Japanese" for ages unimaginable in comparison to the brief history of the United States.

None of these conditions apply to Iraq. Dr. Dower published a piece in the Boston Review back in 2003 (prior to the invasion of Iraq) titled "A Warning From History: Don't expect Democracy in Iraq." It turned out to be frighteningly prescient. Here's a brief piece, but be sure to read the entire piece to see exactly how well Professor Dower saw the future of an American occupation in Iraq.

Starting last fall, we began to hear that U.S. policymakers were looking into Japan and Germany after World War II as examples or even models of successful military occupations. In the case of Japan, the imagined analogy with Iraq is probably irresistible.

The problem is that few if any of the ingredients that made this success possible are present—or would be present—in the case of Iraq. The lessons we can draw from the occupation of Japan all become warnings where Iraq is concerned.

In a second interview we will have, which can not be disclosed yet, we find the same conditions mirrored in Germany. There was a vestigial insurgency in Germany, called Operation Werwolf, which was composed of The Heer and the Hitler Youth. However, it was immediately disavowed by Hitler's successor, Grand Admiral Karl Doenitz, and was widely considered a fiasco producing no notable results. The Germans, like the Japanese, are an ancient culture dating back to their struggles against the Roman Empire and beyond. And the American occupation of Germany was initially a brutal one, not even allowing the German police force access to guns. The Germans, like the Japanese, were in great fear of the Russians who they had slaughtered to the tune of tens of millions.

Again.. none of these conditions exist in Iraq. Our history of attempts at military occupation of Muslim nations has been dismal by comparison to our experience in Germany and Japan. And our methods today are much more "care bear" policies of rescuing the hapless Iraqis from their dictatorial ruler than imposing the iron fist of martial law.

John McCain's attempt to compare Iraq to these two historical periods should be pointed out to the public by the media. He is either being incredibly disingenuous, or he is demonstrating a shocking and dismaying lack of understanding of military history and its implications for our continued presence in Iraq.

The not so Reverend Wright

2008-04-29T14:22:00.000-07:00

Reverend Jeremiah Wright has not looked or talked like a minister in the United Church of Christ. He has looked like a ego driven huckster trying to get as much publicity as possible to sell his upcoming book. In the process he is making life very difficult for Barack Obama with the help of the corporate press and both the Republicans and the Clinton campaign. Was he in Clinton's camp all along or has he always just been in Wright's camp? In any event I think if you dusted his attempt to undo Barack Obama the last few days you would find the fingerprints of active Clinton supporters if not the campaign itself. Now Obama was very critical of Wright today and divorced himself from most of Wright has said the last few weeks.

"The person that I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago," he said. "His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate, and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church."

"They certainly don’t portray accurately my values and beliefs," he said.

"If Reverend Wright thinks that’s political posturing, as he put it, then he doesn’t know me very well and based on his remarks yesterday, I may not know him as well as I thought either."

Will it be enough to halt the feeding frenzy? Probably not but Clinton may become part of the feed not the feeder if she becomes tied to this.

Remind me again - who's running for President?

2008-04-29T08:22:00.000-07:00

The vile and hateful John Hagee is not running for president - John McCain is. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright is not running for president - Barack Obama is. When John McCain tried to distance himself from John Hagee that was the end of it. But as Bob Herbert and Andrew Sullivan explain when Barack Obama tried to distance himself from Wright the corporate media, Reverend Wright himself or the Clinton Campaign will allow him to do so. And now we have this from Thom Hartmann - It was a Hillary Clinton supporter who arranged for for Rev Wright's appearance at the Press Club.

Hour One - Who arranged for for Rev Wright's appearance at the Press Club? Photo from the National Press Club's website and outed in a story by Errol Louis in today's NY Daily News, captioned: "Rev. Wright gets the inside story from Rev. Barbara A. Reynolds, the Speakers Committee member who organized the Wright breakfast. (Photo by John Metelsky)" According to Louis' article, Reynolds' website, which is now vacant of all text, had until today said that: "'My vote for Hillary in the Maryland primary was my way of saying thank you' to Clinton and her husband for the successes of Bill Clinton's presidency."

This from Errol Louis:
Is Jeremiah Wright a colossal disaster for Barack Obama or a press trick?

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright couldn't have done more damage to Barack Obama's campaign if he had tried. And you have to wonder if that's just what one friend of Wright wanted.

Shortly before he rose to deliver his rambling, angry, sarcastic remarks at the National Press Club Monday, Wright sat next to, and chatted with, Barbara Reynolds.

A former editorial board member at USA Today, she runs something called Reynolds News Services and teaches ministry at the Howard University School of Divinity. (She is an ordained minister).

It also turns out that Reynolds - introduced Monday as a member of the National Press Club "who organized" the event - is an enthusiastic Hillary Clinton supporter.

On a blog linked to her Web site- www.reynoldsnews.com- Reynolds said in a February post: "My vote for Hillary in the Maryland primary was my way of saying thank you" to Clinton and her husband for the successes of Bill Clinton's presidency.

The same post criticized Obama's "Audacity of Hope" theme: "Hope by definition is not based on facts," wrote Reynolds. It is an emotional expectation. Things hoped for may or may not come. But help based on experience trumps hope every time."

Is this just another example of dirty Rovian politics on the part of the Clinton campaign?

About that permanent Republican majority

2008-04-29T07:59:00.000-07:00

Karl Rove's dream was a permanent Republican majority. After nearly eight years of the Bush/Cheney cabal the reality is far different. Fewer Americans identify themselves as Republicans than at any time in the last 20 plus years. And when you look at those between 18 and 29 it looks even worse.

It's no secret that Republicans have a brand problem; the gap between Dem and GOP party identification is greater today than at any point since the vanguard of the Reagan revolution, when Republicans held a double-digit advantage. Researchers at Pew have put a decade's worth of data through their analytical minds and come to the conclusion that the leading edge of the Democratic edge is among young voters. This isn't surprising, but it is noteworthy. Consider: Voters under 30 in the Midwest are twice as likely to call themselves Democrats as they are to identify as Republicans. 63% of women under age 30 identify as Democrats versus just 28% who call themselves Republicans. Democrats even have the affiliation of a majority of young men.

As Jazz explains over at The Moderate Voice:

Among voters ages 18 to 29, in 1992 the split was 47 to 46 in favor of the Republicans. Today, Pew Research is showing that same demographic as breaking 58 to 33 in favor of the Democrats.

[.....]

Politically, today’s cohort of 18-to-29 year olds came of age during the Bush presidency. It has turned them into Democrats.

Neocon Hillary - 2008

2008-04-28T13:29:00.000-07:00

Two years ago I wrote Neocon Hillary where I discussed Justin Raimondo's commentary in the American Conservative Magazine, Hillary the Hawk. He quotes from a Hillary Clinton speech given on January 18, 2006.

“Let’s be clear about the threat we face now,” she thundered. “A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond. The regime’s pro-terrorist, anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric only underscores the urgency of the threat it poses. U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot and should not—must not—permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons.” To be sure, we need to cajole China and Russia into going along with diplomatic and economic sanctions, but “we cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran—that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons.”

Now it may appear that Hillary as made a move to the center but the Boston Globe reminds us that not much has changed.
Hillary Strangelove

AMERICANS have learned to take with a grain of salt much of the rhetoric in a campaign like the current Democratic donnybrook between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Still, there are some red lines that should never be crossed. Clinton did so Tuesday morning, the day of the Pennsylvania primary, when she told ABC's "Good Morning America" that, if she were president, she would "totally obliterate" Iran if Iran attacked Israel.

This foolish and dangerous threat was muted in domestic media coverage. But it reverberated in headlines around the world.

It was not only dangerous but she sounded more like Dick Cheney or William Kristol that someone trying to get the Democratic nomination for President. At a time when it is becoming obvious to a vast majority that neocon policy and ideology has been a dangerous failure are the Democrats really going to nominate someone who talks like Dick Cheney? If the corporate media has it's way the answer is yes but it went virtually unreported.

Al Franken is a funny guy

2008-04-28T13:04:00.000-07:00

But he's gotten even more funny since he decided to run for the Senate. Check out Ladies Logic for some information on how that Senate bid is going. Franken apparently neglected to pay his corporate taxes in a couple of states for several years.

The DFL is at a cross-roads in the Senatorial campaign. They can either find another candidate between now and their state convention, they can find someone to run a primary challenge to Franken (which will no doubt help Senator Coleman perserve campaign funds since he won't have a challenger until September) or they can stay with a Franken campaign that is self destructing at a rapid rate.

Note to Democrats: I don't care how good the polls look. You have to vet your candidates before you put them up against somebody with Norm Coleman's street cred. He may be vulnerable, but you've at least got to make the effort to find a candidate who is somewhere in the realm of reality in terms of political viability.

Mid Stream Radio

2008-04-28T08:03:00.000-07:00

The trouble with being a citizen journalist is it's a part time gig and doesn't pay the bills. Mid Stream Radio has been a success, one of the top shows in it's time slot but the real world has gotten in the way and Jazz and I simply don't have the time necessary to keep the show going. Today will be the final show so tune in for the good byes.

The DNC Primary Process

2008-04-27T23:39:00.000-07:00

A lot of people are sick and tired of the Primary by now and it seems even more are disgusted with the system the DNC uses. Hillary Clinton made sure the Primary was pushed up way early, she was campaigning in fund raising and national attention from the 06 election forward and the only chance anybody had was to come out early also. This isn't the fault of the DNC, it is simply a reality of having an "inevitable" candidate.

The stupidity of Florida and Michigan has been exposed for what it is, though blame keeps accruing to DNC. This cost should deter any further such behavior. If it does not, plainly natural selection will soon have to begin operation within State legislatures. There are some very good reasons the system is designed as it is, for Democrats.

Proportional delegate selection seems to offend some folks, they'd vastly prefer a winner take all system. There are some very nearly fatal flaws in such a thing for Democrats, it strongly encourages the 50%+1vote that Republicans favor and the Clinton/McAuliff crowd operate under. The upshot of that thinking is very narrow majorities, majorities that evaporate at the first opportunity and create the need for crisis manufacture. This also discourages campaigns from maturing, they are eliminated early and campaign stumbles are fatal. Depending on the point you pick in the path of the Primary so far, this could have killed either campaign before now. The biggest problem with a 50%+1 win is the number excluded from consideration, that 50%-1 can get pretty bitter about being ignored.

The small state start off offends nitwits like Florida and Michigan, they're ever so important they should get to go first. That is exactly the problem with them going first, only the heavily financed and well connected campaign will make it through a big state Primary, very nearly ensuring corporatist status quo candidates will be the only ones competing. While we might not be surprised that the Republicans prefer their campaigns to be such, Democrats don't - mostly. It means, at the least, the stifling of other voices in the campaign. Perhaps a Kucinich will never have a chance in a Presidential Primary, but his voice should not be silenced - it is an important part of Democratic politics (or pick your 2nd tier candidate to replace Kucinich in the statement). Sometimes a candidacy will take off because it is heard, Obama may not have had the resources to start out in a large state. That might please the Clinton camp at this point, but evidence shows it would not have been a good thing for the Party at large.

Once things like small state starts and proportional delegate selection are in operation the potential for near ties occurs. Two strong and appealing campaigns make it nearly inevitable so that means pledged delegates of nearly the same numbers would enter a Convention with no "out" available. This means a deal would have to be reached, a deal that would not be the result of a public winning of delegates unless you propose to go to the 50%+1 vote model. Under proportional delegate selection the +1 would represent the narrowest possible majority meaning an offense against the -1, a potentially more damaging result than having the Party's automatic (super) delegates be decisive.

There is an unfortunate misunderstanding of the status of the super delegates, they are elected by the people not some high powered insider clique. The Party insiders are elected by the State Parties composed of people elected by County Parties through PCPs who are elected by the residents of Precincts, the elected officials won State races as US Representatives, Senators, or Governors. These are not unrepresentative people, they simply are not elected in the Primary.

Caucuses have drawn the ire of many, particularly Clinton supporters. Caucuses have several advantages that are not considered, the first is affordability. MI and FL wound up disqualified because their State Legislatures decided to ignore the rules and make State financing of the Primary contingent on their date. A caucus could have been financed by a State Party, but not a General Vote Primary, the State Parties were hamstrung into going along in order to have such a vote (the truth is both State Parties wanted to go along, anyhow). A Caucus puts control in the State Party's hands, not the State government's hands - who by law cannot mandate a method - but can blackmail a result. DPO made it clear that rather than risk DNC sanctions the Party would caucus, the Legislature backed away, DPO refused to bow to any suggestion of blackmail and had the caucus alternative to do so.

The public nature and commitment required by caucusing has been blasted. The candidates wear a (D) after their name, it is a Democratic Party process and it is important that the candidate selected be Democratic in mindset. If the people involved in the process have to do so publicly and with a time commitment it pretty much ensures that people who have given the matter real thought will be the ones participating. Because the only requirements are a (D) and a commitment of time and dedication the process is not exclusive of anyone, it is simply most likely to attract the participation of those willing to put effort into it. I'll admit to preferring the wider participation of a General Primary, but an entirely reasonable wish that those included were more thoughtful and dedicated people than actually do participate. There is a trade-off and quite rationally the trade-off is narrow which ever side you come down on. I've heard people state that this violates the privacy of voting, it may not afford it, but it violates nothing. It is entirely legal and correct as a process of the Democratic Party, which is not the Federal Government.

If you want to play in Democratic politics you are simply going to have to accept a level of messiness. It is the nature of the Democratic Party, it is the nature of any Party that tries to be reflective of a wide membership. Sometimes that membership holds parties with directly opposed views, the 2nd Amendment is a perfect example of such a situation and the Party struggles to include both and it is a struggle. In many instances the tension between ideas results in better answers, sometimes only uneasy truces, and sometimes explosions. But this is the Democratic Party. The Republican model is something else and if it seems a bit more orderly, there is also the result of the last 7 years to take into that consideration. I will take the Democratic messiness.

In short, if you're looking for an efficient and orderly process the Republicans have one, and if it is that important to you to have it, all it takes is an (R) after your name and a certain fondness for the last 7 years to have it. If you think the Republicans have chosen good candidates with their system I suggest you reflect on who they've put up in your memory. I'm a Democrat and I'm not insulted that it's easier to herd black cats in a dark room with a stick than it is to manage Democrats, I happen to like it in fact. (I've never been impressed by sheep)

Fixing the Process

2008-04-27T15:44:00.000-07:00

No matter how many times we come back to the question, there seems to be no right answer as to how the Democrats could "fix" their presidential primary process, nor if it actually needs to be fixed at all. Yes, the current situation looks like a mess and has most of the chattering class all atwitter. Then again, a few months from now it is still entirely possible that the process will produce a nominee whom the vast majority of the party gets behind and this will all seem like a silly, unpleasant memory.

But the question still has some merit. Even if the process proves to be fundamentally sound, there's always room for improvement, eh? (See: Mousetrap, Better.) It's a question which is tackled yet again today (albeit in a snarky, sarcastic way) over at Talk Left by Big Tent Democrat. You have to dig through some serious bitterness about how the process is so unfair to poor Hillary Clinton and so advantageous to big, mean old Barack Obama, and the piece was apparently written as satire, but there are some good bits in there to consider.

The solution to the problem is simple - we should change the Presidential nomination process to a pure popular vote system. This would end all the silly calendar nonsense. You want to go first? Be my guest. That is not going to change the fact that California has the most people.

This would also let states decide if they wanted to pay for a real election (a primary) or wanted instead to hold a phony election (a caucus). It gets rid of superdelegates. Heck, it gets rid of DELEGATES period. It gets rid of every unDemocratic feature in the process (no overweighting rural districts or urban districts or any district.)

Finally, it eliminates the importance of incompetents like Donna Brazile.

Leaving aside for the moment the necessity of eliminating Donna Brazile from the process over the centuries to come (for having the temerity to suggest Obama might be winning) how would this popular vote concept work out? Unlike the national election, which will apparently be saddled with the electoral college until the next Constitutional Convention (read: "forever") there's really nothing stopping either party from changing their rules in any given state whenever the spirit moves them.

So, is it somehow bad that California has so many people? In a winner takes all, electoral college type system some have certainly made that argument. But the irony in BTD's complaint is that it really would have no effect on any one's chances in such a hypothetical popular vote scenario. As long as every Democrat who wanted to vote cast their ballot and they were all counted, what matter where they live? If there are a total of 40 million votes are cast across the nation in the primary and your candidate gets 40 million and one, then you win! No muss, no fuss.

How about the elimination of caucuses? Let's face it... the caucus system stinks up the joint this year if you are a Clinton supporter and it's the cat's pajamas if you favor Obama. But there are still some fundamental problems with them. Caucuses are an appendix of the democratic process, dating back to a time when getting out to vote often involved a horse. Some are better than others, but few are as bad as Iowa where you don't even get privacy to vote and must do so in front of friends, neighbors and employers - sometimes right in their living rooms. Even without that glaring flaw, any system which requires you to show up to vote within a tight time schedule, regardless of your work schedule, is pretty well rotten at its core.

I understand that BTD is mostly just angry about what appears to be the imminent demise of the Clinton campaign, but the Democratic party could do far worse than to set aside a good block of time for rules discussions at the convention this year. They can't force the states to conform to a standardized process, but they could definitely point out some of the worst problems and urge them to reform. One of the only other alternatives would be to give up and do winner take all primaries in each state like the mean old Republicans do, which, had it been the case, would have long since put Hillary into the nominee's seat.

But of course... that would be unfair.

None of the above....

2008-04-27T13:44:00.000-07:00

....or what if none of them are electable!
I suggested below that Hillary Clinton's campaign strategy of making Obama unelectable might be working but in the process she was making herself even less electable than he. But what about John McCain. Now here is a candidate that should be unelectable. He is in favor of continuing an occupation that over two thirds of Americans want to end. On nearly ever issue he promises to continue the policies of a president who has the highest unfavorable reading ever recorded. And the few remaining Bush supporters don't trust him. As Frank Rich pointed out this morning 27 percent of the PA Republicans showed up to vote against John McCain in a primary that is all but meaningless.

I made a prediction two years ago:

I'm not going to predict any individuals but I will predict that the election will be decided by at least two strong third party candidates. I'm not saying one of them will win but they will decide the election. Of course it won't be the first time, Ross Perot's race gave Bill Clinton the win in 92 and Ralph Nader gave the election to George W. Bush in 2000.

This time it will be different there will be two strong third party candidates, one on the left and one on the right. If Hillary gets the nomination there will be a large chunk of the Democratic base will be looking for an alternative.

I was wrong - no strong third party candidates have materialized. So who will decide? Those who simply decide not to participate. McCain's best chance is against Hillary. Many Republicans who might not vote will to keep Hillary Clinton out of the white. Hillary has managed to offend the black voters and the urban white voters. Obama will not inspire the Republicans as much and may pick up some Libertarian and even Republican votes. The only thing that Hillary's campaign has accomplished is to make her the least electable of the three.

As for me - I won't vote for Clinton or McCain and I won't be a part of inflating Ralph Nader's ego. For me it will be none of the above. I will work hard to make sure that progressive Democrats are elected to the House and the Senate.

Update
It's the Independents stupid.
I'm an Independent and I won't vote for Hillary Clinton. I think this is about right.
CLASH OF THE INDEPENDENTS

April 27, 2008 -- It's electability, stupid.
That's what Hillary Clinton and her surrogates have been spinning to super-delegates and anyone else who will listen since she lost her grip on once-inevitable nomination.

There's just one problem – when it comes to independent voters, those crucial swing votes in swing states, Hillary doesn't hold the electability edge: Barack Obama does.

Independent voters favor Obama by a 2 to 1 margin over Hillary – 49% to 24% – according to a NBC/WSJ poll taken after the Jeremiah Wright scandal in late March. His approval rating among Republicans is almost twice Hillary's as well – 19% to 10%.

Crossover appeal is the key indicator of electability – especially for Democrats. Despite Democratic dominance of Congress during most of the 20th Century, no Democratic president managed to win more than 51% of the popular vote, with the exceptions of FDR and LBJ. What's the lesson? Democrats especially depend on Independent voters and even some centrist Republicans to win the White House.

That's true now more than ever: Independent voters are the fastest growing and largest segment of the American electorate, as detailed in former Clinton and Bloomberg pollster Doug Schoen's new book "Declaring Independence: The Beginning of the End of the Two-Party System."

Obama's Independent edge has already had an impact in key 2008 swing states like Virginia, where independents made up 22% of the February 12th open primary. Obama won their support by a 2 to 1 margin, on his way to a 64-35 blowout victory.

As I said above Hillary is the least electable of the three candidates. She has alienated large portions of her own party, Independents will not vote for her and she can anticipate virtually no cross over votes. And Joe Gandelman talks about the very thing that made me go from Clinton to Obama.

And — also something we have noted repeatedly in our posts here — Clinton generates another reaction among many independent voters who detest the Rovian-style negative campaigning politics of division, seeming use of code words, and personal destruction (now widely covered in news reports as the Clinton campaign seeks to drive up Obama’s negatives more than make the case for her strengths against McCain):

Update II
More on McCain's problems.

Wildflower Break

2008-04-27T08:21:00.000-07:00

After a week of below average temperatures we had a pleasant day in the low 70s on Saturday here in the Pacific Northwest. I took the opportunity to head to the woods and check out the wildflowers. The most exciting find was two rare Calypso Orchids also known as fairy slippers. The flowers themselves are about the size of a quarter.

Also in bloom was the Fawn Lily

and the Giant Trillium.

In which universe?

2008-04-26T21:38:00.000-07:00

John McCain has a tough job ahead of him. The Bush kool-aide drinkers are down into the mid 20s. Bush has the highest disapproval rating ever recorded but McCain needs the kool-aide drinkers. St John must distance himself from George W. Bush to win but if he alienates the Bush cultists he can't win anyway even if Hillary attempts tom throw the election his way. OK, the cultists and the hard core rednecks won't vote for Obama but the might just sit it out. Tony Snow had his debut on CNN today and said McCain is trying to distance himself from Bush on the easy stuff like Katrina. But here was the shocker. Who does Snow think could help McCain? The only man in the US less popular than George W. Bush, Dick Cheney. Come on Tony, you are going to have to do better than that. In which universe would Dick Cheney be an asset to McCain's campaign? Certainly not this one.

Who's unelectable?

2008-04-26T17:39:00.000-07:00

It's become obvious who the Rethuglicans want to run against in the November general election - it's Hillary. For example:
Popular Vote Gives Clinton an Edge
By Michael Barone
It wasn't always that way. Initially the Republicans thought that Obama would be an easier target and were helping him knock off Hillary. That changed in late 2007 when they figured out that Obama would be a formidable candidate.

Hillary Clinton's strategy has been to paint Obama us unelectable and they have done everything in their power to make that so. They may have had some success but in the process have made Hillary even less electable - her campaign has alienated an important part of the Democratic base.
Party Fears Racial Divide
Attacks Could Do Lasting Harm, Democrats Say

In addition her campaign tactics have offended many Independent supporters like me and Libertarians who are looking at Obama won't vote for Hillary. Hillary Clinton has to be seen as the one who is most unelectable in November and it is the result of her Karl Rove style campaign. She had a lot of baggage to begin with and she has taken on even more in the last few months.

Even after her win in PA she contiues to lose support and donors to Obama. I am forced to give more credance to the conspirisy theory that she knows she can't get the nomination but want's to make sure Obama loses in November so she can run in 2012.

Sorry Hillary, it won't work. I have come to the conclusion that the Democractic Party would be stronger without you and Bill and all of your baggage.

Update
What John Cole says!

Just Say No

2008-04-24T18:04:00.000-07:00

Yes, I'm still alive. I haven't posted much lately because I'm sick and tired of all the news revolving around the cluster fuck that the Democratic nomination has become when there is real news out there. We are still losing the war we should have fought in Afghanistan because we don't give up on the disastrous occupation of Iraq which is even worse because we are doing exactly what the Iranians want us to do. No one is willing to admit that the war is over and the Iranians have one so we continue to spend US blood and treasure to support the truly pro Iranians, ISCI, the Badr ~~Brigade~~ Organization's fight against the Iraqi nationalist al-Sadr. Well al-Sadr has had enough:
Al-Sadr may restart full-scale fight against US in Iraq

BAGHDAD - Muqtada al-Sadr is considering setting aside his political ambitions and restarting a full-scale fight against U.S.-led forces — a worrisome shift that may reflect Iranian influence on the young cleric and could open the way for a shadow state protected by his powerful Mahdi Army.

A possible breakaway path — described to The Associated Press by Shiite lawmakers and politicians — would represent the ultimate backlash to the Iraqi government's pressure on al-Sadr to renounce and disband his Shiite militia.

By snubbing the give-and-take of politics, al-Sadr would have a freer hand to carve out a kind of parallel state with its own militia and social services along the lines of Hezbollah in Lebanon, a Shiite group founded with Iran's help in the 1980s.

It also would carry potentially disastrous security implications as the Pentagon trims its troops strength and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki finally shows progress on national reconciliation.

Even the US Army has conceded that the success of the surge was due to al-Sadr's "cease fire". The right, including Condi Rice, have been quick to label Sadr and JAM cowards. Sometimes what appear to be cowardice is wisdom - why get annihilated by superior power when you can live to fight the war on your terms another day. The "cowards" of the Mahdi army are capable of taking Iraq back to pre-surge violence in short order.

Back to the Clinton/Obama battle closer to home. When no one thought Obama could win he was treated kindly. The honeymoon is over. I quick trip over to memeorandum shows almost nothing but attacks on Obama.

I supported Hillary Clinton until January and said I would vote for her until recently. I still believe that the Democrats must regain control of the country. That said I will not vote for Hillary Clinton in November even if it means John McCain will be the next President. The Democratic party and progressives(liberals) need to regain power but with out the Clintons and the DLC.

Jeff Merkley and President McCain

2008-04-23T07:56:00.000-07:00

Jazz and I will be talking to Oregon US Senate candidate Jeff Merkley on Mid Stream Radio this morning at 10:00 PDT. You can call in at 646-595-3963. It has become even more important that Senator Gordon Smith be defeated in November since it appears that the Republicans have nominated the only Republican who could possibly win and that the Democrats will nominate one of the only two candidates who could possibly lose.

I don't believe that Hillary Clinton can win at this point. She was carrying a lot of baggage going into this campaign and has picked up a lot more. And is the US ready for a black president? Looking at the results of first Ohio and now Pennsylvania I suspect the answer is no. Obama will simply not get the vote of the white working class voter. I would like to blame Hillary's Rovian campaign for this but I can't. The Republicans would have played the card in the general election.

The only salvation for this country is for John McCain to have a very hostile House and Senate.

Oregon Radio

2008-04-23T07:39:00.000-07:00

Today on Mid Stream Radio, (1:00 pm Eastern, 10:00 am Pacific) in the second half of the show we will be interviewing Jeff Merkley, a Democrat who is running for the United States Senate, hoping to unseat Republican Gordon Smith in November. We'll be covering some issues of local interest to Oregonians, as well as some of the larger issues of the day which Mr. Merkley will have to vote on if he is elected to the Senate. Jeff is currently the Speaker of the House in Oregon.

In the first half of the show, we'll welcome back my boss over at The Moderate Voice, Joe Gandelman to get his take on how Pennsylvania played out and what it portends for the future of the primary race.

If you would like to submit questions for either guest in our always lively web chat during the show, you'll need to make sure you have registered for a free user account at the BTR home page and grabbed a nickname for web chats. You can also call in during the show to (646) 595-3963.

See you on the radio.

Finally they notice

2008-04-21T08:47:00.000-07:00

Via upyernoz at Rubber Hose the New York Times has finally figured out what many of us have been saying for months - the US and the Iranians are on the same side in Iraq.
U.S. and Iran Find Common Ground in Iraq’s Shiite Conflict

BAGHDAD — In the Iraqi government’s fight to subdue the Shiite militia of Moktada al-Sadr in the southern city of Basra, perhaps nothing reveals the complexities of the Iraq conflict more starkly than this: Iran and the United States find themselves on the same side.

The causes of this convergence boil down to the logic of self-interest, although it is logic in a place where even the most basic reasoning refuses to go in a straight line. In essence, though, the calculation by the United States is that it must back the government it helped to create and take the steps needed to protect American troops and civilian officials.

Iranian motivations appear to hinge on the possibility that Mr. Sadr’s political and military followers could gain power in provincial elections this fall, and disrupt the creation of a semiautonomous region in the south that the Iranians see as beneficial.

The American-Iranian convergence is all the more remarkable because of mutual animosity. The United States says that Iran has backed thousands of attacks on American troops in Iraq, bitterly opposes its nuclear program and has not ruled out bombing Iran if Iranian policies do not change. Meanwhile, at the level of senior officials at least, Iran takes quite seriously its depiction of the United States as the planet’s Great Satan.

I made this observation below:

They are constantly ranting about Iran but they have and continue to do all of Iran's dirty work in Iraq. They toppled Iran's arch enemy, Saddam, they put the most pro-Iranian elements in Iraq in power and they continue to defend those elements with US blood and treasure.

and upyernoz explains:

for years the iranian government has backed the same iraqi government as the u.s. over a year ago, bush met with the leader of what was then called the SCIRI (now called the ISCI) to pressure them to join the maliki government. the SCIRI/ISCI is one of the most overtly pro-iranian group in iraq. the members of the ISCI's militia, the badr organization, actually draw their pensions from the iranian revolutionary guard. bush was, quite literally, pushing iranian agents to become part of the u.s. supported iraqi government.

The Bush administration is supporting a group that is literally on the payroll of the Iranian government - the Badr Organization.

I have to wonder if al-Sadr remains in Iran because the Iranians won't let him return. The last thing the Iranians what is as al-Sadr in power.

Quote of the day

2008-04-21T07:48:00.000-07:00

I discussed Condi Rice's playground bully moment below and Jazz did it over at The Moderate Voice. Juan Cole's reaction is the quote of the day:

Has Rice ever said anything about Iraq that was true or useful? Even as she was talking up 'improved security' in Baghdad, mortar shells were falling about her in the Green Zone.

On the Radio Today - John McCain's Temperment

2008-04-21T04:46:00.000-07:00

The kerfuffle over Senator John McCain's history of having a nasty temper continues today from over the weekend. Over at The Corner we find a shot at defending "Punk McNasty's" history of flare-ups. (That name comes from a combination of nicknames the Senator received a a younger man, as admitted in his own writings, not some slur come up with by yours truly.) Today on Mid Stream Radio (1:00 PM Eastern, 10 AM Pacific) Ron and I will be discussing this issue, including the column I published this weekend pondering John McCain's Shinebox. We'll also try to have one of McCain's supporters on with us for the opposite view.

In the Corner piece, we find Mark Salter furiously backing away from some quotes he gave to the reporter who wrote this lengthy piece on the subject. However, some of the direct quotes attributed to him may be hard to wash off the walls. We'll try to get to the bottom of this today.

Remember, you can listen in using the widget in the upper right column here at Middle Earth Journal, or from the show's home page. You can call in with questions or comments of your own during the show at (646) 595-3963. You can also participate in our always lively web chat during the show, but in order to comment in the chat you'll need to have registered for a free Blog Talk Radio user account at their homepage and grabbed a nickname in advance. See you on the radio!

Jack Ohman on the ABC "debate"

2008-04-20T21:06:00.001-07:00

Comicspage.com

Bring em on!

2008-04-20T20:38:00.000-07:00

I have spent the last several years trying figure out if the Bush/Cheney administration and the neocons are stupid and delusional, just plain crazy or if there is some bizarre method to their madness. I'm beginning to think it must be all of the above. They are constantly ranting about Iran but they have and continue to do all of Iran's dirty work in Iraq. They toppled Iran's arch enemy, Saddam, they put the most pro-Iranian elements in Iraq in power and they continue to defend those elements with US blood and treasure. The latest example is this:
Iraqi Army Takes Last Basra Areas From Sadr Force
But of course they didn't do it alone.

BAGHDAD — Iraqi soldiers took control of the last bastions of the cleric Moktada al-Sadr’s militia in Basra on Saturday, and Iran’s ambassador to Baghdad strongly endorsed the Iraqi government’s monthlong military operation against the fighters.

By Saturday evening, Basra was calm, but only after air and artillery strikes by American and British forces cleared the way for Iraqi troops to move into the Hayaniya district and other remaining Mahdi Army militia strongholds and begin house-to house searches, Iraqi officials said. Iraqi troops were meeting little resistance, said Maj. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, the spokesman for the Iraqi Interior Ministry in Baghdad.

While the administration talks about about Iran's support for al-Sadr the Iranians are laughing. They like al-Maliki's government just fine since it is supported and controlled by the pro-Iranian ISCI and Da'wa party. The Iraqi security forces are primarily members of the Badr Brigade - a creation of the Iranians.

While that is stupid it is not nearly as stupid as this:
Secretary of State Rice Mocks Muslim Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr as a Coward

BAGHDAD — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice mocked anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr as a coward on Sunday, hours after the radical leader threatened to declare war unless U.S. and Iraqi forces end a military crackdown on his followers.

Now the American and British air strikes may have driven the Mehdi army underground but only to fight another day. The always stupid and incompetent Rice has just poured gasoline on embers which will flare up even sooner resulting in the deaths of both Iraqis and Americans. This administration is criminally stupid and incompetent.

Tulip

2008-04-19T10:47:00.001-07:00

I'm not really inspired to write anything so here is a tulip picture I took last week before winter returned to the Pacific Northwest.

Too Stupid to be President

2008-04-19T10:23:00.000-07:00

The Quote of the Day comes from John Cole:

I willingly concede that should we have a national crisis in which the President is faced with the threat of hundreds of reporters questioning his/her use of lapel pins, then Hillary is who I want to confront that problem.

For every other crisis, I choose Obama. Hillary is turning into a Saturday Night Live routine.

Now even John McCain realized early on that if he was to win the nomination he had to sell his soul and pander to the wingnut base. But not Hillary Clinton:

In a weird mirror image of last Friday's "cling" revelation — though perhaps without the same general election implications — this Friday afternoon brings a Huffington Post tape reportedly from a closed-door Hillary fundraiser in which Clinton scorns her opponent's supporters — the liberal activists who make up a pillar of the Democratic Party:
"MoveOn.org endorsed [Obama] — which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down," Clinton said to a meeting of donors. "We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that's what we're dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me."

Not only was it stupid she was lying once again. MoveOn as an organization never opposed the the war in Afghanistan. If she doesn't agree with a majority of the Democrats perhaps she should be running for the nomination as something other than a Democrat.

And this is what set John Cole off.

I am ashamed I actually supported this woman until January even though I made it clear I really didn't like her. F*#k Hillary Clinton and the DLC - I want real change.

A Brief Radio Note

2008-04-18T04:28:00.001-07:00

In short, Fridays are bad scheduling in this season. Between Ron's expanded work projects and my own schedule, it's really been unworkable for us to do our radio show on Fridays. So for the time being at least, including today, we won't be doing Mid Stream Radio on Fridays. But we'll be back on Monday with another four day lineup of programs. See you on the radio.

Shelf Life

2008-04-18T04:28:00.000-07:00

Many beer drinkers applauded Budweiser when they started putting "born on" dates on their bottles of beer so you would know what the expected shelf life would be when you bought it. That might seem like a good idea, but some Republicans are probably not very thrilled that certain "Democratic operatives" are releasing some advertisements pointing out that Republican presidential candidate John McCain is Older Than Velcro.

Called "Younger than McCain", the website is being run by Steve Rosenthal, a former political director at the AFL-CIO and executive director of America Coming Together, a massive soft money effort organized around the 2004 presidential race. Rosenthal is now a partner in The Organizing Group.

The current content amounts to a 90-second video listing the things younger than McCain -- a list that includes the Golden Gate Bridge, plutonium, Coke in a can and Velcro among many, many other things.

What do you think? Cheap shot? I've already heard GOP supporters saying that McCain's age is off limits as a campaign issue, since we're not supposed to talk about Obama's race or Clinton's gender. But is this a valid correlation? The fact is, there's nothing inherent to being female or African American which would hinder one's ability to function as the Commander in Chief. But how about advanced age?

Look... I love my mom dearly. She's a wonderful woman who still leads a quite active life, donating her time at a local elementary school, Meals on Wheels and plays golf once in a while when the weather allows. But we also had to recently help move her out of her home of more than half a century and into an apartment in an assisted residence community. She simply has far too many "senior moments" to put it kindly. While there are many things she can still do, I wouldn't put the woman in charge of a deli slicer today, to say nothing of the nuclear launch codes. She is four years older than John McCain.

Now, different people age at different rates. This clearly does not disqualify Senator McCain from running. But by the same token, it is a fact of life that such slides in mental acuity can and do happen for some people, so observing John McCain out on the campaign trail in these terms certainly seems both valid and required. This expert on Middle Eastern affairs has already confused his Sunni and Shiites on several occasions and apparently thought that Purim is the Jewish Halloween. In terms of electability in the fall this is also something to be considered. At some point we're going to have a series of nationally televised debates between McCain and (very likely) Obama. Having the young, dashing 48 year old Senator from Illinois standing a few feet from the (by then) 72 year old McCain might not be the visual image his supporters are hoping for.

Great momments in wingnuttery

2008-04-17T21:52:00.000-07:00

As if one failing occupation wasn't enough we have the wingnut post of the day from Dr. Rusty Shackleford:
The Two Wars in Iraq & Mistaken Republican Support for Obama
First we have this:

Bush screwed the pooch in Iraq. There is a good argument to be made that we should not have invaded in the first place.* There is no good argument that we should leave.

Well he's half right and that's an improvement but it goes downhill from there.

This conclusion is inevitable when one comes to the same realization as me. There was a war in Iraq and there is a war in Iraq. In fact, we've had two wars in Iraq: Iraq War I & Iraq War II.

The war now is not the same as that war. The first war in Iraq was against Saddam Hussein, the second war is against Islamists of various stripes, but mainly al Qaeda.

Give me a break, "the second war is against Islamists of various stripes, but mainly al Qaeda". Not even the Pentagon or the Bush administration make such claims anymore. You're not paying attention to the latest talking points Rusty, it's all about Iran now - you know, the country who's President is greeted with flowers by "our" puppet government.

And poor Rusty's rantings become even more demented and delusional. In fact his conclusion reads like something from Fafblog:

We must begin to speak of two Iraq wars. The two wars conception is more precise. It describes what has happened and what is happening in Iraq more fully than speaking of the war. It clarifies many of the debates surrounding the present war as well as allows us to conceptually think more clearly.

Further, the only way to convince war skeptics that winning the present war in Iraq is in our national interests is to give them the linguistic tools for being able to conceive of it as separate from the first war, even if it flows from it.

The First Iraq War may have been "optional", as many of the critics say; but the Second Iraq war is not. We must win it. The price of victory may be high, but the price of defeat is higher.

*There are also good arguments, in my estimation, that the decision to invade Iraq was correct.

**There may be an argument that Iraq I was an extension of the Gulf War in the same way that some view WWII was an extension of WWI.

Of course the Fafblog crew isn't serious - Rusty is! Straight jacket please.

Required reading

2008-04-17T21:37:00.000-07:00

There is such joy in the Universe now that Fafblog has returned. Yes you really do have to be insane to be sane. Giblets, the guardian of wisdom, puts Obama's "bittergate", or is it "clingate", into perspective. Today's required reading.

The Protect America Act

2008-04-17T20:16:00.000-07:00

Sorry I've been absent for a couple of days but I was called out of town unexpectedly. I missed the Mickey Mouse debate on the Disney Channel but Jazz covered that below. I missed the fact that the MSM still seems unwilling to report on the deteriorating situation in Iraq but then that's why they are called the cable tabloid networks. I didn't miss this however:
'Bin Laden Determined To Strike In U.S.' Pt. 2
or this:
GAO Slams Bush on Terrorism - says Al Qaeda attack likely and we have no plan
Yes we do indeed need a Protect America Act but it should consist of getting the Bush/Cheney cabal out of the White House as quickly as possible and making sure the Republicans become an insignificant and powerless minority. According to the GAO, while Bush and the neocons having been fighting their own personal demons in Iraq while the real demons are gaining strength and getting ready to attack.

al Qaeda is now using the Pakistani safe haven to put the last element necessary to launch another attack against America into place, including the identification, training, and positioning of Western operatives for an attack. It stated that al Qaeda is most likely using the FATA to plot terrorist attacks against political, economic, and infrastructure targets in America “designed to produce mass casualties, visually dramatic destruction, significant economic aftershocks, and/or fear among the population."

And yes they are the real demons - not al-Sadr or the Iranians.

al Qaeda’s central leadership, based in the border area of Pakistan, is and will remain the most serious terrorist threat to the United States

But the Bush administration has no plan and probably no interest in stopping them.

No comprehensive plan for meeting U.S. national security goals in the FATA has been developed, as stipulated by the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism (2003), called for by an independent commission (2004), and mandated by congressional legislation (2007). Furthermore, Congress created the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) in 2004 specifically to develop comprehensive plans to combat terrorism. However, neither the National Security Council (NSC), NCTC, nor other executive branch departments have developed a comprehensive plan that includes all elements of national power—diplomatic, military, intelligence, development assistance, economic, and law enforcement support—called for by the various national security strategies and Congress.

The only thing the Republicans and the Bush administration having ever been interested in is grabbing power and the bottom lines of their corporate sponsors. Of course they will use this report to justify the wiretapping of Greenpeace and Code Pink.

You can find the entire report here (pdf).

The Biggest Loser - ABC

2008-04-17T04:14:00.000-07:00

Last night's Democratic "debate" in Philly was an embarrassment, and not for the candidates. (Except, perhaps, for their poor judgement in showing up at all.) It should not come as a surprise to Charlie Gibson that the crowd heckled him when he announced that ABC would be cutting away to their last commercial break of the evening. The fact that it took a full fifty minutes for the moderators to make it past the minutia of silly season comments and manufactured scandals was sad enough, but when we finally got around to any "issues" in the final half hour, the questions were still poorly formed gotcha attempts demonstrating some fundamental breakdowns in understanding on the part of the moderators.

Of all these, the most degrading moment for Gibson came when he attempted to trap the candidates with a jaw dropping question on their proposed plans to withdraw from Iraq. He pounced in, demanding to know if they would still withdraw "even if the generals advised otherwise." It is a low mark in so-called journalism when Mr. Gibson requires Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to explain that our government is set up so that civilian leadership controls the military. The generals advise on the best way to achieve the goals set before them, but it is the Commander in Chief who sets those goals. If he needs a refresher course of why this is so, he need look no further than the end of World War II. After Germany was defeated, General George Patton pushed strenuously for the United States to attack Russia while we had the chance and the army on the ground to do it.

It was a shameful episode, and a look across the commentariat will show you that the debate was almost universally panned. Nice try, ABC. (Absolutely Bogus Claptrap?)

Retreat, Defeat, Elite, and other words that rhyme

2008-04-16T08:41:00.000-07:00

I'm not sure how the President had a change of heart regarding global climate change, but apparently he has. A new series of initiatives he unveiled today will seek to reduce the production of greenhouse gases while limiting the impact on the economy. I haven't often had the opportunity to praise this president, but this sounds like a sensible approach. As far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out on the exact extent to which climate change is directly caused by human activity and more research and study should be encouraged. However, I do know that less pollution in general is a good thing, so approaching this subject in a slow, responsible way while being mindful of not violating the law of unintended consequences is probably a good start.

It does seem, however, that in this bitter, partisan environment there are those who view this as a big, flaming bag of poo on the doorstep of the GOP. From The Corner:

I cannot emphasize too much how idiotic this is. At a time when the poor of the country and the world are feeling the twin crunches of credit being withdrawn and food and energy prices rising, jacking up energy prices farther will just add insult to injury. The fat cat traders of Wall Street will be licking their lips, of course. Meanwhile, House and Senate Republicans and (yes, some) Democrats who have stood up for the American consumer against this insanity will be left hanging.

They weren't the only ones calling it a surrender, either. John Cole noted that there was at least the appearance of some convenient positioning going on.

Woah- I thought the economy was fine over there at the corner and the housing crisis was much ado about nothing that the Dem-o- RATS and the LIE-berals were just making up in an election year.

There are plenty of reasons to be cautious, economic concerns not being the least of them, but it does seem rather odd to start talking about the dangers we face in this shaky economy after you've spent so much time telling everyone that the economy is strong and getting stronger and will be just fine. (At least until November.)

Let's give the White House some time to flesh this out and see where it goes, eh?

Hillary Clinton - The New Joe Lieberman?

2008-04-15T10:31:00.001-07:00

Now Hillary may not be openly supporting John McCain like Joe Lieberman but she is certainly doing McCain's campaigning for him. While the polls from PA are mixed there is reason to believe it may be hurting Clinton more than Obama. Robert Creamer attempts to give us an explanation.
Why Hillary Clinton's Slash-and-Burn Politics May Hurt Her More Than Obama

First, a negative attack has to ring true to the people you are attempting to persuade. Initial polls seem to indicate that most of the people who are receptive to the "Obama-is-a-condescending-'elitist'-argument" already supported Hillary in the primary before the attacks began. Clinton's attacks may rally some of her troops, but the argument doesn't seem to be that persuasive to actual undecided voters.

Of course one reason may have to do with the credibility of the messenger. It's tough to attack someone else for "elitism" if you've spent the last 16 years in Washington as First Lady and Senator, and your family brought in $107 million over the last seven years. Assuming an eight-hour workday, that means that Bill and Hillary made as much every two hours as Barack Obama made each full year that he organized out-of-work steelworkers for a coalition of church groups.

Second, the fact of a negative attack itself can backwash on the candidate who makes it. Making negative attacks makes people look mean and unlikable. That is a particular problem when the audience for your attacks includes Democratic primary voters and Super Delegates who really want to win the White House in November.

Clinton's negative attacks on Obama have especially begun to backfire with Super Delegates. I've talked to a number of undecided Super Delegate Members of Congress who are furious at her willingness to attack the candidate who they consider almost certain to be the Democratic nominee.

Most think that Clinton has no more than a 10% chance of winning the nomination, so the odds are great that she is doing nothing now but legitimating the Republican narrative for the general election. The story line that Democrats are "elitists" who look down on middle class people is taken right out of Karl Rove's playbook. It's been used for decades to convince everyday Americans to re-elect Republicans that outsource their jobs, destroy their unions and lower their wages. Many Democratic Super Delegates are apoplectic that Clinton would give credibility to that Republican line of attack on their likely standard-bearer.

We've already seen examples of high profile Super Delegates (like Bill Richardson) who have gone with Obama partially because of Clinton's negativism. We'll likely see many more.

Finally, her attacks have allowed the Obama campaign - and the media - to parody her desperate attempts to appear "working class." When Obama conjured up images of Hillary Clinton sitting in a duck blind it called to mind those unforgettable pictures of Michael Dukakis in a tank.

If the Democrats don't win the White House in November it will be the fault of Hillary Clinton and her campaign. I supported her until January and would have voted for her in November until about a week ago. Now - my old nemesis Bob Barr is looking better all the time. We have to stop the attack on the constitution and the hegemonic neocon foreign policy before any of the other issues will really matter.

Update
A CQ Politics analysis indicates that even with a "big" win in PA Hillary will barely close the delegate advantage held by Obama.

Update II
Still more evidence that Hillary Clinton's politics Rove style may be backfiring.
Clinton losing traction over Obama in Pennsylvania, Indiana

With three crucial Democratic primaries looming, Hillary Rodham Clinton may not be headed toward the blockbuster victories she needs to jump-start her presidential bid -- even in Pennsylvania, the state that was supposed to be her ace in the hole, a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.

The survey found the New York senator leading Barack Obama by just 5 percentage points in Pennsylvania, which votes next Tuesday. Such a margin would not give her much of a boost in the battle for the party's nomination.

What is more, the poll found Clinton trails Obama by 5 points in Indiana, another Rust Belt state that should play to her strengths among blue-collar voters.

In North Carolina, an Obama stronghold, he is running 13 points ahead.

A good performance in tommorows debate could all but sew it up for Obama.

The real insult!

2008-04-14T21:09:00.000-07:00

As I said from the begining what Barack Obama said about rural voters may have been unwise but it was accurate. John Baer of the Philadelphia Daily News agrees.

As a native-born, small-town Pennsylvanian, a son of native-born, small-town Pennsylvania parents - one from the coal region, one from Lancaster County - let me assure you that the so-called offensive, condescending things Barack Obama said about the people I come from are basically right on target.

[.....]

So, despite carping from Hillary Clinton and annoying yapping from her surrogates (really, it's like turning on the lights at night in a puppy farm), I take no offense.

What's offensive to me is suggesting that small-town, working-class, gun-toting and/or religious Pennsylvanians are somehow injured by a politician's words.

[......]

They've been injured from decades of neglect by political cultures in Washington and Harrisburg driven by special interests.

They're injured by a system of isolated, insulated political leadership that protects itself and the status quo above all else.

They've been harmed by a lack of political guts to fix a health-care system that works against the poor and forces middle-class families to pay more for less, while at the same time giving politicians the best coverage taxpayer money can buy.

They've been taken for granted by political parties and candidates who stay in power by - and this was the apparent gist of Obama's remarks - forcing attention and debate on issues tied to guns, religion and race (precisely because such issues resonate) rather than real problems such as health care and the economy.

Yes, Obama's remarks may have been unwise because he should have known that the Rovian campaigns being run by both John McCain and Hillary Clinton would jump all over it and be aided by the corporate media and their infotainment that pretends to be news. But the reality is the politicians and the pundits reacted the way they did because it was on the money and hit a little too close to home. Baer concludes with this:

So the question is whether Obama effectively defuses this, as he did the controversy surrounding his former minister. And that remains to be seen.

Just don't tell me that he insulted a state or, given his background, that he's an out-of-touch elitist.

And I especially don't want to hear such arguments from a candidate who spent decades in the bubble of a governor's mansion, the White House and the U.S. Senate, and under the blanket of $109 million income during the last eight years.

Pennsylvanians might cling to religion and guns. I hope they don't cling to stupidity.

Clueless, Dangerous Idiots-Hot Air Edition

2008-04-14T08:06:00.000-07:00

The other day I discussed how clueless the neocons and the Bush administration is when it comes to the realities of Iraq. Not to be outdone our friend Ed Morrissey writing at Hot Air proves he is either in denial or just as clueless.
Iraqis aren’t stupid — and they’re watching us

As Michael reminds us, we can argue over 2002-3 all we want, but it doesn’t have anything to do with 2008. We are in Iraq, and al-Qaeda is arrayed against our troops. In fact, this is the best possible situation if we want to fight terrorists — to have them on a battlefield in straight-up fights against our military. It’s exactly what terrorists don’t want. If they wanted to fight our military, they wouldn’t use bomb commuter trains and fly civilian airplanes into their targets.

OK, Ed is even more delusional than the administration - not even they think al-Qaeda is a significant force is Iraq. He then goes on to say that al-Qaeda wants us to leave Iraq - nothing could be further from the truth. Both al-Qaeda and Iran love the fact that our military is tied down and rapidly being worn down in Bush's ill advised Mesopotamian quagmire. And speaking of Iran - they are all ready the winners in Iraq. Their longtime nemesis, Saddam, is gone and their very good friends of the ISCI and Da'wa party a firmly in control. If we really think the government of al-Maliki is "our" ally we are really fools.

Good for him - shame on her

2008-04-13T21:04:00.000-07:00

Obama has discovered that the cynical Clinton campaign is just as capable of using Rovian slash and burn politics as the Republicans and he's fighting back. His only regret:

"Now, I am the first to admit that some of the words I chose, I chose badly," he said, "So I’m not a perfect man and the words I chose, I chose badly. They were subject to misinterpretation, they were subject to be twisted and I regret that.

But he stands by what he said:

"And what really burns me up is when people suggest that me saying that folks are mad, they are angry, they are bitter after 25, 30 years of seeing jobs shipped out, pensions not fulfilled, healthcare lost, the notion that people are surprised and are suggesting that I'm out of touch because I spoke honestly about people's frustrations, that tells me there's some politics going on," he said.

And he took a major swipe at Hillary's great adventures in hunting which were not unlike her adventures in Bosnia:

Obama said he was disappointed with her for her response and then launched into a new criticism of Clinton over her recent admission of being a hunter, and compared her sarcastically to Annie Oakley.

"She’s running around talking about how this is an insult to sportsmen, how she values the Second Amendment, she's talking like she's Annie Oakley! Hillary Clinton's out there like she's on the duck blind every Sunday, she's packin' a six shooter! C'mon! She knows better. That's some politics being played by Hillary Clinton. I want to see that picture of her out there in the duck blinds."

Now I'm a late victim of the Hillary derangement syndrome but I have to tell my friends Jazz and Chuck - you were right, I was wrong. I was continued to defend her will into January and even when I switched sides I said I would vote for her in November. Now I'm not so sure. Her sell centered cynicism and her adoption of Rove style politics has lead me to think that she is as much a part of the problem as John McCain. I have always had a problem with her DLC corporate connections.
And of course there are her neocon leanings that Justin Raimondo discussed in a cover story for American Conservative magazine. But until recently she still looked better than John McCain. I must admit that I am no longer so sure. Andrew Sullivan thinks that the Hillary campaign may have gone too far and that it will end up hurting her. He has some comments to prove it. Obama had been closing in on Clinton is PA - we will have to see what the racking polls have to say this week. While I never mark the box next to John McCain's name at this moment I'm not sure I would be able to mark the box next to Hillary Clinton's either.

Update
John Cole wonders......

Billy Kristol assures us that Obama is a Marxist in the NY Times in yet another embarrassing editorial, and my question for you is:

Who will be the first Hillary supporter to link this as a serious reason that Obama should not win the nomination?

Hillary "Prepubescent Gun Moll" Clinton

2008-04-13T05:25:00.000-07:00

Send lawyers, guns and money to Pennsylvania, Dad, get Hillary out of this.

The furor over Obama's small town bitterness comments regarding Pennsylvania have apparently reminded Hillary Clinton that people in rural areas often like their guns. Never one to miss an opportunity, she immediately propped up her bona fides with the second amendment crowd during a campaign stop in Indiana.

“You know, my dad took me out behind the cottage that my grandfather built on a little lake called Lake Winola outside of Scranton and taught me how to shoot when I was a little girl,” she said.

“You know, some people now continue to teach their children and their grandchildren. It’s part of culture. It’s part of a way of life. People enjoy hunting and shooting because it’s an important part of who they are. Not because they are bitter.”

Fabulous. It really sells with that target audience she's seeking in Pennsylbama right now, doesn't it? Unfortunately there was somebody in the audience who was rude enough to remind her that Democrats are supposed to be in favor of gun control.

Minutes later, in a slightly awkward moment, Clinton faced a question from a woman in the audience whose son had been paralyzed by a gunshot. The woman asked Clinton what she would do about gun control as president.

Clinton touted her husband's record on gun control during his administration, and said "there is not a contradiction between protecting Second Amendment rights" and the effort to reduce crime.

The sad part is that I agree with Hillary on that point. I'm another person who has no problem with reasonable restrictions and controls on gun ownership and feel that it can be done without threatening our basic right to keep and bear arms. Unfortunately, this doesn't sell well with the base. Putting loaded weapons in the hands of "a little girl" is a concept which might be a bit more than even the most gun tolerant Democrats are willing to swallow. I came from one of those bitter, rural areas, the son of an ex-military man with a huge arsenal in the closet, and I didn't fire my first rifle until I was thirteen.

If she's very lucky, nobody will notice this amidst all the sound and fury surrounding Obama's comments. Then again, see here for why I predict this "gaffe" will pass by without leaving much of a mark on the Obama campaign.

Clueless, Dangerous Idiots

2008-04-12T10:20:00.000-07:00

The Bush/Cheney administration and the neocons are truly clueless - dangerous - idiots.
Iran Top Threat To Iraq, U.S. Says

Last week's violence in Basra and Baghdad has convinced the Bush administration that actions by Iran, and not al-Qaeda, are the primary threat inside Iraq, and has sparked a broad reassessment of policy in the region, according to senior U.S. officials.

Evidence of an increase in Iranian weapons, training and direction for the Shiite militias that battled U.S. and Iraqi security forces in those two cities has fixed new U.S. attention on what Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates yesterday called Tehran's "malign" influence, the officials said.

The intensified focus on Iran coincides with diminished emphasis on al-Qaeda in Iraq as the leading justification for an ongoing U.S. military presence in Iraq.

Yes, they are still looking for an excuse to attack Iran. And if they do? It would appear they are oblivious to the fact that the ISCI and Da'wa party are even closer to Iran than al-Sadr. The ISCI's Badr brigade has infiltrated the Iraqi security forces and they will not stand by if the US should attack Iran. With the ISCI and the Da'wa party in charge of the government Iran is already calling most of the shots. Iran, unlike the US, realizes al-Sadr is popular and powerful so they give him token support. But they would much prefer to have the ISCI and the Da'wa party running the show in Iraq.

If the US thinks that al-Sadr is a problem just wait until the US bombs Iran. That's when all hell will break lose.

This isn't a social psychology class......

2008-04-11T21:38:00.000-07:00

.....it's political science.
Barack Obama created a firestorm because he said this:

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Of course he's right but it's not something you say on the campaign trail. This is what always worried me about Obama - he had never really been tested on the campaign trail. This is going to hurt him far more than Reverend Wright did. This will help Hillary now and McCain latter if Obama gets the nomination. The Rethuglicans have been trying to paint the Democrats as elitist snobs for 40 years and this just gives them ammunition.

Of course as Oliver Willis points out the quote was taken out of context by the MSM and the horrible Hillary Clinton was quick to jump on the band wagon, but a good politician would have known they would do that. Now McCain can say all kinds on stupid and insane things a he gets a free ride from the corporate media but you are a Democrat Obama and you have to be very careful what you say.

Obama got a free ride from the media when they thought he might be able to bump off Hillary but the ride was over when they figured out he could actually win in November. If the corporate media has to settle for a Democrat in November they would much rather have a corporate militarist like Hillary.

Update
I'm with John Cole:

Hillary Clinton and her asshole supporters are now perfectly aligned with the Powerline, and Jeffrey Toobin is right- Hillary Clinton is an embarrassment, and I simply can not face the prospect of four or eight years of her syrupy, two-face, condescending, smarmy bullshit.

It is obvious that the Clintons don't give a damned about the Democratic party or the country. While Obama needs to watch what he says I can't imagine voting for Hillary Clinton at this point. For starters I don't believe a word she says and at this point I think the occupation of Iraq will end in 2009 even if McCain is elected.

A Free Trade Apostate Speaks

2008-04-11T04:58:00.000-07:00

You could consider this as part of The Confessions of an Unapologetic Isolationist. A free trade apostate, if you will. As such, it saddens me to see the editorial board of the Washington Post climbing in bed with the Unfair Trade for America crowd. In their column, "Drop Dead Columbia" the editors take Nancy Pelosi to task for not immediately throwing open our trade doors to yet another country and laying out the red carpet for whatever will rush in - or more to the point, out - through that portal.

THE YEAR 2008 may enter history as the time when the Democratic Party lost its way on trade. Already, the party's presidential candidates have engaged in an unseemly contest to adopt the most protectionist posture, suggesting that, if elected, they might pull out of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Economically, it should be a no-brainer -- especially at a time of rising U.S. joblessness. At the moment, Colombian exports to the United States already enjoy preferences. The trade agreement would make those permanent, but it would also give U.S. firms free access to Colombia for the first time, thus creating U.S. jobs. Politically, too, the agreement is in the American interest, as a reward to a friendly, democratic government that has made tremendous strides on human rights, despite harassment from Venezuela's Hugo Chávez.

Each of the points above may have some merit and deserve examination, but Congress really needs to learn from the cautionary tale of our past adventures in "free trade" and provide some plain language explanations to the American public on the effect such changes will have. While I freely acknowledge the desirable aspect of supporting other governments supportive of our nation, the trade aspects of the deal need further explanation.

First of all, specifically what types of exports are we discussing? If these are products, particularly agricultural goods, which could only be found in Columbia, that's fine. But one thing we clearly do not need is yet another source of goods and services which can already be produced in the United States flowing into our markets from areas where slave labor level wages can keep their prices artificially low. If we're talking about manufactured goods, what steps will be taken regarding the quality and safety of the products? Our experiences with other "partners" in these areas, particularly China and Mexico, should give us pause. Bargain basement priced goods prone to shoddy quality and, in some cases, dangerous lead levels and other health hazards have been are rewards thus far.

And what of these "U.S. jobs" to which they refer? We need to be very, very clear about the difference between jobs which are positions in an American owned company and jobs here in the United States. When corporations are offered the choice between hiring American workers here at home or manufacturing their products in other nations where they can pay wages measured in pennies (and be rewarded by the government for it) what option do you suppose they will choose? I continue to watch large American corporations such as IBM and Lockheed Martin issue dictates to their management to meet minimum numbers of "global assets" (read telecommuters in other nations) while their American employees wind up taking brand new "U.S. jobs" at Starbucks. What sort of jobs will this agreement create, and where will they be?

I'm not saying we couldn't eventually enter into a trade agreement with Columbia, but let's not rush into anything without clearly and carefully making the case to the public and answering these questions. Taking the Speaker to task for wanting to tread carefully is exactly the wrong message.

Friday Squirrel Blogging

2008-04-10T22:18:00.001-07:00

I may not be too inspired to write but I still go to the park almost everyday and bond with the squirrels.

Losing In Iraq

2008-04-10T17:12:00.000-07:00

Over at Chuck for... I spent some time on the issue of "Winning" as an unconvinced sort, this over here is the other side. What is it that constitutes losing in Iraq? The Republicans are pretty clear that if the Democrats prevail and we withdraw, we lose. Withdraw = defeat. I can get the metric of leaving when the Republicans don't want us to is a Republican defeat, but they evidently want us to take it as something more.

Sainted Gen Petraeus was willing to put Al Qaeda in Iraq numbers at something in excess of 1,000. That is quite a few trouble makers with access to military hardware and munitions. It is not a credible fighting force, it cannot take and hold ground. It is really no more than a police matter. Whatever else it is, Al Qaeda in Iraq cannot take over the government. Nobody paying any attention could manage to "lose" to that bunch.

There is talk of our exit leading to a failed state. This is actually said with a straight face - failed state - as though what is in existence now is somehow successful. The government in Iraq is rated one of the most corrupt in the world, Republicans can rightfully point to that success The government is representative of a fraction of the country, some self-excluded, some excluded but it is not a government of Iraq. We have now armed and trained Sunnis, those at most danger of genocide, so they will now be somewhat difficult to just eradicate.

An explosion of violence is possible. The question being whether such a spike of violence would be in fact worse than the steady drip, drip of violence today. It is an unfortunate sort of measure to take, but factually the difference between 5,000 victims over 5 years and 5,000 over a month is immaterial. The pile of bodies at one time certainly looks worse in a short period, it is still the same pile. I have a natural aversion to being heartless in expression, but dammit, dead is dead.

The very latest version of loss is Iran having great influence over Iraq. I have a news flash for those making that argument, they already have it. Our President sneaks in, the Iranian President roams the streets to cheers, flowers, and kisses. A failed Iraqi offensive against the Sadrists is saved by a ceasefire mediated by the Iranians - not us. The plain fact is that Iran has sheltered the Shia from Saddam and from us, now. We opened that door thrice, once by invading Iraq, once by failing to secure the country after Saddam's fall, and once again by poking the Iranians. There is finally the fact that Iranians are Persians and Iraqis are Arabs and despite some physical similarities they are not anything remotely the same nor particularly fond of each other. Iraq will not become an Iranian colony.

If the Republicans must declare leaving a loss, then I'll go along with it. I'm much more fond of reality than the words used to describe it.

McCain/Rice to take New York?

2008-04-10T12:23:00.000-07:00

To borrow a classic line from Harry Carey, Holy Cow! Did you see the results of that Marist poll that said a John McCain - Condi Rice ticket would actually carry New York in November? No, this is not a satire post. They really printed this.

A McCain/Rice ticket would edge out both a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket for New York’s 31, usually true blue, electoral votes: 49% of registered voters in New York State support a John McCain/Condoleezza Rice ticket compared with 46% who support Hillary Clinton as president and Barack Obama as vice president. The Democrats don’t fare any better in New York with Obama at the top of the ticket as president and Clinton as vice president. McCain/Rice receives 49%, and Obama/Clinton has 44%. Although an Obama led Democratic ticket does better against McCain/Rice among non-enrolled voters than a Clinton/Obama ticket, Clinton/Obama is stronger with women against the Republicans.

Before you head for the fainting couch with a bad case of the vapors, allow me to remind you of something I wrote about recently. As long as we have this overheated, emotional fight going on between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, pollsters have some tough slogging ahead in doing their jobs. When they ring up an Obama supporter and ask if they would vote for Hillary as president or John McCain, they may well pick McCain or "I'll stay at home." Likewise for a Hillary advocate being asked about McCain vs a ticket with Obama at the top.

Stop and ask yourselves for a moment. Do you really see New York voting for a GOP ticket with John McCain and ANYONE? This is high comedy indeed. Condi Rice is not some Messiah to New Yorkers that will suddenly turn the Empire State red. Back away from the ledge, folks. This is a continuation of the decline in polling accuracy we've seen for some time now.

"Tell me how this ends."

2008-04-10T08:17:00.000-07:00

Greg Mitchell:

What will end up being the most famous quote of the Iraq war? Remember, President Bush did not actually say "Mission Accomplished." Perhaps Vice President Cheney's "final throes" will take the prize. But increasingly, as the significance of Gen. David Petraeus grows (seemingly by the minute), it seems possible that it might end up being his once-obscure 2003 remark to a well-known newspaper reporter: "Tell me how this ends."

It's 2008 and General David Petraeus still couldn't answer that question when he testified before the Senate and House this week. Dana Milbank reminds us that it wasn't just the Democrats asking the question this time.
From the GOP, the General Gets Unfriendly Fire

"The people of the United States have paid an awful price," thundered Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "It's time for the Iraqis to pay that price for their own protection."

"I still have a hard time seeing the big picture and what constitutes success," complained Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.). "That's not just one side of the aisle with those kind of concerns. Many on this side of the aisle have that as well."

Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) demanded an explanation for President Bush's unmet promise that the Iraqi government would take over security for all provinces. "Of course, that has not happened," Tancredo complained. "I'm just wondering whether, General Petraeus, you have any idea of why he made that statement?"

By the end of the day, the general and his sidekick, Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, had become accomplished in the art of gulping.

When he appeared before Congress seven months ago, the general was greeted as a returning war hero. But missiles are again raining on the Green Zone in Baghdad, and sadder but wiser lawmakers tempered their enthusiasm.

For the newly skeptical, Petraeus gave the not-entirely-successful defense that he could not define success in Iraq, but that he would know it when he sees it -- much like the late Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's view of pornography.

I have no doubt that David Petraeus is a smart man and as such he has to know the game clock will run out in January, 2009 even if John McCain is elected. So how many Americans will die between now and then because he allows George W. Bush to kick the can down to the next President.

Stay the course (Until Jan, 2009)

2008-04-09T20:17:00.000-07:00

I've been absent the last couple of days - in part because I'm really busy but probably really because I didn't have anything to say. While I have been pounding away at my keyboard I did listen to General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker's pep talk to congress. Shaun Mullen does a good job of summing up the entire testimony:

We have no long-term strategy.

We have no end-game plan.

We just need more Friedman Units, pretty please.

As well as:

The president would like you to help him kick the can down the road to 2009.

In spite of the fact that that's what I heard as well I was encouraged because I think that no matter who is elected in November the war will be winding down next year. There seemed to be more bipartisan understanding that it simply can't go on any longer. The occupation is damaging the military, damaging the economy and hurting us from a security point of view. The irony of the president of Iran being greeted with parades, kisses and yes, flowers while the Pt of the United States has to sneak in was not lost on our lawmakers - including many Republicans. What we got from Petraeus and Crocker was the same old bull shit we've been getting from the Bush administration for the last five years but there were far fewer lawmakers buying it. If there is one thing that made me sad it was to see a smart and dedicated soldier helping George W. Bush kick the can that is is foolish and failed war to the next President.

Carter Hearts Him Some Hamas?

2008-04-09T06:17:00.001-07:00

I was frankly a bit surprised to see that Jimmy Carter may be opening talks with Hamas. Of course, it's getting the usual criticism from the Right wing, but our friend and personal Middle East authority, The One True Tami, seems to think that Carter may be on to something.

I'm pretty sure that I'm an example of a Jewish person who wants good things for Israel. Am I turned around, here, or are people just being inflammatory out of reflex, and hurting themselves?

I think that people need to be working for peace, not supremacy. Maybe that's my problem.

Via Memeorandum and Fox News for the full back story.

It's a mad, mad polling world

2008-04-09T05:44:00.000-07:00

(Via Memeorandum) Gallup continues to conduct daily tracking polls of the endless election of 2008 and the results can vary from yawn inducing to jaw dropping incredulity. This latest edition is more in the former class, showing Barack Obama maintaining the status quo and holding a roughly eight to ten point lead nationally over Hillary Clinton. Some previous polls, though, where each of the Democrats are matched up head to head with Senator McCain have really had me scratching my head.

We talked about this during our radio show on Monday (replay available at link, should you care to listen) and this was my basic premise: More than 2/3 of the country opposes the Iraq war. Over 70% think the economy is in a recession and feel the war is contributing to that. 81% feel the country is going in the wrong direction. With numbers like that and so little daylight between McCain and George W. Bush (i.e. a McCain presidency being effectively four years of "more of the same") it seems to these rheumy, inexperienced old eyes that McCain shouldn't even be able to make it out of the gates in a head to head poll. What gives?

I tried to put myself in the position of some of the folks answering the phone when Gallup comes a'calling for their opinion. Let's say for a moment that you are a die-hard Obama supporter and the nice lady on the phone asks you who you would vote for between McCain and Clinton. Might you not have a twinge of guilt but tell her that you would either vote for McCain or not vote at all? And the converse, of course, might happen if you are a Clinton supporter being asked about McCain vs. Obama.

The Republicans already have their candidate. The Democrats are still in the midst of a hotly contested race with feelings running high among supporters on both sides. Once this finally settles out and the Democrats have a nominee, keep an eye on these polls. If my crazy idea has any merit, you may see a rather sudden and measurable shift which won't bring any joy to McCain's supporters.

Oprah Sinks Obama. Iceburgs Jealous.

2008-04-08T15:39:00.000-07:00

Apparently it's true. The foul stench of Barack Obama's unpopularity has doomed Oprah Winfrey. I know it must be true because I read it on The Politico. Follow the top link to our friend The One True Tami (Blessed be Her name) and you too shall see the light.

In which I am remiss

2008-04-08T14:25:00.000-07:00

I realize I haven't posted much in the last 24 hours. Sorry about that. But in Upstate New York spring has sprung and we've been in a frenzy of outdoor activity ranging from yardwork to the current task of firing up my recently reconditioned grill and cooking a porterhouse steak. The snow is gone, the yard calls, and I'll get back to the politics as soon as I can here.

Cheers!

On the Radio Today

2008-04-07T03:38:00.000-07:00

Today on Mid Stream Radio (1 pm Eastern, 10 am Pacific) Ron and I will be joined by Pam Leavey of The Democratic Daily. Since there is so little political news to report on, we'll probably discuss bunt cake recipes and other baking tips. Oh yes... and why it took so long for Mark Penn to get fired. (As Pam said in the linked article... "Thank heavens")

Be sure to join us. You can get in on the conversation by calling (646) 595-3963, or by hopping in to the always lively web chat! (Remember, to participate in web chats you will need to register for a free user account at the BTR homepage and grab a nickname.)

See you on the radio!

Cheney's Man in Iraq?

2008-04-06T08:54:00.001-07:00

Now I thought General Petraeus was a pretty sharp fellow but this is absurd:
Iran joined militias in battle for Basra

IRANIAN forces were involved in the recent battle for Basra, General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, is expected to tell Congress this week.

Military and intelligence sources believe Iranians were operating at a tactical command level with the Shi’ite militias fighting Iraqi security forces; some were directing operations on the ground, they think.

Petraeus intends to use the evidence of Iranian involvement to argue against any reductions in US forces.

Dr Daniel Goure, a defence analyst at the Lexington Institute in Virginia, said: “There is no question that Petraeus will be tough on Iran. It is one thing to withdraw troops when there is purely sectarian fighting but it is another thing if it leaves the Iranians to move in.”

Anyone who seriously thinks the Iranians would take the side of the Iraqi nationalist Sadr forces against the pro-Iranian Badr Brigade and a government supported by the pro-Iranian Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq is either lying or incompetently delusional. The Iranians don't want al-Sadr in charge of Iraq anymore than the Americans do. I don't really think that the Iranians brokered a ceasefire but that both sides were called to Qom and told to stop. The Iranians already control Iraq through the ISC of Iraq and it's militia the Badr Brigade. So what is Petraeus up to here by attempting to blame the Iranians. Some think he's trying to make a case for Cheney to attack Iran. Here again I really thought he was smarter than that. An overt attack on Iran would result in all hell breaking lose in Iraq. If Petraeus has any grasp of reality he must know that. An attack on Iran is the one thing that might bring JAM and the Badr Brigade together. This should be a major line of questioning when Petraeus speaks to congress.

Tarheels set to tar and feather Hillary

2008-04-06T06:53:00.000-07:00

Even given the caveat that the only things certain about polls this year are that 1.) they're usually wrong and 2.) they'll change next week, it's hard to ignore the portents from the latest Rasmussen numbers out of North Carolina. In a state where Obama was already predicted to clean up better than a Dyson vacuum cleaner, the poll results show him with a staggering 23 point lead.

In North Carolina, Barack Obama has opened up a twenty-three percentage point lead over Hillary Clinton. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that Obama attracts 56% of the vote while Clinton earns 33%. A month ago, Obama’s lead was just seven percentage points.

Flat numbers from any single poll have been wildly off the mark this season, but long term trends still seem to provide some useful indicators. Hillary's lead in Pennsylvania hasn't evaporated, and she may well still take the state, but Obama seems to have closed the gap to a single digit margin. What does this mean for anxious Democratic observers? It still all comes down to the math.

Pennsylvania is worth a whopping 152 delegates for the Democrats, but North Carolina has 115 and Indiana checks in with 72, giving us a two state total of 187. If Clinton can only scrape out a single digit victory in Pennsylvania (effectively an electoral split) and Obama walks away with twenty point margins in the next two races, well... it may be all over but the crying. Of course, we've been saying that for the last few major contests and Hillary has still continued to surprise and defy us.

Relics

2008-04-06T06:10:00.000-07:00

What qualifies as a "relic" in Iraq. Certainly their millenia long history has produced some remarkable artifacts. (At least the ones that didn't get looted from the museum in Baghdad shortly after the invasion.) Over at TMV, William Kern informs us that some Iraqis feel that patriotism is now a relic. This starting view comes from an editorial in an Iraqi paper by Fatih Abdulsalam. Here's one of the interesting bits.

“The word patriotism is just a relic from a prior age or Saddam’s toppled regime. Being a collaborator with a foreign power is accepted as the surest way to achieve strategic advantage. Freedom means simply being able to stand in Baghdad’s Liberation Square under the Memorial to the Unknown Soldier cursing and accusing all other Arab capitals of treason against the Iraqi nation for refusing to show respect to our own lame politicians - who are nothing but influence peddlers, mercenaries, thieves and charlatans who rely on F16s to maintain their power and legitimacy over the people.”

Some heady stuff there. I believe it's very hard for the average American to gauge what the man on the streets in Iraq thinks about current events. News and views from Iraq are largely filtered through the United States leadership there. The military has a vested interest in portraying things regarding their mission in the best light possible. And the Iraqi government? al-Maliki owes his skin to George W. Bush and without the aforementioned F-16s he'd probably last about ten minutes in office.

The reporting here is brought to us through the wonderful resource World Meets Us, where you can find hundreds of newspaper articles from other countries translated into English. Give it a look.

April Showers Bring... Rosy Reports?

2008-04-05T08:14:00.000-07:00

While we've all been fixated on the country's economic woes, including the 80,000 jobs we shed last month, some may have forgotten that there's still a war going on in Iraq. We're due for a reminder in the new future, as a report on conditions in that country has already been released to some key lawmakers in advance of General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker appearing to testify before Congress. Though you and I don't get to see the early version, some in Congress are already proclaiming that it's putting a bit too much of a shine on the Mess-O-Potamia.

Senior Democratic senators challenged a new intelligence report's assessment of President Bush's "surge" strategy Friday, saying the troop increase in Iraq has failed to achieve its strategic goals.

"In my judgment, it's too rosy, but there are parts of it that are not so rosy, and both pieces need to be declassified," Sen. Carl Levin said, pointing in particular to the portion of the report describing Iraq's political progress.

Levin chairs the Armed Services Committee, one of the panels Crocker and Petraeus will testify before next week.

I suppose the politicization of this next round of evaluations from both sides was inevitable. That doesn't make it any more pleasant, though. The war will be a political football as long as it goes on, but nothing much is going to change in terms of strategy until next January. As such, we may as well let the testimony play out and make up our minds for ourselves.

Home Grown Terrorist

2008-04-05T06:30:00.000-07:00

The US economy was the victim of a terrorist attack in 1999. We really didn't notice until several years later. The terrorist was not a brown skinned man from the middle east but a US senator, Phil Gramm of Texas. When Jazz and I talked to Shaun Mullen on Mid Stream Radio yesterday he promised us the details today and here it is:
John McCain's Terrorist In Pinstripes
Go read the entire piece at The Moderate Voice or at Shaun's own blog, Kiko's House but here is a teaser.

Phil Gramm, who is co-chair of McCain's campaign, is not just another lobbyist. He is the man most responsible for the repeal of Depression-era banking regulations that have led directly and inextricably to much of today's economic turmoil, and parlayed that classic example of legislative legerdemain into a lucrative lobbying career for the very people who scratched the smug Texan's back -- as well as McCain's -- on Capitol Hill.

Gramm was the biggest of the big guns behind the 1999 repeal of the banking regulations -- the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act -- which was officially called The Financial Services Modernization Act. (Don't you just love the name!)

Shaun points out that Gramm's bill, which is in large part responsible for the current economic melt down, was blessed by the Clinton administration. Shaun concludes with this:

Considering the pain and suffering that Gramm's masterwork has caused ordinary Americans, it is not hyperbolic to say that he is a terrorist, he just doesn't wear funny looking headgear and carry a Kalashikov.

McCain acknowledges that he's "no expert" and "doesn't understand" the economy. That is worrisome enough, but that he is relying on a terrorist in pinstripes to figure things out for him is . . . well, terrifying.

On the Radio: Are we racists? Sexists? How about just partisans?

2008-04-04T05:59:00.000-07:00

Today on Mid Stream Radio, at 1:00 pm Eastern, 10:00 am Pacific, Ron and I will be joined by Shaun Mullen of Kiko's House and Michael Stickings of The Reaction (both are also columnists at The Moderate Voice) for a review of the week's top stories in politics. One of the key items we'll be talking about is a recent CNN poll asking how many Americans are ready for a Black president? How about a female president? The answers may be surprising to anyone.

The question is not are "YOU" ready for this or that. They asked if the COUNTRY was ready. While many people said yes to either choice, a surprising number of people said no. Are they racists? Sexists? Or could it be that Hillary supporters were saying the country is not ready for a black president and Obama supporters were saying we're not ready for a woman? We'll delve into those questions on the show today.

Climate Change News

2008-04-03T18:57:00.000-07:00

As anyone who reads these virtual pages knows I disagree with most of my progresive friends when it comes to climate change. Not because not because I deny it, I don't, but because I really don't think anything will be done about it because no one is willing to do it. A few of my thoughts:

While the climate is indeed changing anyone who thinks they can predict what's going to happen is as delusional as those who thought Iraq would be a cake walk. There are thousands of variables most of which we don't even know about and the rest we don't understand.
Any really effective short term solutions are just as devastating as the long term impact of doing nothing.
Carbon Credits are a delusional scam
Hybrid automobiles are like kissing your sister.

John Tierney points us to a commentary in Nature that claims there is no way to cut greenhouse emissions enough to make a real difference?

It becomes a bit more clear that we may have set ourselves down the wrong path when we framed the challenge of mitigating greenhouse gases in terms of “reducing emissions”. Characterizing the policy challenge in this way leads people in rich countries to focus on things like changing light bulbs and driving less thirsty cars – all good things, to be sure – but which can hardly make a dent in the overall challenge of stabilizing atmospheric concentrations. And it leads people in developing countries shaking their head – how can they “reduce emissions” when they hardly have any to begin with?
We must acknowledge up front that the world needs more energy – vast amounts more. The International Energy Agency projects that global energy demand will increase by 60% by 2030 and recent trends in China and elsewhere suggest that this may even be an underestimate. Consider also that published estimates suggest that 2 billion people or more currently lack access to electricity. Their energy needs have only one direction to go.
If the world needs more energy, and this fact seems inescapable, then the first question to ask is not “how do we reduce emissions?” but instead, “In a world that needs vast amounts of more energy, how can we provide that energy in ways that do not lead to the accumulation of carbon in the atmosphere?”
There can be only two answers to this question. One is to develop new technologies of energy supply that are carbon neutral or, to take carbon dioxide out of the air in some manner. Both types of actions require significant technological innovation. It is hard to square the I.P.C.C.’s conclusion that we have all the technology that we need with the results presented in our Nature paper.

They go onto to say that carbon taxes are not the way to go - it won't accomplish anything. Believe it or not I think that the authors are over optimistic because they think there is a solution. As I said here the real problem isn't just people using too much energy it's too many people consuming too many resources.

The estimated population of the earth in 1 AD was 200 million people. In 1800 AD it was approaching one billion, a five fold increase in 1,800 years. Between 1800 and 2000, a span of 200 years population increased six fold to over 6 billion people. This population increase was made possible in large part by fossil fuels. The reality is the earth cannot support six billion hunter-gatherers. The real solution to climate change, peak oil and water shortages can only involve population reduction. Certainly not politically correct so nothing will be done that is significant.

Nothing will be done but as the sea level rises, the deserts expand and the oil and water runs out the population will self equalize. Of course the wars over resources will speed this equalization along.

You and who's army?

2008-04-03T09:00:00.000-07:00

Al-Maliki vows crackdown in Baghdad

BAGHDAD - Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Thursday he planned to launch more security crackdowns like the one in Basra against "criminal gangs" in Baghdad.

And al-Maliki sounds more like the Bush administration everyday.

"We did not make mistakes, but we had points of weakness," al-Maliki said of the performance of the security forces. "We discovered that we have a shortage of appropriate weapons for the fight in Basra which we will work quickly to end."

As we saw in Basra al-Maliki can't do it with his Army so you know who's army he wants to do the fighting.

Too many Christians - Not enough lions!

2008-04-03T08:19:00.000-07:00

Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class

A student and his family have filed a federal lawsuit demanding that a popular European history teacher at California's Capistrano Valley High School be fired for what they say were anti-Christian remarks he made in the classroom.

And what were those "anti-Christian" remarks you ask?

Farnan recorded his teacher telling students in class: “What country has the highest murder rate? The South! What part of the country has the highest rape rate? The South! What part of the country has the highest rate of church attendance? The South!”

The facts hurt. Of course the teacher left out a few like the highest rate of teen pregnancy and the highest rate of driving while drunk.

Rumsfeld of Mesopotamia

2008-04-03T06:54:00.000-07:00

The attempt by al-Maliki to take out al-Sadr in Basra sounds like a repeat of Donald Rumsfeld's initial efforts in Iraq.
U.S. Cites Gaps in Planning of Iraqi Assault on Basra

Interviews with a wide range of American and military officials...suggest that Mr. Maliki overestimated his military's abilities and underestimated the scale of the resistance. The Iraqi prime minister also displayed an impulsive leadership style that did not give his forces or that of his most powerful allies, the American and British military, time to prepare.

"He went in with a stick and he poked a hornet's nest, and the resistance he got was a little bit more than he bargained for," said one official in the multinational force in Baghdad who requested anonymity. "They went in with 70 percent of a plan. Sometimes that's enough. This time it wasn't."

And this is significant:

The Iraqis, however, also began to fly in supplies and troops using their two C-130s. More than 500 Iraqi replacement soldiers were moved by air while an additional brigade was sent by ground.

These may have been members of the Badr Brigade that were sent in to replace troops and police that defected to al-Sadr.

Spencer Ackerman explains the significance:

But the surge was never intended to bring violence down to 2005 levels -- when, it's worth remembering, violence was so pervasive that the first wave of U.S. politicians reacted by calling for withdrawal -- nor to give Iraqi security forces the opportunity to skirmish with militias. President George W. Bush presented the surge to the American nation on Jan. 10, 2007 as an effort to enable political progress.

On that front, some experts say, Sadr's victory over Maliki exposed the weakness of the U.S.'s partner. "In spite of holding de jure power, Maliki can't exert territorial control over even the Shiite regions of Iraq," said Robert Farley, a professor at the University of Kentucky's Paterson School of Diplomacy. "While the surge has reduced violence, it has failed utterly to create Iraqi state capacity. The Iraqi central government is as far as ever from exerting control over other armed groups within Iraq."

George W. Bush was right when he described it as a "turning point". The surge is now officially a failure and there is no going back.

It should be noted that there are no additional forces to relieve those now in Iraq and maintain current levels. The U.S. commanding general in Iraq, David Petraeus, and the leading U.S. diplomat, Amb. Ryan Crocker , will testify before Congress next week in favor of pausing scheduled troop reductions. But military overstretch and the grueling tempo of operations for U.S. soldiers and Marines ensures that U.S. military strength in Iraq has just ended its apogee -- and still the Sadrist uprising exploded.

Defining Moments

2008-04-02T11:47:00.000-07:00

"When the Iraqi people stand up, we will stand down."

Recent events in Basra and Baghdad, as Ron has been reporting over the last few days, might indicate that we're going to be standing for quite some time.

Paltry result of Iraqi offensive quiets U.S. withdrawal talk

The Bush administration was caught off-guard by the first Iraqi-led military offensive since the fall of Saddam Hussein, a weeklong thrust in southern Iraq whose paltry results have silenced talk at the Pentagon of further U.S. troop withdrawals any time soon.

President Bush last week declared the offensive, which ended Sunday, "a defining moment" in Iraq's history.

That may prove to be true, but in recent days senior U.S. officials have backed away from the operation, which ended with Shiite militias still in place in Basra, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki possibly weakened and a de facto cease-fire brokered by an Iranian general.

As this article goes on, it seems clear that people in the Pentagon and the Bush administration were actually, generally surprised at the ineffective performance of the Iraqi army and police forces. There was already talk of a "pause" in the draw down of the surge troops, but that now seems to be the default position.

I'm pretty sure that one of the things John McCain was counting on was that the progress in Iraq was real, that we would continue to draw down troops through the summer and fall, and Iraq would fade from the political radar by November. However, if this "paltry" performance continues, as the article suggests, we won't be seeing reductions in troop numbers, violence, or casualties. This will feed some powerful ammunition to the Democratic nominee and make McCain answer some tough questions about his previous predictions.

Those pesky particles

2008-04-01T21:11:00.000-07:00

I became a big fan of science fiction at the age of 14. I have read all the greats of the past - Asimov, Heinlein, Clarke and even the pure fantasy of Edgar Rice Burroughs. I became an addict of Frank Herbert's Dune series. Of course for much of it to be anything but fantasy everything we think we know about space and time must be wrong. But there is a problem that even threatens trips to the Moon and Mars - high energy particles from the sun.
What's keeping us from Mars? Space rays, say experts

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Cosmic rays are so dangerous and so poorly understood that people are unlikely to get to Mars or even back to the moon until better ways are found to protect astronauts, experts said on Monday.

And NASA is not properly funding the right experiments to find out how, the National Research Council committee said.

"One of the big issues is they have really cut funding for biology issues," retired space shuttle astronaut James van Hoften, who chaired the committee, said in a telephone interview.

"It is tough on them when they don't have any new money coming in. They are using old data," he added -- including research done on survivors of the nuclear bombings of Japan during World War Two.

"Given today's knowledge and today's understanding of radiation protection, to put someone out in that type of environment would violate the current requirements that NASA has."

The committee of experts agreed that NASA'S existing radiation safety standards can protect astronauts and they urged the U.S. space agency to keep them in place.

The Earth's bulk, atmosphere and magnetic field protect life from the solar radiation and the cosmic rays that travel through space. Astronauts have just a thin layer of shielding.

A few science fiction writers like physicist Charles Sheffield have acknowledged the problem but simply assumed an answer had been found. We are protected from these high energy particles by the Earth's magnetic field. In his Mars Trilogy Kim Stanely Robinson writes about the terra forming of Mars but leaves out one thing that would make such a project impossible - the inability to create a magnetic field in a dead planet. Our understanding of space and time today would indicate we can't go too far and it would appear there are no option close at hand. A good reason to take care of Mother Earth.

And about that surging ceasefire

2008-04-01T20:09:00.000-07:00

Now I'm still waiting to hear what John McCain has to say about this but it would appear the Badr-Mehdi ceasefire may have been short lived.
No peace in Basra despite Sadr call

HOPES for a ceasefire in Iraq's developing Shia civil war were swiftly undermined yesterday when the Government said it would not stop attacking outlaw militia members, despite an offer from militia leaders to freeze the conflict.

Fierce fighting went on in areas of Basra loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr, despite the rebel cleric's call to his militiamen to put down their weapons.

Sadr's statement was hammered out in elaborate negotiations over the past few days with senior Iraqi officials, some of whom travelled to Iran to meet the Shia cleric, according to several officials involved in the discussions.

In Baghdad, mortars continued to slam into the Green Zone government compound.

British troops stationed at Basra airport were deployed outside their base at the weekend for the first time, backing up Iraqi forces on the edge of the city.

While Maliki calls his crackdown a success al-Sadr is not impressed and indicates he is ready to continue fighting.

BAGHDAD -- Prime Minister Nouri Maliki described his crackdown on Shiite militias in southern Iraq as a success Tuesday, even as Britain said the situation had turned too volatile to pull more of its troops from the region as planned.

Representatives of Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada Sadr, who on Sunday ordered his Mahdi Army militia to stop fighting, accused Iraqi forces of violating the cease-fire with new raids Tuesday in Basra and Hillah and warned that such actions could ignite further bloodshed. Iraqi security forces denied the allegations, the latest indication of the ongoing animosity between Sadr and the Iraqi government and the tenuous state of the truce.

So what will the US do? What will the Iranians do? The really odd thing is they are both betting on the same horse in this race, the ISCI and the Badr brigade. The Bush administration doesn't like al-Sadr because he is anti American occupation and if he should gain legitimate power in October he will demand the occupation end. The Iranians don't like al-Sadr because he is above all an Iraqi nationalist and Iran's interests are not a priority with him.

This universe is old and fat and smells!

2008-04-01T17:51:00.000-07:00

What a great April Fools Day present - Fafblog is back.

Politics, Iraq and spin

2008-04-01T13:38:00.000-07:00

The wingnuts are still trying to spin the Iraqi ceasefire as a loss for al-Sadr and Iran and a win for al-Maliki and the Bush administration. Here is a little reality check for them:

It was al-Maliki not al-Sadr that requested the ceasefire not al-Sadr.
The Mahdi Army still has all of it's weapons.
The Mahdi Army still controls large areas of Basra and Baghdad.
The al-Maliki government turned to Iran not the US to broker the ceasefire.

The real loser may be John McCain.(via Crooks and Liars)

For a man who predicates his whole candidacy on foreign policy and the Iraq war, he certainly doesn’t have a clue what the Iraqi government is doing even after he went to Iraq and spoke with Maliki right before the Basra assault took place. How embarrassing for him.
McCain was asked if the Basra campaign had backfired, he said: “Apparently it was Sadr who asked for the ceasefire, declared a ceasefire. It wasn’t Maliki. Very rarely do I see the winning side declare a ceasefire. So we’ll see.’’
Olbermann fills in St. McCain (or should we call him McGaffe) on his newest Iraq blunder via McClatchy:
Keith: that Sadr had only called for the ceasefire after members of Maliki’s government askedSadr to do so in a during a secret trip to meet with Sadr in Iran.—making McCain wrong about the facts on his signature issue, making Sadr not Maliki the victor in this conflict by McCain’s own reasoning. And making Iran and not McCain and not the US the mediator of choice for Iraq’s two top Shi’a factions. The Maliki government and the Sadrists.

Juan Cole reminds us what this is all about - politics.

The campaign was a predictable fiasco, another in a long line of strategic failures for the sickly and divided Iraqi government, which survives largely because it is propped up by the United States. So why did al-Maliki do it? With no obvious immediate crisis in Basra that called for such desperate measures, what could have motivated the decision to attack?

Three main motivations present themselves: control of petroleum smuggling, staying in power (including keeping U.S. troops around to ensure it), and the achievement of a Shiite super-province in the south. A southern super-province would spell a soft partition of the country, benefiting Shiites in the long term while cutting Sunnis out of substantial oil revenues, both licit and illicit. But all of the motivations have to do with something President Bush established as a benchmark in January 2007: upcoming provincial elections.

The Sadr Movement leaders themselves are convinced that the recent setting of a date for provincial elections, on Oct. 1, 2008, and al-Maliki's desire to improve the government's position in advance of the elections, precipitated the prime minister's attack. It is widely thought that the Sadrists might sweep to power in the provinces in free and fair elections, since the electorate is deeply dissatisfied with the performance of the major incumbent party in the southern provinces, the Islamic Supreme Council of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim.

I thought from the beginning that Cheney and possibly McCain put al-Malaki up to this.

Provincial elections could radically change the political landscape in Iraq. Both the Sunni Arabs and the Sadr Movement sat out the last round, in late January 2005. Thus, governments in the Sunni Arab areas are unrepresentative and in one case a Sunni-majority province, Diyala, is actually ruled by the Shiite Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), which Sunnis tend to see as a puppet of Iran.

Likewise in the Shiite south, the ISCI, led by Shiite cleric Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, is largely in power, even though probably a majority of the population favors Sadr. To have a minority in power and the majority feeling disenfranchised is especially dangerous in a violent society such as Iraq.

Now the wingnuts like to remind of us al-Sadr's ties to Iran but they don't like to admit that the ISCI and the Badr brigade are creations of Iran and much more sympathetic to the goals of the Iranians. It's the Mullahs in Tehran that have both the dogs in this race not the US. But al-Malaki and the ISCI are saying the right words which is all that matters to Cheney and the Bush administration. They see al-Malaki are their guy.

I still think that the ceasefire is something the Iranians demanded of both al-Maliki and al-Sadr. They weren't called Qom to negotiate, they were called to Qom to be told what they would do.

Something Fishy in Minnesota

2008-04-01T12:29:00.000-07:00

... and I don't mean the red snapper.

Some interesting news appears to be coming out of Minnesota this week. I found a very comprehensive and informative article over at Ladies Logic (an excellent Minnesota conservative - moderate blog, by the way) which details an ongoing investigation into the affairs of one Lori Swanson, the Democratic Attorney General of the state. There is still much more to be revealed, but some intriguing questions have already arisen.

Why have so many Attorneys General resigned or been driven out of that office?
Was there some sort of union busting activity going on?
Was there a cover up?
Were there any illegal activities?

We won't know the answer for a bit, but according to the Minnpost, an investigation is kicking off. Something's afoot in the North Star State, so do yourself a favor and swing by Ladies Logic for all the details. This one might blossom into a hot story in the near future.

Bowling-Gate Scandal Rocks Heartland!

2008-04-01T04:05:00.000-07:00

Clearly this is the beginning of the end for the presidential aspirations of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Illinois) and it all began in the tiny hamlet of Altoona, Pennsylvania. As reported at Media Matters, Mr. Obama showed up at the Pleasant Valley Lanes bowling emporium and proceeded to take part in America's favorite sport. The results were nothing less than Earth shattering. The Senator racked up a score of ... (are you sitting down?) ... 37!!!

As we all know, competent bowling is a legal requirement for all real Americans. In fact 37 of the 50 states in our country require all citizens to bowl at least four times per year and achieve an average score of 80 or face severe tax penalties and or prison terms. This horrid performance clearly shows that Mr. Obama has been remiss in his legally mandated bowling requirements. The always calm, thoughtful, fair and completely nonpartisan Joe Scarborough was shocked - SHOCKED, I say! - and quickly reminded America of the constitutionally mandated minimum bowling skills for anyone seeking a seat in the Oval Office.

"You know Willie, the thing is, Americans want their president, if it's a man, to be a real man." Scarborough added, "You get 150, you're a man, or a good woman," to which Geist replied, "Out of my president, I want a 150, at least."

Well said, sir. We want our president to be a REAL man. Even if it turns out to be Hillary Clinton. (And on a related note, where are Senator Clinton's bowling records and when will she release her surgery schedule for sexual reassignment should she win the election in November?)

But this clearly isn't the worst of it. Not only was Obama's score far below acceptable levels, but he also revealed a clear lack of manhood, as noted by Scarborough.

[video clip of Obama bowling]
SCARBOROUGH: Oh, that's so dainty. Ugh.
GEIST: Get there, get there.
SCARBOROUGH: What a dainty --
GEIST and SCARBOROUGH: Oh!
FORD: He probably shouldn't do that again, but I tell you, it showed a human side to him. I mean, it showed a very humble side to him.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, yeah, yeah, yeah.
BRZEZINSKI: He is a politician.
SCARBOROUGH: A very human side? A prissy side.

I don't think we need any remedial courses in secret code language for that, now do we? Prissy! Dainty I say! Look... as if it wasn't bad enough that Obama doesn't wear the requisite number of American flag lapel pins, but now we find out that he's a lisping pooftah to boot?

And the scandal only snowballed from there as the ever diligent press corps did their jobs and dug deeper for the details. The truth was too horrifying for words.

According to reports by MSNBC's First Read and Salon.com, Obama played seven frames and left with a score of 37. Additionally, on Morning Joe, Obama campaign spokesman David Axelrod noted that Obama did not play all 10 frames.

Seven frames? The game is TEN frames long, Senator, and you should already know that! Questions are swirling around this gross insult to bowling and - dare I say? - America itself! Why would Mr. Obama rush off after only seven frames? Was he late for his meeting with the Altoona chapter of the Double Secret Muslim America Haters Union? The last time Senator John McCain went bowling (which he does at least five times per week) he achieved a score of 329, knocking down not only all of his pins in each frame, but several in the adjoining lanes, so ferociously did he throw the ball. Now THAT, my friends, is a REAL man and a true American, as I'm sure you will all agree.

Stay tuned for more. We have filed several Freedom of Information Act requests which we believe will show that Obama's original birth certificate will indicate that his full original name was Barack Hussein Hitler Mussolini Pol Pot Obama, but he later changed it in an effort to trick otherwise honest, hard working Americans into voting for him.

The Hog's on the move

2008-03-31T14:29:00.000-07:00

Cernig and the rest of the crew at Newshoggers are moving to a new location. Update your bookmarks and blogrolls.
http://www.newshoggers.com/

An Early "Virtual Convention"?

2008-03-31T13:45:00.000-07:00

The politico swoops in on something that Ron and I have been speculating about for some time. The possibility that the Democratic super delegates might hold their own virtual convention and let Hillary know that it's time to bow out gracefully.

Hoping to avoid a summer-long bloodbath for the Democratic presidential nomination, some party leaders such as Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen have urged a convention of superdelegates in June, after the caucuses and primaries are over.
The idea sounds exotic, but recent public declarations and Politico interviews with top Democratic officials have made clear that something like what Bredesen proposed is already underway — not with a big meeting but with an intensifying series of exchanges among party elites. The early voting in this virtual convention is bad news for Hillary Rodham Clinton. Her hope that Democratic leaders will settle the nomination is starting to come true — with Barack Obama so far emerging as the beneficiary.

I still have a problem with this, however, and it's not with the supers. It's with the Clinton campaign, including Bill and all of her handlers. The media is far too aware of every nook and cranny of the inner workings of the Democratic party. If Hillary is dragged out kicking and screaming, even as a unified act of the supers, a significant portion of her supporters may still sit out in November. The only real solution which avoids having the Democrats once again snatching defeat from the jaws of victory is for one of the candidates (most likely Hillary) to do it on their own.

More healing time is better, true, so having it happen in June is far preferable to having it happen at the end of August. But that still doesn't solve the issue of party unity. The only real solution that assures a Democratic victory in November is for the two candidates to settle it between them like adults in an adult fashion. And that does NOT include trying to push the matter to a fight for the committee folks in Denver.

If Hillary can pull off an unprecedented series of miracles in the next ten contests, then I say fine. Have Obama be the adult and go home. If not, it's time to pull the plug on this science experiment.

Rick Moran on Iraq

2008-03-31T09:36:00.000-07:00

Our friend Rick Moran from The Right Wing Nut House has seen his support for the occupation of Iraq wavering for the last year. This morning he explains why it may be wavering even more.

Irrelevant

2008-03-31T06:58:00.000-07:00

It appears I was right below when I suggested Iran's role in the ceasefire in Iraq. What I missed was the fact that the al-Malaki government asked them to intercede.
Iranian general played key role in brokering Iraq cease-fire

BAGHDAD — Iraqi lawmakers traveled to the Iranian holy city of Qom over the weekend to win the support of the commander of Iran's Qods brigades in persuading Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr to order his followers to stop military operations, members of the Iraqi parliament said.

Sadr ordered the halt on Sunday, and his Mahdi Army militia heeded the order in Baghdad, where the Iraqi government announced it would lift a 24-hour curfew starting early Monday in most parts of the capital.

But fighting continued in the oil hub of Basra, where a six-day-old government offensive against Shiite militias has had only limited gains.

[....]

The backdrop to Sadr's dramatic statement was a secret trip Friday by Iraqi lawmakers to Qom, Iran's holy city and headquarters for the Iranian clergy who run the country.

There the Iraqi lawmakers held talks with Brig. Gen. Qassem Suleimani, commander of the Qods (Jerusalem) brigades of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps and signed an agreement with Sadr, which formed the basis of his statement Sunday, members of parliament said.

Ali al Adeeb, a member of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's Dawa party, and Hadi al Ameri, the head of the Badr Organization, the military wing of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, had two aims, lawmakers said: to ask Sadr to stand down his militia and to ask Iranian officials to stop supplying weapons to Shiite militants in Iraq.

USA today reports that al-Sadr was winning.

Vali Nasr, an Iraq expert at the Council of Foreign Relations, said al-Sadr had emerged stronger from the battle, which killed more than 300 people. "He let the Americans and the Iraqis know that taking him down is going to be difficult."

Al-Sadr's militia stood strong, forcing the government to extend a deadline for them to disarm.

"Everything we heard indicates the Sadrists had control of more ground in Basra at the end of the fighting than they did at the beginning," said al-Nujaifi, the Sunni mediator. "The government realized things were not going in the right direction."

The losers here were al-Malaki and the Bush administration which is all but irrelevant in Iraq. The winners were al-Sadr and the Iranians. After more than 4,000 American deaths it's the Iranians who have the ability to control event in Iraq.

Now we know!

2008-03-30T17:53:00.000-07:00

McClatchy gives us a good run down of the events in the hours before al-Sadr's cease fire offer.
Sadr rebuffs Iraq government envoy as offensive sputters

BAGHDAD - After failing to break the resistance of Shiite militias in the five-day siege of oil rich Basra, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki sent a top general to hold talks with his Shiite rival, Muqtada al Sadr, Saturday night only to be rebuffed by the firebrand cleric, an Iraqi official close to the negotiations said.

Maliki denounced Shia militants in Basra as the equivalent of Al Qaida, and Sadr told his supporters not to hand over their arms to a puppet state of the United States.

The diplomatic initiative and the harsh rebuff further eroded expectations for a successful outcome to the offensive, which Maliki is personally directing from the presidential palace in the southern port city. It was not the only sign of problems.

Maliki issued orders Friday to enlist volunteers for the battle against the Shiite militias, and his Dawa party sought to enlist fighters. The U.S. military raised its profile in Basra still further, providing protection for installations including the palace where Maliki is housed, Iraqi Interior Ministry officials said.

There were more U.S. air strikes in the Sadrist stronghold of Sadr City, and local officials said U.S. forces joined Iraqi security forces in clashes against Sadrists lasting hours south of Hilla, which lies south of Baghdad. Meanwhile, Sadr's Mahdi Army militia went door to door in Sadr City with a list of those employed by government security services, demanding that they not report to their jobs, local residents said.

The circumstances in which the negotiations with Sadr took place suggested the government is no longer able to dictate the terms of an agreement with Sadr but now must seek a deal. General Hussein al Assadi, a Baghdad-based commander, traveled to Najaf to call on the head of Sadr's political bureau there, Lewaa Smaisam. From his office, the two men telephoned Sadr, who is believed to be in Iran, where he is studying religion. But they could not reach agreement, an official close to the negotiations said. He would not give his name due to the sensitivity of the subject.

Of course shortly after this al-Sadr offered his conditions for a cease fire which had to be very unpalatable to al-Malaki but which he accepted. So what does this tell us? It tells us who is calling the shots in Iraq and it's not the Bush administration or General Petraeus - it's the Mullahs in Tehran. It was Tehran who told al-Sadr to make the offer and Tehran who told al-Malaki to accept. The US may have 150,000 troops on the ground but it's Tehran that is running the show. The war is over and the winner is Iran.

Who's the winner here?

2008-03-30T13:08:00.000-07:00

Our friend Ed Morrisey is trying to spin this as a loss for Sadr and a victory for Malaki.
Al-Sadr orders fighters to stop attacks
Iraq reciprocates by lifting Baghdad curfew; hundreds killed over last week

BAGHDAD - Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr on Sunday ordered his fighters off the streets nationwide and called on the government to stop raids against his followers and free them from prison.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki issued a statement calling the order “a step in the right direction” towards resolving six days of violence sparked by operations against al-Sadr's backers in the oil-rich southern city of Basra.

The Iraqi government later said it would lift a Baghdad curfew on Monday morning. A vehicle ban will stay in place in three Shiite militia strongholds in the capital. Officials three days earlier had ordered unauthorized vehicles and pedestrians off the streets.

Al-Sadr’s nine-point statement was issued by his headquarters in the holy city of Najaf and broadcast through loudspeakers at Shiite mosques.

“Because of the religious responsibility, and to stop Iraqi blood being shed ... we call for an end to armed appearances in Basra and all other provinces,” al-Sadr said in a statement. “Anyone carrying a weapon and targeting government institutions will not be one of us.”

Al-Sadr also called for an end to “random arrests” of his followers and for them to benefit from an amnesty law passed by parliament in February aimed at freeing thousands of prisoners from Iraqi jails.

This is anything but a loss or surrender for al-Sadr and he's not backing down.

Al-Sadr aide Hazem al-Araji said the fighters would not hand over guns. “The weapons of the resistance will not be delivered to the Iraqi government,” he told journalists.

This is a no win situation for al-Malaki and a brilliant move by al-Sadr. The Iraqi government has been given the opportunity to back down. If he decides to continue he runs the chance of losing and taken the blame for additional civilian deaths. If he does back down he will show how little power he actually has. Iran's involvement in this cannot be underestimated. Iran certainly does not what it's very own Badr brigade to be beaten by the Mahdi army. They don't what their allies in the ICSI to lose. Iran forced this on al-Sadr not anything the al-Malaki government did. The real friend of Iran is not al-Sadr it is the ICSI and their Badr brigade.

From the right Michael van der Galien agrees:

The peace offer isn’t an offer by someone who’s losing: it’s an offer of someone who believes he’s winning but who’s done fighting. Someone who may be winning, but prefers ‘peace’ in so far that the government withdraws completely from Basra and leaves Basra in the hands of its (the government’s) enemies.

Al-Sadr’s offer makes one thing very clear, I think: if al-Maliki accepts it, it’s al-Sadr who has shown his own government and the Americans who’s in charge of Basra. And it ain’t the latter two.

Iraq War Movies Can't Seem to Make Money

2008-03-30T09:04:00.000-07:00

With the exception of Michael Moore, anyway. Why is that? I take a long look at this question today over at The Moderate Voice, including an original interview I conducted on the topic with author and film critic Betty Jo Tucker. Take a peek for yourself.

If we only had a brain!

2008-03-30T08:41:00.000-07:00

Nicholas D. Kristof has a column today, ‘With a Few More Brains ...’, where he explains that US citizens are among the most ignorant in the developed world and that they prefer their politicians to be just as ignorant as they are. As Think Progress points out one politician who qualifies is Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

Now we have a battle with militias who are operating outside the government. … We must win this fight. The militias that we are fighting are backed by Iran. So this is an effort by Iran to destabilize Iraq.

Of course there is one small problem with this as Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI):

The Iranians have close associations with all the Shia communities, not only with Sadr but also Hakim. … The notion that this is fight by American allies against Iranian-inspired elements is not accurate.

But it's even worse that that:

Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations noted the ISCI “was essentially created by Iran, and its militia, the Badr Brigade, was trained and equipped by the Revolutionary Guards” — which the Bush administration calls a “terrorist” organization.

Journalist Gareth Porter added the Badr militia is the “most pro-Iranian political-military forces in Iraq.” In fact, ISCI leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim “met with [Iranian Revolutionary Guard] officers to be his guests in December 2006, apparently to discuss military assistance to the Badr Organisation.”

Graham, underscoring his cluelessness about the situation on the ground right now, added that “the Badr brigade is not the problem.” Graham seems to be supporting an effort to fight Iran by supporting Iran.

In fact Sadr is the least supportive of Iran of all the Shia groups but he is also the most anti-occupation which makes him the enemy.

War Crime Charges? Don't bet on it

2008-03-30T05:06:00.001-07:00

Hat tip to Joe Gandelman for this one. Over at The Daily Dish, we find Andrew Sullivan talking about The War Criminal President. His basic premise is that a laundry list of alarming interrogation techniques (read: torture) used at Abu Ghraib and other places were clearly the intended policy of this administration. A description of several of these practices is included, followed by Sully's conclusion.

One day this president and vice-president will be prosecuted for war crimes.

I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but that's pretty much beyond the realm of what I can imagine in this world. Yes, it is true that certain national leaders have been taken to task for their actions and faced criminal courts or more "terminal" prosecutions, but it is important to remember that these cases were always the heads of countries who lost. Winners still get to write the history books, at least in the short term.

Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, Mussolini... these were all people who didn't wind up running the show on the winning side. Taking down a leader from the victors is a far more difficult, if not impossible task. Perceptions matter in these things, and even if you believe that these activities rise to the level of "war crimes" you have to find a court inclined to hear such a case, taking on all of the long term repercussions attendant with it.

I wouldn't hold my breath.

Spreading my evil influence far and wide

2008-03-30T05:06:00.000-07:00

Since I'm sure most of you spend a lot of your day wondering, "How could I get access to even more of Jazz Shaw's pedantic ramblings?" we have some good news. Beginning this week, I will be a regular columnist at Joe Gandelman's excellent centrist blog, The Moderate Voice. I have been invited to join the team of contributors there as the site goes through some application upgrades and personnel changes. I will still be posting here at Middle Earth Journal primarily, but this opportunity should provide a chance to to bring a somewhat wider audience to the work of both Ron and myself - here and on the radio show - as well as making some good connections with other active voices in the punditocracy. Stay tuned for more developments.

The Wild West

2008-03-28T21:41:00.000-07:00

The Republicans have a number of things going against them. A lack of money, a soiled brand name and a President with a 30 percent approval rating. The mountain west has been red for several election cycles but the western Republican is really a libertarian and if truth be known this western progressive has a libertarian side. All you have to do is go over to LewRockwell.com or the CATO Institute blog to discover that the Libertarians are not too crazy about the neocons and the Republican party. In the west that has translated into into this:
GOP ACHILLES HEEL
HOW REPUBLICANS LOST WEST

CHEERED as Republicans may be by the Clinton-Obama wars, the fact is that long-term trends still favor the Democrats this fall. To see the problem, consider the interior West - the eight states between the Midwest and the Pacific Coast: Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming.

This week, I spoke at a panel put on here in Denver by the America's Future Foundation, a youth-oriented libertarian-conservative group. The topic: "How the West Will Be Lost."

In fact, having heard my fellow panelists' takes on the situation in Colorado and the rest of the region, the use of the future tense looks optimistic: The GOP is already well on its way to losing the West.

The reasons were well summed up by the president of Colorado's Independence Institute and a popular conservative radio talk-show host in the state, Jon Caldara: "We lost our values. We lost our way."

It's been clear for years the interior West, once reliably Republican, was becoming a swing region. While 60,000 votes in Ohio would have thrown the presidential race to John Kerry in 2004, roughly the same number of votes, split between Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico, would have done the same thing. All three were on the verge of turning "blue" in 2004; they've since gone over that edge.

Not the party of Barry Goldwater!

The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press finds that the share of voters who call themselves Republicans has dropped six points nationwide since 2004. That doesn't matter much in the Northeast (where the GOP's already locked out) or Down South (where the GOP remains dominant). But in the interior West, it's a big, big deal.

In 2000, none of these eight states had a Democratic governor. Now five do, including Colorado. A 2006 post-election Salt Lake City Tribune analysis showed that, where the GOP had beaten the Democrats by 20 points in the region's vote for the House in 2000, that advantage had fallen to one point in 2006. A few states, including Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico, had seen a majority of House votes cast for the Democrats.

In fact, Colorado now looks bluer than a half-drowned Smurf. It's got a Democratic governor, House, Senate and high court. The GOP lost both houses of the Legislature in 2004 after spending a session on such issues as gay marriage, the Pledge of Allegiance and the liberal biases of college professors - while the state faced a massive fiscal crisis.

At the federal level, the state's got a recently minted Democratic senator (Ken Salazar, replacing a Republican in 2004) and two recently acquired House seats (one picked up in 2004, one in '06). Turning Blue on the presidential ballot is all that's left in this metamorphosis.

As Caldara put it: "Colorado is, in fact, the test tube of how to export liberal expansion to the Western states." A moderately conservative state has been turned Blue, Caldara says, because of "the absolute demolishing of what the Right stood for, how the Republican Party turned into something it was never meant to be and went away from Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan ideas."

Under Clinton and the DLC the Democratic party abandoned it's progressive roots and lost the House and the Senate. Under George W. Bush, the neocons and social conservatives the Republican party abandoned it's Libertarian roots and that's how the west was lost.

This has Dick Cheney written all over it.

2008-03-28T08:11:00.000-07:00

My first thought was that the decision of al-Malaki to take on the Mahdi Army militiamen was so insane that a madman like Dick Cheney had to be involved. The Washington Post reports:

Maliki decided to launch the offensive without consulting his U.S. allies, according to administration officials. With little U.S. presence in the south, and British forces in Basra confined to an air base outside the city, one administration official said that "we can't quite decipher" what is going on. It's a question, he said, of "who's got the best conspiracy" theory about why Maliki decided to act now.

Juan Cole disagrees:

My reading is that the US faced a dilemma in Iraq. It needed to have new provincial elections in an attempt to mollify the Sunni Arabs, especially in Sunni-majority provinces like Diyala, which has nevertheless been ruled by the Shiite Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. But if they have provincial elections, their chief ally, the Islamic Supreme Council, might well lose southern provinces to the Sadr Movement. In turn, the Sadrists are demanding a timetable for US withdrawal, whereas ISCI wants US troops to remain. So the setting of October, 2008, as the date for provincial elections provoked this crisis. I think Cheney probably told ISCI and Prime Minister al-Maliki that the way to fix this problem and forestall the Sadrists oming to power in Iraq, was to destroy the Mahdi Army, the Sadrists' paramilitary. Without that coercive power, the Sadrists might not remain so important, is probably their thinking. I believe them to be wrong, and suspect that if the elections are fair, the Sadrists will sweep to power and may even get a sympathy vote. It is admittedly a big 'if.'

I think this is about right.

Update
Tim F at Balloon Juice has some great insight:

A priori I would have guessed that Maliki’s troops are the little dog in a fight against Sadr’s militias on Sadrist turf, and reports seem to be bearing that out. When does a little dog pick a fight he can’t win? I’m not exactly Cesar Milan, but saturday morning cartoons tell me that little dogs usually pick fights when a big dog friend isn’t too far off.

I don’t think that Maliki ever planned to fight Sadr on his own. Through Petraeus we’ve been doing everything in our power to smooth relations with Sadr, but that won’t do for Maliki if Sadr creams him in the upcoming elections. Doing nothing isn’t an option, fighting Sadr directly isn’t an option, so his best and maybe only chance is to commit the big dog and hope the big dog wins.

The problem is that the big dog only has so much bite left in him. The dirty secret of Iraq planning is that the commitment was unsustainable even before Petraeus. Now, after the “Surge,” the reckoning will only come that much sooner. Our own strategy hinged on wrapping up the whole bundle by now – reconciliation, stability, a self-sufficient central government – because there is simply no way for us to sustain a real fight after the “surge” winds down.

The Moderate (Radio) Voice

2008-03-28T04:02:00.000-07:00

For today's weekend review edition of Mid Stream Radio (1 pm eastern, 10 am pacific) Ron and I will once again be joined by the always entertaining Joe Gandelman of The Moderate Voice. We'll be going over some of the week's top stories, including the erupting chaos in Iraq, where some of those well trained Iraqi police forces met the challenge of the Mahdi Army by removing their uniforms and switching sides. We'll also talk about the vacuum of political news as we wait for the Pennsylvania primary to roll around.

Remember that you can call in to join the conversation at (646) 595-3963. (A call which is now toll free from most mobile cellular phones.) And you can always join in the lively web chat during the course of the show. (In order to participate in the chat, though, you will need to register for a free user account at the BTR homepage and grab a nickname to use in chat.)

See you on the radio!

Political Prisoner Released

2008-03-27T18:44:00.000-07:00

Remember this:

Karl Rove had several of his political operatives placed in judicial positions - US Attorneys, Judges etc.
They prosecuted Democrats on drummed up charges - made them political prisoners.
One of the most obvious victims was Don Siegelman.

But we have the beginning of a happy ending:
Siegelman to be released from prison

MONTGOMERY -- A federal appellate court today ordered former Gov. Don Siegelman released from prison while he appeals his 2006 conviction, but denied co-defendant Richard Scrushy's request to be released.

[.....]

The judges wrote that Siegelman met both requirements for an appeal bond: He is not a flight risk and his appeal raises a substantial question of law or fact likely to result in reversal or an order for a new trial.

"After thorough review of this complex and protracted record, we conclude Siegelman has satisfied the criteria set out in the statute, and has specifically met his burden of showing that his appeal raises substantial questions of law or fact," the judges wrote.

For a truly happy ending Siegelman's conviction must be overturned and those who put him in jail tried and convicted.

Better Late Than Never?

2008-03-27T18:08:00.000-07:00

I'm feeling particularly generous this evening, for reasons which escape me, so I'm going to toss some benefit of the doubt to Hillary Clinton when she says that she doesn't want Democrats to vote for John McCain.

Hillary Clinton pleaded for partisan unity on Thursday, urging Democrats not to abandon their party to vote for John McCain if their preferred candidate fails to secure the nomination.

Clinton was asked by a questioner in the audience here what she would tell frustrated Democrats who might consider voting for McCain in the general election out of spite.

“Please think through this decision,” Clinton said, laughing and emphasizing the word “please.”

“I intend to do everything I can to make sure we have a unified Democratic party,” she said. “When this contest is over and we have a nominee, we’re going to close ranks, we’re going to be united.”

Ok. But you know what? I think I'd find this plea a bit more convincing if she had included the phrase "even if Senator Obama is the nominee." Without that, it still has a bit of a tin whistle, hollow sound, as if she might still just be asking for Obama supporters not to abandon her when she wins the nomination.

We shall see. As I've said previously on our radio show, I think the Gallup poll showing that some percentage of supporters from either Clinton or Obama will vote for McCain if their choice doesn't take it is total bunk. We read the same garbage about the Republicans only a month ago, and how - if McCain was the nominee - half of the Republican party would either stay home or vote for Hillary. Sound likely to you?

I didn't think so.

If this is success..... Part II

2008-03-27T14:51:00.000-07:00

The other day:
St John McBush says US succeeding in Iraq

We're succeeding. I don't care what anybody says. I've seen the facts on the ground," the Arizona senator insisted a day after a roadside bomb in Baghdad killed four U.S. soldiers and rockets pounded the U.S.-protected Green Zone there, and a wave of attacks left at least 61 Iraqis dead nationwide.

Well it's just getting more successful everyday:
Areas of Baghdad fall to militias as Iraqi Army falters in Basra

Iraq’s Prime Minister was staring into the abyss today after his operation to crush militia strongholds in Basra stalled, members of his own security forces defected and district after district of his own capital fell to Shia militia gunmen.

With the threat of a civil war looming in the south, Nouri al-Maliki’s police chief in Basra narrowly escaped assassination in the crucial port city, while in Baghdad, the spokesman for the Iraqi side of the US military surge was kidnapped by gunmen and his house burnt to the ground.

Saboteurs also blew up one of Iraq's two main oil pipelines from Basra, cutting at least a third of the exports from the city which provides 80 per cent of government revenue, a clear sign that the militias — who siphon significant sums off the oil smuggling trade — would not stop at mere insurrection.

In Baghdad, thick black smoke hung over the city centre tonight and gunfire echoed across the city.

The most secure area of the capital, Karrada, was placed under curfew amid fears the Mahdi Army of Hojetoleslam Moqtada al-Sadr could launch an assault on the residence of Abdelaziz al-Hakim, the head of a powerful rival Shia governing party.

All that black smoke must be the sweet smell of success.

Politics and Civil War

2008-03-27T09:19:00.001-07:00

When the Bush administration felt threatened by political opponents they used the "Justice" Department to take them out. When the government of al-Malaki felt threatened by the followers of al-Sadr they use the police and the army. Yes elections are scheduled and those currently in power know or fear that al-Sadr will do well in those elections and their hold on power is threatened. The administration has tried to spin the current increase in violence as a sign the surge is a success.

The fighting in Basra, and rocket attacks on Baghdad's Green Zone by members of the Mahdi Army militia, have led some analysts to believe the unilateral ceasefire called by the militia's powerful leader Moqtada al-Sadr is falling apart. Among those analysts is Ilan Goldenberg, policy director of the National Security Network, a frequent critic of the Bush Administration's Iraq policy.

"It looks like it's breaking down. If it is in fact breaking down, and not just a temporary blip, then you could have a major increase in violence," he said.

That's not how the Pentagon sees it, according to Press Secretary Geoff Morrell. "I do not think at this stage, at this stage, which is mere days into this operation, anyone is prepared to stand here and tell you that they feel as though the gains we've made over the past several months are in jeopardy," he said.

In fact, Morrell says the Baghdad government's decision to take on extremist elements of the Mahdi Army militia is a good sign. "It's very noteworthy that the prime minister, that the government for that matter, is ready, willing and now able to take the fight to the extremists and to the criminals down there. They were not of this capacity some months ago. And what's more than that, it's a Shia'-dominated government going after Shia' extremists down there, and that's significant," he said.

Of course one problem is that many and perhaps a majority of Iraqis in the south and portions of Baghdad and other cities see the al-Malaki government as "the extremists and the criminals." The net result is the country is once again descending into chaos.
Iraq implodes as Shia fights Shia

A new civil war is threatening to explode in Iraq as American-backed Iraqi government forces fight Shia militiamen for control of Basra and parts of Baghdad.

Heavy fighting engulfed Iraq's two largest cities and spread to other towns yesterday as the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, gave fighters of the Mehdi Army, led by the radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, 72 hours to surrender their weapons.

The gun battles between soldiers and militiamen, who are all Shia Muslims, show that Iraq's majority Shia community – which replaced Saddam Hussein's Sunni regime – is splitting apart for the first time.

Mr Sadr's followers believe the government is trying to eliminate them before elections in southern Iraq later this year, which they are expected to win.

Mortars and rockets launched from Mehdi Army-controlled districts of Baghdad struck the Green Zone, the seat of American power in Iraq, for the third day yesterday, seriously wounding three Americans. Two rockets hit the parking lot of the Iraqi cabinet. The mixed area of al-Mansur in west Baghdad, where shops had begun to reopen in recent months, was deserted yesterday as Mehdi Army fighters were rumoured among local people to be moving in from the nearby Shia stronghold of Washash. "We expect an attack by the Shia in spite of the Americans being spread over Sunni districts to defend them," said a Sunni resident.

Forty people have been killed and at least 200 injured in Basra in the last two days of violence. In the town of Hilla, south of Baghdad, 11 people were killed and 18 injured yesterday by a US air strike called in support of Iraqi forces following street battles with Shia militia members in the city's Thawra neighbourhood. In Baghdad, 14 have been killed and 140 wounded.

The supporters of Mr Sadr, who form the largest political movement in Iraq, blame the Americans for giving the go-ahead for Mr Maliki's offensive against them and supporting it with helicopters and bomber aircraft. US troops have sealed off Sadr City, the close-packed slum in the capital with a population that is the main bastion of the Sadrists, while the Mehdi Army has taken over its streets, establishing checkpoints, each manned by about 20 heavily armed men. It is unlikely that the militiamen in Basra will surrender as demanded by the government. Sadiq al-Rikabi, an adviser to Mr Maliki, said those who kept their weapons would be arrested. "Any gunman who does not do that within three days will be an outlaw."

Streets were empty in Basra and Baghdad as people stayed at home to avoid the fighting. The Mehdi Army is enforcing a strike in Baghdad with mosques calling for the closure of shops, businesses and schools.

In the Shia city of Kut, on the Tigris south of Baghdad, local residents say that black-clad Mehdi Army militiamen have taken over five districts and expelled the police.

Not even invasion and surge supporter Anthony Cordesman is buying the spin.

Much of the current coverage of the fighting in the south assumes that Muqtada al-Sadr and the Sadr militia are the "spoilers," or bad guys, and that the government forces are the legitimate side and bringing order. This can be a dangerous oversimplification. There is no question that many elements of the JAM have been guilty of sectarian cleansing, and that the Sadr movement in general is hostile to the US and is seeking to enhance Muqtada al-Sadr's political power. There is also no doubt that the extreme rogue elements in the JAM have continued acts of violence in spite of the ceasefire, and that some have ties to Iran. No one should romanticize the Sadr movement, understate the risks it presents, or ignore the actions of the extreme elements of the JAM.

But no one should romanticize Maliki, Al Dawa, or the Hakim faction/ISCI. The current fighting is as much a power struggle for control of the south, and the Shi'ite parts of Baghdad and the rest of the country, as an effort to establish central government authority and legitimate rule.

[....]

Is the end result going to be good or bad? It is very difficult to tell. If the JAM and Sadr turn on the US, or if the current ISCI/Dawa power grab fails, then Shi'ite on Shi'ite violence could become far more severe. It is also far from clear that if the two religious-exile parties win, this is going to serve the cause of political accommodation or legitimate local and provincial government. It seems far more likely that even the best case outcome is going be one that favors Iraqracy over democracy.

Hillary's Glass House

2008-03-26T15:27:00.000-07:00

Since Hillary Clinton has decided to be critical of Obama's religious affiliations I guess it's only fair to look at hers. I remember this profile of Hillary by Joshua Green a few years back but had forgotten the disturbing information that she was a member of a right wing Washington prayer group. Green rightly thinks it's time to revisit this association and reminds us of the details:
Hillary's Minister Problem

When I was profiling her two years ago, I learned about her involvement with a secretive Christian organization called The Fellowship that has operated in the Washington shadows since the 1930s. I found the story of Clinton and The Fellowship so bizarre that I made it the lede to my piece. In light of recent events, it's worth revisiting.

If you've never heard of The Fellowship (also known as The Family), it will sound like some shadowy organization in a John Grisham novel. (Indeed, as a Google search will demonstrate, critics consider it a cult.) The group was formed in the 1930s to minister to political and business leaders throughout the world, modeling itself as a kind of Christian Trilateral Commission. Several members of Congress are affiliated with the group, mostly Republicans, but some Democrats, too. To the extent The Fellowship is known beyond its members it is probably for founding the annual National Prayer Breakfast in Washington.

Like Jeremiah Wright's Trinity Baptist Church, The Fellowship is run by its own mysterious and controversial figure, Douglas Coe, although temperamentally Coe is Wright's opposite. He eschews the spotlight and has never made a controversial public utterance that I'm aware of -- mainly because he rarely speaks publicly at all. (You won't find him on YouTube.) But like Wright, Coe has ministered to a Democratic frontrunner. He personally leads a private Senate prayer group that Clinton has been a part of.

Little is known about the group because it is very secretive.

Reporters hoping to look into the group might want to think again. A few years ago, The Fellowship’s archives, which are held at Wheaton College, the evangelical school in Illinos, were reclassified as “restricted” and placed under lock and key.

Is it time someone asks Hillary about her religion if she feels free to question Obama's?

Steven G. Grant reports MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell interviewed Green this morning:

The most telling point for me was when Andrea said "... clearly she is involved in a religious organization that is much more right wing that she (pause) claims to be."
Yes, Andrea, who Hillary claims to be just may not be who she really is. The answer to this question "Who is Hillary and what does she want?" is not clear to many of us. We know she has embellished her claims of foreign policy experience while First Lady. But inflating what you tell us you have done is not the same as keeping secret what it is that you have actually done... or are thinking of doing with your right wing "Family" connections if you become President of the United States.

Update
This from Kevin Drum

I just talked to Jeff Sharlet, author of the forthcoming book, The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power. Although he says that Hillary Clinton's connection with the Fellowship (aka the "Family") is fairly shallow, he also thinks it's quite wrong to characterize it as merely "a collection of Bible study groups." Hillary's association with the Fellowship is no scandal, he says, but it is fair to question her about whether she accepts Doug Coe's particular brand of elite-centered, post-millennial theology.

More info on Jeff's work can be found in Meet 'The Family'

I was wrong

2008-03-26T08:07:00.001-07:00

I can admit when I was wrong. To all of you with Hillary derangement syndrome that I have mocked over the last few months I apologize - you were right, I was wrong!
Now we all had great fun mocking John McCain when he embraced the man that had viciously slimed him four years before. Now Hillary is embracing a man, Richard Mellon Scaife, who spent years and millions of his own dollars to slime Hillary and Bill Clinton. This was while attempting to resurrect the Obama's Rev Wright problem that had all but disappeared in order to deflect from her own lapse of memory on Bosnia. Now it gets even worse:
Obama And The Jews

The Clinton campaign is distributing an article in the American Spectator (!) about Obama foreign policy adviser Merrill McPeak and his penchant for.. well, the article accuses him of being an anti-Semite and a drunk. Principally, the author takes McPeak to task for supporting a Middle East map that would require Israel to withdraw to its pre-1967 border. It also makes the case that McPeak supports the Walt-Mearsheimer view of the influence of the Israeli lobby on foreign policy.

The author's sudden conclusion: "Obama has a Jewish problem and McPeak's bigoted views are emblematic of what they are. Obama can issue all the boilerplate statements supporting Israel's right to defend itself he wants. But until he accepts responsibility for allowing people like McPeak so close to his quest for the presidency, Obama's sincerity and judgment will remain open questions."

As one keen observer pointed out to me, if advocating the pre '67 border map makes one an anti-Semite, just about every iteration of the U.S. government since 1967 would qualify. Tony McPeak's verbal gymnastics do not make a "Jewish problem" for Obama.

Of course this is not the first time that Hillary has made use of Rovian politics and right wing talking points in an attempt to knee cap Obama.

I didn't think that Hillary would do anything to get the nomination - I was wrong. I didn't think that Hillary would put her own self interests before the good of the party, the country and the world - I was wrong.

Why does Hillary hate America

2008-03-25T17:47:00.000-07:00

I supported Hillary Clinton until late January even though I had to hold my nose most of the time. Her campaign tactics became too much for me and I switched. Today it became obvious to me that she would much rather see a President John McCain than a President Barack Obama in spite of the fact that would be a disaster for the country and the world. Just when it appeared that the Wright issue had become old news Hillary brings it up in an obvious attempt to draw attention from her Bosnia lies at a time when her own campaign thinks she only has a five or ten percent chance of getting the nomination.
Clinton: Wright 'would not have been my pastor'

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, in a wide-ranging interview today with Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reporters and editors, said she would have left her church if her pastor made the sort of inflammatory remarks Sen. Barack Obama's former pastor made.
"He would not have been my pastor," Clinton said. "You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend."

Obama's lead in national polls had slipped since clips of the retired Rev. Jeremiah Wright began being played on national news programs, but he has since rebounded, according to a Gallup poll. The uproar prompted Obama to give a major speech on race in America last week.

But Obama was coming back and once again was leading in North Carolina by 21 points. This can only be described as a Tonya Harding attack which can only hurt the Democratic Party in November and the country for years.

It's time for Clinton campaign workers and supporters to jump ship - the country and the world depends on it.

Jazz at The Moderate Voice

2008-03-25T11:53:00.000-07:00

Jazz's column below also appears as a Guest Voice over at Joe Gandelman's The Moderate Voice.

None of the above?

2008-03-25T08:29:00.000-07:00

I have wondered if there was a possibility that a brokered convention might result in neither Clinton or Obama getting the nomination. Since I really don't like either one of them I chalked it up to wishful thinking. So it was with interest I read this:
Mark Tomasik: Don't discount Gore-led ticket

U.S. Rep. Tim Mahoney, whose district includes much of Martin and St. Lucie counties, is hoping he won't have to attend the Democratic Party national convention in Denver in August.

If he does go, that will mean the Democrats still haven't decided a nominee for the presidential election. And if neither Sen. Hillary Clinton nor Sen. Barack Obama has clinched the nomination by August, Mahoney says we may see a brokered convention, meaning the nominee could emerge from a negotiated settlement.

"If it (the nomination process) goes into the convention, don't be surprised if someone different is at the top of the ticket," Mahoney said.

A compromise candidate could be someone such as former vice president Al Gore, Mahoney said last week during a meeting with this news organization's editorial board.

If either Clinton or Obama suggested to a deadlocked convention a ticket of Gore-Clinton or Gore-Obama, the Democratic Party would accept it, Mahoney said.

Now I don't know if Gore is the guy - he's got some baggage of his own, and I certainly can't imagine a Gore/Clinton ticket. I don't know how the Clinton and Obama supporters would react - would it unify or further divide?

If this is success.....

2008-03-24T21:18:00.000-07:00

.....I'd hate to see failure!
St John McBush says US succeeding in Iraq

We're succeeding. I don't care what anybody says. I've seen the facts on the ground," the Arizona senator insisted a day after a roadside bomb in Baghdad killed four U.S. soldiers and rockets pounded the U.S.-protected Green Zone there, and a wave of attacks left at least 61 Iraqis dead nationwide.

Now McClatchy sees things a little differently:
Is 'success' of U.S. surge in Iraq about to unravel?

BAGHDAD — A cease-fire critical to the improved security situation in Iraq appeared to unravel Monday when a militia loyal to radical Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al Sadr began shutting down neighborhoods in west Baghdad and issuing demands of the central government.

Simultaneously, in the strategic southern port city of Basra, where Sadr's Mahdi militia is in control, the Iraqi government launched a crackdown in the face of warnings by Sadr's followers that they'll fight government forces if any Sadrists are detained. By 1 a.m. Arab satellite news channels reported clashes between the Mahdi Army and police in Basra.

The freeze on offensive activity by Sadr's Mahdi Army has been a major factor behind the recent drop in violence in Iraq, and there were fears that the confrontation that's erupted in Baghdad and Basra could end the lull in attacks, assassinations, kidnappings and bombings.

The only way the obvious reduction in violence could be maintained was for political reconciliation to occur. It has not and in fact because of the actions of the al Malaki government it has become even less likely. As we have pointed out here before the main reason violence is down in Baghdad is that the ethnic cleansing of the city was nearly complete before the surge began. As McClatchy notes another big reason was the truce by Sadr's Mahdi Army which is on the verge of breaking down in large part because of actions by the al Malaki government. And a third reason is the Awakening Council model of Sunni militia members which is also on the verge of breaking down at least in part because the al Malaki government fears them and so refuses to give them official legitimacy. We have seen an increase in the violence every month this year and without any movement on the political front we can expect that to continue. McClatchy also points out that coverage of Iraq has decreased dramatically over the last year. As the violence increases again so will the coverage. Iraq will once again be a big issue long before November which will make life very difficult for Mr McCain.

Where Josh and Big Tent Both Get it Wrong

2008-03-24T15:27:00.000-07:00

There was a rather controversial post today from one our favorite bloggers, Josh Marshall at TPM, purporting that Hillary Clinton's supporters are trying to game the system outside of the rules to put their candidate over the finish line.

I imagine playing poker around a table with friends. Player A has a Straight Flush; Player B has four of a kind. Then B says well, sure, if you're counting straights, but if we were adding up the numbers rather than going by straights winning, I'd have won.

A similar theory was extolled at KOS. Over at TalkLeft (another excellent blog) Big Tent Democrat retorts that Clinton's strategy is exactly within the rules.

Let's focus on whether the rules allow this. The answer is obviously yes, they do. It seems to me that it is Obama supporters like Markos who are complaining that the rules MAY NOT favor Obama. It is they who are whining that the rules permit Super Delegates to pick a nominee who is not the pledged delegate leader. I do not like the rules either. But for a different reason. They allow Super Delegates to pick a nominee who might not be the popular vote leader.

While I may sound like a tiresome Mike Brady trying to settle a dispute between Greg and Marsha, might I suggest that each of you have many technical points which recommend your theories, but that you are both missing the big picture and getting it completely wrong.

The problem here does not lie with the current rule set (which is in desperate need of improvement) or with the party leadership or with the supporters of the two candidates. It is with the two campaigns themselves. On the one hand, this is the Democratic Party you're talking about, and thwarting the will of the popular vote, the total pledged delegate count, most states won, etc., would send a terrible, fracturing message to the party membership, possibly keeping new, excited voters on the bench in November. On the other hand, the rules are clear and are there for a reason. The super delegates exist for the express purpose of being able to resolve such disputes in their best judgement, so a candidate asking to push the contest to the convention for such a "coup" is completely within their rights and might be putting the decision in the hands of experienced players better suited to reading the tea leaves for the upcoming election.

But none of this addresses the real fault here. First, let me say that we are in no way out of time... yet. Some of the numbers are not yet out of reach for either candidate for all the major metrics being discussed, and allowing Pennsylvania, Oregon, and North Carolina (among others) to have their say will not kill us. However, the longer this drags on past that, the more harm is done. As Ron and I discussed during our interview with Shaun Mullen on today's edition of Mid Stream Radio, time is on McCain's side. A story on St. John McBush's questionable relationship with telecom lobbyists passed almost without notice today. And why would the media bother? Why chase scraps of bread sticks when there are chunks of filet mignon on the table?

The solution to this conundrum can not come from the blogs, the media, the DNC, or even the super delegates. Any forced resolution will come at a higher cost to the party than all of these pretty rationalizations would lead one to believe. It is high time for both of these candidates to act like adults who are committed to the one concept which both of them seem to embrace - that they both wish to see the Democratic party prevail in November. The only viable remedy is for one of these candidates to come out very publicly to their own supporters, well ahead of any type of Waterloo, and say that they will never forget the boundless support of their followers, but that for the good of the party they are going to bow out and support their opponent. This need not be done now, but this pause before the Pennsylvania primary is indeed the time for them both to sit down, look at the numbers, and decide on the parameters which each will accept for moving forward by June at the latest.

What this does is allow both candidates to come together and say, "No. This is most certainly not a case of some anonymous group of party power brokers robbing you of the nation's first [black] - [female] president. It is to our great credit and honor that both have been fairly considered and given this opportunity. It is simply a case of our party coming together to decide that the most electable one of this pair of historic contenders will be the person to defeat John McCain in November."

Anything short of this is nothing less than yet another case of the Democrats snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and giving away the White House in an election year where they should have taken it in a walk. There is too much blood in the water for either candidates' supporters to bow down gracefully before a victor anointed by the Powers That Be during the convention. I personally find it difficult to envision a scenario where Hillary Clinton makes this case successfully, given the math, but that could still change in the primary battles next month. Be that as it may, I will gladly take either of them at this point if the other is willing to make that long, hard walk down the hall and do what is in the best interest of the party.