Oregonians can be proud that Senator Wyden voted against this heinous Vitter Amendment. But it remains an open question why Gordo has the backing of so many Native American Nations in Oregon while he continues to throw their mothers, wives and daughters under the proverbial GOP bus? What could he promise them that would buy their acquiesence on such a profound travesty of justice?

One small glimer of hope can be found in the hot-off-the-presses poll released today showing that Senator Smith's approval numbers continue to be mired in the sub-50% range.

Posted by Kevin at 01:00 PM |

February 27, 2008

Sam Adams for Portland - the video

Normally I avoid Portland city politics for the most part because I'm not a resident of Portland. But Ben over at Witigonen is a friend who is also a big Sam Adams supporter and he turned me on to the Adams campaign's kick-off video. Frankly, it's one of the best I've ever seen at lower than a state or federal level campaign. Check it out for yourself, and if you live in Portland go stake a claim to whomever you want to be your next Mayor. These things don't work by osmosis

Posted by Kevin at 08:25 PM |

William F. Buckley - R.I.P.

Mostly the point of this post is to direct you to Vichy Democrats Thersites D. Scott's post on the subject. But first I'd like to offer a couple comments on what Scott has to say.

A harmful, fascinating, brilliant, well-intended, generally sincere, and -- I'll take the plunge -- admirable guy.

I can't remember any of his one-liners, but Scott quotes one in his post. What I do remember is that it was those one-liners that invariably hooked me on what otherwise would have been dull, dry and excessively wonky debates which PBS used to host fairly regularly way back in the day.

One last observation: Newt Gingrich isn't a fraction of the intellect that Buckley was. Either that or Newt just can't mask the fact that he's a self-serving prick.

Posted by Kevin at 01:11 PM |

February 26, 2008

We Don't Want To - and You Can't Make Us

That's pretty much what the GOP told Congress Tuesday regarding the party's decision not to attempt to recover the missing Karl Rove emails leading up to the Iraq War. Fuck history. Fuck the people. They don't want us to see those messages and that's the end of the matter.

Administration officials have acknowledged that Rove and many other White House officials routinely used RNC accounts for government business, despite rules requiring that they conduct such business through official communications channels. The RNC deleted all e-mails until 2004, when it exempted White House officials from its e-mail purging policy.

About 80 White House aides used RNC accounts for official government business, committee staff members said. Rove, for example, sent or received 140,000 e-mails on RNC servers from 2002 to 2007, and more than half involved official ".gov" accounts, the panel has said.

No doubt, these addresses were used because they provided cover for these officials' communications. Retrieval of the messages would not be an issue unless they could reveal the truth about how we got where we are today - and reveal to Americans that what we think happened is not what really happened.

How ironic that the Republicans talk endlessly about how the Democrats want to rewrite history to suit their political views, and yet are willing to blatantly destroy historical evidence so they can create their own version of it for future generations. And how ironic that Republicans criticized the Clintons for failing to recognize the honor and responsibility of their office, and yet are clearly unable to show any respect for the weight of responsibility the White House and its staff bear to preserve our history and serve our people. It's entirely shameful.

Posted by Becky at 11:22 PM |

Stuff White People Like - the blog

Now see, this is why I LOVE listening to NPR's Talk of the Nation during my lunch breaks.

One of today's segments featured the creator and author of the blog Stuff White People Like. Part observation on so-called White Privilege, part commentary on white culture, part (mostly!) self-depricating humor, this blog is a riot to read!!

I'll admit that when they first mentioned what the next segment was going to be about I copped the tiniest of attitudes. While I readily agree that huge swaths of white society in this nation fit the description of "White Privilege," I've known too many white families living in abject poverty to fall for the fiction that all white folk have it easier than all (insert skin color) folk do. But I kept listening and was quickly disabused of my ass-u-mption that the author was non-caucasian. So now they definitely had my curiosity piqued and it quickly became very clear that the blog is equal parts serious observations and belly-laugh self-deprication. And what is almost all humor based on if not serious observations couched in humorous terms? And besides, the author made it very clear upfront that he is really targeting a specific subset of white culture that rarily gets made fun of. Let's just say that if you wear Birkenstocks and recycle your empty bottled water bottles... well... you're in the bull's eye. Which is all the more funny because that's the very subset which tries so friggin' hard to be all things to all people without stepping on anyone's toes in the process.

You gotta click on the link above and check it out for yourselves. It's definitely one of those "one-on-one" experiences where there is nobody to posture for and the computer monitor can't read your mind anyway! But I'll toss out a few very brief teaser examples here.

#67 Standing Still at Concerts. ROFL - that is totally me! But in my defense, everyone knows that straight white guys can't dance. I mean c'mon! ;-)

#70 Difficult Breakups.

Prior to engaging in divorce (#66), most white people train for it by engaging in a series of long term relationships that end very poorly.

#54 Kitchen Gadgets. Guilty as charged!! I love to cook tasty stuff and kitchen gadgets just come with the territory... right??? LOL

#51 Living by Water. No shit! When was the last time you saw anyone besides wealthy white folk living in beach-side, river-side or lake-side mansions? What the hell is our obsession with living by water, anyway?

#38 Arrested Developement. I LOVED that show. Seriously! I still don't understand why it was yanked.

#16 Gifted Children.

White people love “gifted” children, do you know why? Because an astounding 100% of their kids are gifted! Isn’t that amazing?

I’m pretty sure the last non-gifted white child was born in 1962 in Reseda, CA. Since then, it’s been a pretty sweet run.

#8 Barak Obama. Hey!!!

;-)

Posted by Kevin at 01:07 PM |

Merkley endorses Obama, Novick endorses ???

Jeff Merkley issued a brief but heartfelt endorsement of Barak Obama yesterday.

"Barack Obama and I share something more in common than simply our determination to change America for the better,” said Speaker Jeff Merkley, “Both of us come from the grassroots, where real change is sewn: Senator Obama was an organizer, committed to public housing in the neighborhoods of Chicago. And I worked with low-income families in need of housing through Habitat for Humanity and Human Solutions here in Portland.

“Both Senator Obama and I understand what it means to empower Americans house-by-house, community-by-community. That's the reason I'm running for U.S. Senate – to put that kind of power back into the hands of everyday Oregonians again. And that's the same reason I'm endorsing Barack Obama for President today."

I honestly have never read as tepid, back-handed an endorsement as the one that Steve Novick issued today, allegedly for Obama. First he starts out repeating all of the major anti-Obama attacks that Hillary has made. To what end? I haven't the foggiest idea! Then he proceeds to reproduce the bulk of a New York Times piece that portrays Hillary Clinton absolutely glowingly. Steve then sums up the NYT piece,

Rarely have I read anything so impressive about an American politician. I felt completely at home with that Hillary Clinton. She’s read the same history I have. (Since she’s a bit older than I am, and she has directly experienced more of it too.) She’s come to the same conclusions. She knows this stuff. She could be a great President.

Novick then turns to criticizing Hillary on a number of subjects before finally devoting a tiny little paragraph to why he's supposedly endorsing Obama,

I am voting for Barack Obama because I believe that he has the self-confidence to base his Presidency on hope, rather than fear. And because, even if I might ultimately be disappointed, I’d rather be disappointed in new ways, rather than the same old ways.

But if Hillary Clinton becomes our party’s nominee, I’ll support her. And if she becomes President, I will do whatever I can to help her become a great President. I’ll just take that New York Times article along whenever I get a chance to see her. I’ll wave it at her and say, “Madame President, I know that you know what to do. So, as a little Oregon shoe company likes to say – ‘Just Do It!’”

Is it just me or does the tone of Novick's entire "endorsement" sound like a politician trying to hedge his bets? Or is he leaving the door open to supporting Nader if he loses this primary to Merkley?

Posted by Kevin at 07:57 AM |

February 25, 2008

Novick on Nader

Anyone who thinks that Portland is the seventh-best city in the West must think that Michael Jordan is the seventh-best basketball player. Portland has a whole series of really cool bridges; Seattle doesn't. Portland has a spectacular, vibrant downtown; Seattle doesn't. Portland gave Ralph Nader more votes than any other metropolitan area; Seattle didn't. Portland is No. 1.

STEVE NOVICK Southeast Portland
[Novick, Letter to the Editor, The Oregonian, 6/25/98]

Posted by Kevin at 12:23 PM |

Connecting the McCain dots

John McCain had a problem.
He knew the New York Times was working on a story about him. He should have known, because it had been broken by Matt Drudge back in December, that it was about his relationship with Vicki Iseman. As long as the focus of the story was on a rumored romantic relationship with her his problem would be manageable. THAT story could be refuted and there was no hard evidence to back it up. At worst it would be a he said-she said situation. At best just the suspicians of some campaign staffers, at least one of whom could be said to be 'disgruntled'.
But if the story delved into the issue of undue influence and favors done for Vicki Iseman the lobbyist and her clients, it could derail the Straight Talk Express. It would show his claims of "no lobbyists need apply here" to be false.
In that situation, what would you do ?
Connect the dots and come to our own conclusions.
(I'll give you mine in a bit)

DOT....McCain's campaign is very short of money.
from the AP: on November 9, 2007
(AP) Republican John McCain, climbing in polls but lagging in money, is negotiating a $3 million loan while some of his backers launch an independent advertising effort seemingly at odds with his years of fighting outside influence in campaigns.
McCain ended the third quarter of the year with $3.5 million, $1.7 million of which was available for the primaries. He also reported a debt of $1.7 million.
I also saw a quote from the January FEC filings that McCain had $5.5 million in cash-on-hand and $5.2 million in outstanding debts.

DOT....McCain is now using the New York Times story in his fund raising.
According to
"the NYT" :
Later that afternoon (Thursday), the McCain campaign began using The Times in an fund-raising appeal sent by e-mail to supporters. “Well, here we go,” the letter from Mr. McCain’s campaign manager, Rick Davis, began, then outlined what it characterized as the newspaper’s smear campaign. Mr. Davis quickly got to the point: “We need your help to counteract the liberal establishment and fight back against The New York Times by making an immediate contribution today.”

By Friday, the campaign was tracing its jump in fund-raising directly to the article in The Times. “Thank you,” Mr. Schmidt said to a Times reporter on Mr. McCain’s campaign plane as it headed back to Washington from Indianapolis. Then he added to a group of reporters, “There was a lot of outrage across the country on the story, and the campaign has raised a lot of money in the last 24 hours.”

DOT....the SOURCE for the information in the NYT story is unnamed McCain Campaign staffers. (and one who is named)
From "USNews website" :
Hints of a campaign scandal involving Sen. John McCain and a female telecom lobbyist broke into the open today, with the New York Times running a front-page story that features unnamed McCain aides' suspicions of a romantic relationship between the Senator and Vicki Iseman.

The Washington Post reports former McCain aide John Weaver said aides "confronted" Iseman "in late 1999 and asked her to distance herself from" McCain "during the presidential campaign he was about to launch." Weaver, who "served as McCain's closest confidant until leaving his current campaign last year,....

DOT....the New York Times endorsed McCain.
"from Reuters" :
The New York Times on Thursday endorsed Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton and Republican Sen. John McCain for their party's nominations to contest the U.S. presidential election in November.

DOT....McCain and Karl Rove recently became chummy.
According to
"Huffington Post" :
"McCain Embraces Rove" February 10, 2008 12:22 PM
Karl Rove last week announced that he had given $2300 to the presumptive GOP presidential nominee John McCain.
Asked over the weekend about the donation, McCain said he has "always respected Karl Rove as one of the smart great political minds I think in American politics," and specifically refused to condemn Rove's hyper-partisan campaign tactics (including his smears against McCain in the 2000 South Carolina race).

And "Fox News" has this:
Seattle, WA – Maintaining that he does not hold any grudges from the 2000 GOP nomination fight, John McCain says that Karl Rove’s help and advice is welcome aboard the Straight Talk Express.
One day after Rove, a former senior aide to President Bush and architect of the 2000 and 2004 victories, donated $2,300 to McCain’s campaign, the presumptive nominee said Friday aboard his campaign plane that he is open Rove’s support in this year’s election.
“Nobody denies that he is one of the smartest political minds in America. I’d be glad to have him give us advice,” McCain said, joking that “saw the moths fly out” of Rove’s wallet upon receiving the donation.
“They beat me (in 2000). I would certainly be happy to have them give us advice….. he has a very good, great political mind and any information or advice and counsel he could give us I would be glad to have,” he added.

DOT....remember when "somebody" bugged Rove's office (back in 1986) and it turned out to be Karl himself?
Here's what "Wikipedia" has to say about it:
In 1986, just before a crucial debate in campaign, Rove claimed that his office had been bugged by Democrats. The police and FBI investigated and discovered that the bug's battery was so small that it needed to be changed every few hours, and the investigation was dropped. Critics suspected Rove had bugged his own office to garner sympathy votes in the close governor's race.

So we have a Times article about to break on McCain and Iseman. The article is least problematic for McCain if it focuses on a 'suspected romantic relationship' that can't be proven. A 'baseless attack' by the 'liberal biased media' can also be exploited to help with lagging fund-raising. McCain can claim 'outrage' at the scurrilous, 'below the belt' (pun intended) nature of the attack. (generating some voter as well as donor sympathy) The Times endorsed him so someone there must be a supporter. And a convenient conduit to direct a 'disgruntled' former staffer towards with juicy tidbits. Having left the campaign last year, Weaver could be credibly characterized as "a disgruntled former staffer". It's no secret that there has been long-running disagreement between Weaver and other McCain advisors. Other staffers can confirm the story anonymously without giving it undue credence. (anonymous sources are usually not viewed as the most reliable)
But what kind of mind can think up such deviousness, let alone put it into action?

Enter Karl Rove. One time enemy, now a friendly contributor (and probably looking for another 'insider' position after Bush-Cheney leave office). The man who orchestrated the "Swift-boating" of McCain in South Carolina in 2000.

Unfortunately for McCain, the story has grown legs. They started delving into the influence buying by Iseman's clients. Large campaign contributions, favorable letters written, questionable votes both in Committee and on the Senate floor.
Denials of a romantic relationship were difficult to counter, but meetings and letters leave a trail. The denial of a meeting is countered with sworn deposition testimony.
Can he hunker down and ride out the storm? Or will it doom him for November?

Is a feeling of "buyer's remorse" beginning to creep through the Republican Party?
Some Republicans I've talked to very recently have raised the question:
"Can Mitt get back in the race?"

That they are even thinking along those lines does not bode well for John McCain.
How ironic would it be if the Republicans wound up being the ones with a Brokered Convention?

Posted by Mac at 02:45 AM |

February 24, 2008

The O's priorities don't appear to be those of Oregonians

The Oregonian's Jeff Mapes echoes today's front page "winners and losers" list which quixotically pegs Speaker Merkley as a loser in the special session just concluded.

Merkley scored points for getting a mortgage reform bill out of the House but burned bridges trying to ram it through the Senate. He got grief from Republicans for shutting down minority reports and taking campaign contributions during the session. And Merkley, who is running for U.S. Senate, could have used the time to prepare for the May primary and a possible fall faceoff against Republican Sen. Gordon Smith.

Wong went on to say that "the plan died in the Senate after mortgage-industry lobbyists mounted opposition that went beyond the Capitol hallways."

So The O counts Merkley a loser because he was outmaneuvered by fucking lobbyists? In a chamber (the Senate) which he has zero authority in? Against the backdrop of 12,000 Oregonians who will go into foreclosure in the next 2 1/2 years?

The Eastern Oregonian carried an AP piece which described it like this:

Merkley pushed the bill through his own chamber, gaining support from three Republicans to replace three Democrats who voted against the plan. But the proposal was dead on arrival in the Senate, under a torrent of industry opposition and a lukewarm reception from consumer advocates, who said it didn't go far enough.

Even Ryan Frank's Real Estate blog on The O gave Merkley credit.

Mortgage reforms cleared the House today but their future in the Senate is not clear. Late this afternoon, House Speaker Jeff Merkley circled the Capitol searching for Senate Democrats to make his case. Democrats have an 18-11 advantage but Merkley wasn't sure yet he had the votes.

"I'm tracking down any senator I can find in the building," Merkley said. His search was complicated by Capitol remodel. Legislators don't have their normal offices.

Interestingly enough The O counts Senate President Peter Courtney a winner in part because he got his pet anti-dog fighting bill through both chambers. Let's put this into context...

The night before the 2008 Legislature ended, a Democratic leader told Rep. Sara Gelser that the bill she'd worked on for months was officially dead.

The bill would have required the state to make public the names of caregivers who abuse people with disabilities.

Gelser was furious as she left the Capitol: "I find it a great irony that tomorrow we will make attending a dogfight a felony . . . when we're talking about thousands of vulnerable people still in danger." - Michelle Cole an Oregonian staff writer

The dog-fighting bill, sponsored by Courtney, D-Salem, passed the House unanimously Friday -- but not without some grumbling.

Rep. Mitch Greenlick, D-Portland, who watched his proposed constitutional amendment declaring health care a fundamental right stall in the Senate, said it wasn't fair that Courtney's bill did not undergo a strict fiscal analysis.

"I love dogs. I hate dog fighting," he said. "It just strikes me as very odd that this bill gets a free pass, and I'm not sure what that free pass is about." - MICHELLE COLE, JANIE HAR and DAVE HOGAN Oregonian staff writers

Sen. Avel Gordly, an independent from Portland who has served in the House from 1991 to 1996 and in the Senate since 1996, is not running for re-election.

On Thursday, she failed to persuade a majority of her colleagues to bring her one allowed bill to the floor. The bill would have established a task force to develop a system offering mental health and addiction treatment services for seniors, people with disabilities and others in underserved racial and ethnic communities.

*A task force to help seniors, the disabled and others - shot down.

*Health Care as a constitutional right - put off.

*Requiring the state to make public the names of caregivers who abuse people with disabilities - shot down.

*Mortgage Finance reform - killed in committee. Two different versions. In the Senate.

But Senate President Courtney is lauded for making it a felony to watch a dogfight? I'm not saying that's not important. But MORE important than some of the other stuff that was killed in his chamber? Really? And Speaker Merkley is the loser??? Because he might have "burned bridges" with the crazy notion that Oregonians deserve to have someone fighting on our behalf against the fucking lobbyists?

Where the fuck are The Oregonian's priorities?

And that doesn't even get into the absurd suggestion by The O that Merkley was a loser because he could have used the time to work his campaign. I mean what the fuck? Are Oregonians without health care better served? Seniors? The Disabled? Victims of abusive caregivers? All less worthy of Speaker Merkley's attention than running his campaign? And who the fuck says that he can't do both? Wouldn't THAT benefit Oregonians?

The sheer cynicism of The O is appalling. Real lives of real Oregonians are affected by what happens in our legislature. Dogs are important, but not more important than 12,000 citizens who face foreclosure. Not more important than exposing abusive caregivers or helping seniors and the disabled. Or whether Health Care is a right or not.

Posted by Kevin at 08:12 PM |

February 22, 2008

Obama Bits

I urge you to go read this post by Hart Williams, because in it he finds a comparison of the supposedly "experienced" Hillary Clinton's work product and that of the supposedly "naive" and "inexperienced" "Xerox" man, Barack Obama. Really, a must read.

While we're talking about Obama, can anyone tell my why I'm feeling so nervous over the fact that some pundits are already writing Hillary's epitaph?And why would the Secret Service order the Dallas police to stop their weapons screening of the 17,000 members of the public lined up to attend an Obama rally on Wednesday? The Secret Service said it was because the crown seemed "friendly." Huh? Though I dread to commit my thoughts to writing, I will say this makes all my worst fears bubble up to the surface. We need this hope that Obama brings. Losing it would be an arrow through America's heart, in my opinion.

Posted by Becky at 09:03 AM |

February 21, 2008

Oregon Indies still love Obama - new poll

SurveyUSA released a new general election match-up poll today.

McCain beats Hillary 49% to 41% over all, wins NAVs 54% to 33%.

Obama narrowly beats McCain 48% to 47%, wins NAVs 52% to 41%.

Obama outpolls Hillary in every demographic breakdown, with the lone exception of health care where she manages a very respectable 65% to McCain's 29%, whereas Obama still wins it but less dominantly at 58% to 37%.

On the issues Obama's most dominant areas are environment and education with 79% and 70% respectively. He even narrowly tops Hillary on terrorism, although they both lose badly to McCain on that issue with 12% and 11% respectively. He does a very respectable 62% to McCain's 32% on Iraq, while Hillary polls slightly lower at 59% to McCain's 35%.

Obama's one overwhelmingly dominant ethnic demographic is hispanics at 71% to McCain's 27%. McCain polls even lower (17%) against Clinton but the undecideds are significant at 26% giving Clinton a narrow outright majority at 57%.

Posted by Kevin at 03:52 PM |

McCain "Exposé" Leaves Me Queasy

I heard yesterday that some big exposé on John McCain was in the offing, supposedly detailing his unethical relationships with lobbyists. But when I read today's big story in the New York Times all I got from it was a queasy feeling. Not about McCain, but rather about the desperate, shoddy journalism that would produce something like this and try to pass it off as a big story.

I've seen a real-life exposé of real substance up close and personal before. I'm dreadfully familiar with the feelings experienced by campaign staffers who know the morning paper will probably drop a nightmarishly black cloud over their lives. In our case, we expected something mild stretched to absurd levels in an attempt to look like a big deal; instead we were hit with a legitimately big deal that grew even larger over time. In McCain's case, however, the public was led to believe this morning's paper would drop a big bomb, and instead it's brought us an embarrassingly big to-do over nothing of substance.

McCain may or may not have been romantically involved with the lobbyist in question, and frankly, I don't care. Let me just remind everyone that many of our presidents, senators, and congressmen throughout history have dallied on the side - personally reprehensible behavior, to be sure, but none of the country's business. What would bother me is if he was using the power of his office to do her favors that were not in the country's best interests simply because they were romantically involved. If that happened, the New York Times offers no evidence of it. The paper also offers no evidence of any of the rest of the laundry list of implications it throws out. There probably is truth in the assertion that McCain is "imprudent" and that he has pushed the lines, but we can't know that he has crossed any lines with such short-cutted, un-cited and synoptic writing. It's simply lazy and irresponsible journalism - particularly so considering the man is running for President.

Quite the opposite journalistic approach occurred back when Bill Sizemore was running for Governor of Oregon. The Oregonian employed at least one full-time journalist for months to do some actual investigative reporting. When the paper stated on that fateful morning that Sizemore's financial background left something to be desired, every point was fully documented and sourced. None of this "anonymous campaign staffer" and generalized statement crap. Only a great desire to disbelieve it, to the point of outright denial, could overcome the sheer irrefutability of the accusations. All that effort to defeat Sizemore was apparently worthwhile for a statewide paper like The Oregonian, but exerting any real effort to do some actual digging to verify the veracity of the claims about a presidential candidate is apparently too much for a national newspaper like The New York Times. Disgraceful, really.

Posted by Becky at 10:00 AM |

February 20, 2008

Organized Labor lines up behind Merkley

Today the 11,000 plus registered nurses in the Oregon Nurses Association joined the American Nurses Association in endorsing Jeff Merkley for Senate. They join with...

United Food and Commercial Workers Local 555 International Longshore and Warehouse Union Oregon AFSCME Council 75 Oregon AFL-CIO International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers Local 97 Oregon State Association of Electrical Workers International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 48 American Federation of Teachers-Oregon Exterior & Interior Specialists Local 2154

Posted by Kevin at 04:21 PM |

February 19, 2008

Another Reason Who is Elected President Matters

With today's refusal by the Supreme Court to hear the ACLU's challenge to the President's warrantless wiretapping program, we are again reminded why it matters what kind of person we elect to the Presidency - where Supreme Court judicial nominations, as well as this particular intrusion into our rights, have originated. We'd better take a long, hard look at where the candidates stand on matters if civil rights - and I'm not talking just words here. We're dangerously close to irreversable damage to our civil rights already. One of the first questions I'll be asking when I vote in November is which candidate has the best record of respecting the Constitution and the American people.

Posted by Becky at 03:25 PM |

Another Videotaped Police Brutality Incident

This is one of the worst I've seen - a Louisiana cop so badly beat a handcuffed woman who had been arrested for a DUI that she wound up in the hospital with her face a mass of cuts and bruises and several broken teeth. For the second time today, I ask you, will we tolerate this sort of behavior any longer? Taser use and police abuse are proliferating across the country, our government is sanctioning and performing torture, and all of it's in the name of keeping us safe. We say we are upset, but we are doing nothing about it. Are we doomed as a democracy?

Posted by Becky at 01:39 PM |

Hillary Rodham Clinton (D = desperate)

By now we've all heard about allegations coming from the Clinton campaign that Obama plagiarized portions of a recent speech from his campaign's national co-chair Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick. The Huffington Post's Nico Pitney and Sam Stein do as good a job as anyone exposing the charge as the fraud that it self-evidently is. Hillary has borrowed rhetorical turns of phrase from her own husband without crediting him. However, nobody that I'm aware of has pointed out the simplist and easiest way to debunk Hillary's charges.

Clinton surrogate Massachusetts Rep. Jim McGovern told a group of reporters on a conference call that America needs a president who is "not just someone who can copy someone's homework."

Hello!?!? If Obama is unfit for the presidency because he borrowed a supporter's rhetoric as his own then we've not had a legitimate president in my lifetime since they've all used speech writers, including Bill Clinton. How do you think Patrick Buchanon got his start? He was speech writer for Nixon.

You know those terminally boring "State of the Union" addresses Congress and network TV audiences (thank God for cable!!) have to suffer through once a year? When was the last time a President opened a single one of them by crediting the speech writer(s) who actually penned the essay he was about to read? Any speech ever?

It would appear that the capital "D" after Hillary Clinton's name on the ballots actually stands for "Desperate" rather than the presumed "Democrat." Surpised? I thought not...

Posted by Kevin at 11:23 AM |

If This Behavior is Tolerated We're Doomed

I've about decided Hillary Clinton must be a test from God to determine whether the United States of America deserves to continue as a legitimately free democracy or not.

Here's why I think this. For many years now Americans have been perturbed over vote counting, wondering whether their votes matter. For some reason that I cannot comprehend, we have tolerated the influx of rigged (or riggable) voting machines in virtually every county in the country. We've tolerated suspicious outcomes. We've also tolerated the abusive misuse of our military, which historically was deployed for the purpose of protecting our freedoms (including the right to vote) and now is being used for corporate profit, leaving me to wonder whether a lot of brave soldiers who laid down their lives for this country are now rolling in their graves. A lot of us have wondered why we've put up with all this abuse when so much is at stake. Now the Hillary Clinton machine is abusing our rights to such an extent that I believe if we tolerate it now, it's Game Over for our democracy.

First read the following, then tell me whether you are willing to tolerate this behavior - or whether you think it is perfectly legitimate. First, the primary vote count in New York was pure B.S. You thought Florida was bad during the Bush v. Gore race? God help us. Second, Hillary's campaign is now threatening to throw the rules out the window and go after Obama's voter-committed delegates. In other words, she is going to try to convince the delegates to defy the voters and throw their support to her. This really stinks.

Are we going to tolerate it?

Posted by Becky at 11:05 AM |

February 18, 2008

New Poll - Wisconsin Indies love Obama more than McCain

To those of us who watch these sorts of things this has become a very well-worn path in state after state, poll after poll. Obama polls better among Independents than anyone else.

This time it's a hot-off-the-presses poll from Wisconsin.

McCain beats Clinton 49% to 42% overall. Among Indies he wins 51% to 35% with 14% undecided.

McCain loses to Obama 42% to 52% overall. Among Indies he loses 44% to 47% (within the 4.3% margin of error) with only 9% undecided.

Posted by Kevin at 12:08 PM |

Odds and ends - letters to the editor

College Scholarships.org is hosting The 2nd Annual Political Blogging Scholarship. The scholarship amount is $2,000. The scholarship requirements:

*Your blog must contain unique and interesting information about political issues, current events, opinions, etc. No spam bloggers please!!!

*U.S. citizen;

*3.0 GPA;

*Currently attending full-time in post-secondary education; and
If you win, you must be willing to allow us to list your name and blog on this page. We want to be able to say we knew you before you became a well educated, rich, and famous blogging legend.

I'm late getting this up so there are only three days left to get your entries in. Closing time is midnight EST February 21st.

There is a new documentary film out by Brian Hall called Article VI: Faith. Politics. America.

This film is an intense discussion of the role of faith in politics. It examines the practice of religious tests in the political process, imposed both officially by governments and unofficially by individuals. The title is taken from Article Six of the United States Constitution: "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Posted by Kevin at 07:55 AM |

February 17, 2008

Dems Florida/Michigan Conundrum. The Fix.

Watching Senators Durbin and Schumer stand in as surrogates for the Clinton and Obama campaigns on Meet The Press this morning, it occured to me that there's really only one pragmatic solution to the Florida/Michigan conundrum.

It doesn't matter whether Clinton and Obama go into the convention tied, nearly so or not. Whomever the nominee is, Florida and Michigan are going to be hugely important to winning the general election and for strictly pragmatic reasons will need to be seated at the convention. It's too late for either state to do a make-up primary or caucus, which clearly would be preferable. The uncompetetive primaries each held clearly can't be represented. So there is only one solution that I can see...

Wipe the slate clean. Each state needs to send a delegation at 50% of their original allotment, which preserves the spirit of the DNC penalty. The respective delegations should be evenly split between Obama and Clinton supporters, thus giving neither candidate an advantage, and let those delegates decide the matter for themselves at the convention. Then let them cast their votes accordingly.

In hindsight it seems to me that the DNC penalty against Florida and Michigan for not complying with party rules was... unpragmatic and potentially counter-productive. A percentage penalty such as I've suggestion here probably would have been a much wiser course of action. Had Howard Dean parred back the delegate strength severely, say to something which would place them as the 49th and 50th smallest delegations to the convention, that would have served the same basic penalty function because it would have negated the clout of each state without disenfranchizing it's citizens, the vast majority of whom didn't have any say in when the primary was scheduled in the first place.

Posted by Kevin at 09:21 AM |

February 14, 2008

Torture: moral dilema or no-brainer?

A reader emailed us the link to a truly excellent post a couple days ago at a blog called "Chrisco Spins" examining whether America should practice torture and why.

A teaser:

Here’s a question. What if the United States knew that a plane loaded with explosives was headed on a suicide mission toward some target. What if the United States had in custody a man who knew which plane it was and what the target was. What if that man wouldn’t give up that information. What should we be allowed to do to get that information out of him?

My answer… nothing but ask the questions.

I can hear people howling now. At least both my normal readers. "WHAT DO YOU MEAN?!?! THEY’RE GOING TO KILL PEOPLE!!! BEAT HIM, PUT HIM ON THE RACK, JUST GET THE ANSWERS!!!"

But let me explain...

Posted by Kevin at 06:20 PM |

February 13, 2008

Pimped out or pooped out ?

To borrow a line from Don McLean:
"It started out quite simply, as complex things can do.
A set of sad transparencies that no one could see through...."
(from "The Pride Parade")

It started out quite simply on Super Tuesday, the day Hillary Clinton was supposed to sew up the nomination. Trouble was, she didn't. Barack Obama fought her to a draw. He actually won more of the states though she got a few more delegates. That's also when we discovered that her campaign was having 'economic difficulties' and she had to lend herself $5 million. But she had lost Iowa too and snapped back in New Hampshire. She could do it again. Only she didn't. Obama took 3 more states and 3 delegates from the Virgin Islands.
Next stop Maine where Clinton would surely rebound.

When in walks David Shuster, opens his mouth, and sticks his foot in it and says: "there's just something a little bit unseemly" (about Chelsea Clinton contacting super delegates on behalf of her mother), adding, "[D]oesn't it seem like Chelsea's sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?"
(I'll bet he wishes he could do that one over.)

Now, other than political sniping, I think I know what Shuster was trying to do. I think he was aiming his comments at the highly desired, Generation Y demographic. And I'm sure he's aware of things like "Pimp My Ride" and "pimpoutyourwebpage" and all the other latest slang of Gen Y, so he used "pimped out" here the way they use it in an attempt to appear "hip", "cool", "with-it", and "in". Except that it didn't fit the context in which it was used.
[Making Shuster appear "unhip", "uncool", "unwith-it", and "out" because he couldn't tell the difference.]

If Chelsea had been making campaign appearances decked out in high fashion, with lots of "bling" (see, I can use "hip", with-it" words too and I'm a Geezer) then it might have fit. But what she's doing is exploiting her place high in the political food-chain to get her foot in the door to lobby for SuperD votes (political gain). And that is the OLD meaning of "pimping out". The nasty one.

And the public reacted to the nasty, mean-spirited meaning with outrage. How dare he say such things about that little girl who's daddy used to be President. That was the knee-jerk and I must confess I fell prey to it also. Only Chelsea isn't 14 years old any more. She's almost 30, a graduate of Stanford and Oxford and politically savvy after growing up in the Arkansas Statehouse and the White House.
So the outrage was misplaced.

Understand that I think Shuster acted like a jerk and it's appropriate that he be suspended and forced to write a 1500 word essay on "decorum", but he shouldn't be drawn and quartered. (Let's save that one for Cheney.)

Hillary also reacted with the knee-jerk, mother's outrage and called
Shuster's boss. Except that, if anyone on the planet understood that
Chelsea is an adult now, not a child, it should be Hillary. So her
over-reaction appeared (to me at least) to be a coldy calculated political move. Apparently it appeared that way to some Maine caucusers (is that a word?) too and Obama won Maine last Saturday.

Still in reactive mode what happened next depends on which paper you read or which network you watched. Hillary's campaign manager either resigned (primary season just too long) or was fired (giving bad advice?) late on Sunday.
(Does anyone really believe she resigned?)
Just in time to make the Monday Morning News Cycle!!!
Did she learn nothing from Nixon's "Friday Night Massacre"? (Bush-Cheney certainly did)

With her campaign giving the appearance of being in disarray the voters in Virginia, Maryland, and Washington D.C. gave their allegiance (and their votes) to Obama (overwhelmingly in D.C. by 3:1).
And the new 2nd in command on her campaign staff has left/got fired too.

The wheels on the Clinton Campaign-wagon may not have come completely off (yet), but they are looking awfully wobbly.
If Obama continues to roll up small state victories (next up Wisconsin) and I predict that he will, Clinton will limp into Texas and Ohio on March 4th in a "must win" situation. A friend of mine thinks she may not make it that far even, but I think she's just too stubborn not to.

Not that it will matter all that much because, assuming an accurate vote tally in Ohio (remember 2004?), Obama will win there also. (55-45 or better) And he might even win outright in Texas. Certainly anything less than a 60-40 win for Hillary will be seen as a plus for Barack.

Her fund raising difficulties continue to plague the campaign. Many of her big money donors are maxed out on what they can legally donate to her campaign. They have lots of money left, but can't give her any. Obama has gotten much of his money from small donors who can probably give another $10, $20, or even $50 in a pinch. And the more he looks like the winner, the deeper they will dig.

With his current lead in pledged delegates, Barack Obama looks more and more like the nominee.

A lot is being made in the MSM about the Super Delegates, but none of them are legally committed to any candidate. They can change their votes right up to the roll-call vote at the Convention. And those SuperDs who are facing re-election, especially those in districts or states that Obama won, will be wanting all those Obama supporter's votes to cover their own asses in November. Nothing motivates like self-preservation.

"And we both know that this masquerade can't carry on too long
You're deep inside the pride parade, but where do you belong?"
(from Don McLean's "The Pride Parade" again)

Disclaimer:
During this primary season, I have been a steadfast John Edwards supporter (I even sent him some money). Obama is my second choice.
In 1996 I was an Electoral College Voter and cast an EC ballot for Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Those are the "official" votes that actually elect the President and Vice-President.

Posted by Mac at 05:32 PM |

The bells of doom toll for Hillary?

This can't be good... if you're Hillary that is.

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Bill Clinton's former campaign manager endorsed Sen. Barack Obama on Wednesday, saying he hopes to use his influence in the Democratic Party to persuade more of the party establishment to back the surging Obama.

David Wilhelm, an Ohio native who led Clinton's campaign in 1992 and later became chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said Obama had the unique ability to encourage cooperation as a "65-percent president" after the divisive years of a "51-percent" majority. He was referring to his belief that Obama could govern the country with the support of a large coalition, as opposed to more polarized support for President Bush.

This major news combined with Obama's ongoing surge would seem to foreshadow the bells of doom for Hillary Clinton's candidacy.

Posted by Kevin at 01:18 PM |

February 12, 2008

Merkley on veterans at Huffington Post

The Bush Plan: Every Veteran Left Behind

My two best friends from high school are veterans and I definitely give a shit about this stuff above and beyond my advocacy of Jeff Merkley for Senate. The Reich-Wing's history of wrapping themselves in pro-military rhetoric when it'll serve their purposes and then essentially spitting on vets once they've used them up is a national disgrace and an affront to the principles this nation was founded upon.

Update: Jeff Merkley and Congresswoman Darlene Hooley call for reintegration help for returning veterans

Posted by Kevin at 07:47 PM |

Looking Good for Jesus

A cosmetics company named Blue Q is making waves with its Looking Good for Jesus brand of cosmetics. Lest you thought only Muslims could be needlessly outraged by a bit of fun at their expense, Catholics are up in arms over the sexual innuendos associated with the Virtuous Vanilla lip gloss and other items that promise to help the ladies "get His attention." As a result, sales have been halted in Singapore, and Fox News is making sure all the American Christians get plenty of information to feel persecuted and offended, too.

Lighten up, people, and have a bit of fun. If you're not into "Looking Good for Jesus," then maybe you would feel more comfortable with "Wash Away Your Sins" breath spray and lip balm. If it's hopeless and you simply must be offended, Blue Q also makes "Total Bitch," an apt description of those who refuse to let non-believers have a good laugh now and then.

Posted by Becky at 02:14 PM |

WA Caucus - Republicans for Obama and they mean it

I stumbled across this moving post earlier this morning. As an ex-Republican I'll probably always have a high degree of empathy for any Republicans who move away from the GOP, however hesitatingly. I've been there!

April sums up her recent experience caucusing with Democrats in the Washington Caucuses as: Trepidation. In it she talks about a friend's husband who did the same thing for apparently similar reasons and who likely feels similarly about it. The trepidation is more about wandering into the unknown than any sense of unease with what they did or why they did it.

I'll leave it at that. Go read her post and then comment there or here as you see fit.

Posted by Kevin at 12:47 PM |

WA Gov - Day 3 Where's Dino Rossi?

PK readers will remember the extensive work that Carla (currently Netroots Coordinator for the Jeff Merkley for Senate campaign) put into fleshing out the facts of Dino Rossi's allegations that Christine Gregoire (Dem and current Goobernator) hadn't won the 2004 election - she did, fair and square.

Flash forward to this past weekend's primary caucuses and once again there is controversy over votes in a Washington state election. This time it's Huckabee complaining because RPW chairman Luke Esser stopped the count when 87% of the returns were in and declared McCain the winner.

Kathryn Jean Lopez, a Washington State precinct committee officer in one of the rural areas of the state, complained bitterly on a National Review blog about Esser stopping the count before her precinct had been counted.

There are a number of things wrong with the WA caucus.

One is that me and a number of people from my community took valuable time out of our Saturday to go and caucus. Then, when I call the state party office I am told that the declaration was made even though they did not get the official results from "some people" in the rural areas who may be sending the results in via snail mail.

Aaarrgghhh... I said... That would be me!

So my question to the party was whether or not we should have even shown up to caucus? I mean I expect that the good folks in Seattle would dearly love to have us show up on the second Tuesday in November. Considering we are likely to have a knock down drag out rematch between Republican Dino Rossi and Democrat Christine Gregiore.

When in 2004 there was the faintest suggestion of votes that hadn't been counted Dino Rossi was all over it like a bug on stink! Now with this latest controversy being a GOP-only affair the silence coming from the Rossi campaign (he's once again challenging Gregoire for Goobernator) is deafening.

At least some Dem bloggers in Washington are noting the irony of inept GOP vote counting in light of the Rossi/Gregoire dust-up in 2004.

Isn't it ironic, that in the political year of Dino Rossi's "comeback," Republicans are having a hard time counting votes. Maybe they didn't realize how hard it was.

So where the hell is Dino Rossi now? How does he justify his shrill allegations of Republican voters being disenfranchised in 2004 while seemingly struck dumb in 2008? Why should Huckabee have to threaten a law suit against the Republican Party of Washington to force votes to be counted if, as Rossi would have us believe, it's Democrats in Washington who don't play fair?

I think Rossi has some 'splainin' to do...

Posted by Kevin at 09:10 AM |

February 11, 2008

Huckabee Dubious About WA GOP Vote Count

The Brad Blog is reporting on the "weird" GOP vote count in Washington State and Mike Huckabee's concerns that something untoward may have occurred to give the state's delegates to Sen. John McCain. Whether it did or not remains to be seen, but in the mean time, the Washington Republicans are providing the rest of us with some entertainment (albeit, entertainment of a somewhat dark and cynical nature).

It was 2:30am on the West Coast last night [Saturday] as we noticed CNN was reporting only 87% of precincts counted from Washington state's Republican Caucus yesterday. Just over 200 votes separated the leader John McCain from Mike Huckabee in a very close second, with Ron Paul coming in a very close third.

Throughout the day, according to Josh Marshall at TPM, Huckabee had been leading in the returns until very late, when McCain pulled just ahead of him by just a few votes.

"With 87% of the returns counted," writes Marshall, "the Washington state GOP, which runs the caucuses stopped releasing results. That left us and a lot of other news organizations in a bit of a quandary last night since it looked like McCain was going to pull it off. But as late as 1:30 AM on the east coast promised new results kept failing to materialize."

And then, in the middle of the night, the state GOP posted a press release declaring McCain the winner, even with some 13% of the votes still unreported, and just 242 votes --- out of 13,745 reported so far --- separating McCain from Huckabee who'd finished a "strong second" according to the GOP release.

"In other words," Huckabee campaign chair Ed Rollins says in their statement this morning [Sunday], "more than one in eight Evergreen State Republicans have been disenfranchised by the actions of their own party."

When 87% of the precincts had been counted, Washington Republicans had gone 23.7% for Huckabee, 25.5% for McCain, and a surprising (to me) 20.6% for Ron Paul. That's pretty close. Having spent many an election night watching the returns come in and the outcome change throughout the night, depending on which precincts were reporting, I'd say you shouldn't be calling a race that close when you still have 13% of the votes left to count. But someone did call the race:

Apparently, the head of WA state's Republican party just decided to stop counting votes from the GOP Caucus last night [Saturday] when he'd had enough and figured he could decide on his own who the winner would be. No need to waste more time and actually count the rest of the votes.

According to the Seattle Times' David Postman, state GOP Chair Luke Esser just made the call on his own, and claims today that he "would have done the exact same thing if Governor Huckabee had the same lead, and the same number of votes were outstanding."

Luke Esser explained himself thus:

“Maybe it would have been safer if I hadn't said anything. But it was an exciting and historic day for the state and I thought if I was confident about what the outcome would be I should share that with the people who had gone out to their caucuses.”

Esser finally told Huckabee's lawyer he would get around to counting the rest of the votes some time this week. But when the lawyer said the campaign would like someone to be present as the votes were counted, the brilliant Mr. Esser hung up on her.

Comically, Esser is pictured cheering enthusiastically in the background during the John McCain rally Friday night (the night before the election) in this Seattle Times article (background, far right). I don't really care who wins the race, but I do find it morbidly amusing when Republicans start acting like their characterization of Democrats.

Posted by Becky at 10:57 AM |

February 09, 2008

Washington Caucuses: Thousands of ballots tossed

Thousands of voters' ballots tossed out

Nearly one in four King County voters who mailed in their ballots did not identify themselves as Democrat or Republican, nullifying their votes in the presidential primary.

The elections office Friday called it a combination of protest and error. Some voters do not want to publicly declare a political party, even though their vote remains secret. Other voters might not know their votes will not be counted unless they choose a party.

These are primary vote ballots that have been tossed, not something associated with the caucuses. Since the Washington Dems apportion delegates based solely on the caucus results, any tossed Dem ballots are relatively meaningless. But Republican's split their apportionment between caucus and vote results.

Posted by Kevin at 04:54 PM |

Parsing the Washington Primary Polls

Looking at the crosstabs of the February 5th poll we find that while Obama easily outperformed every other candidate and McCain was the strongest GOP candidate, Hillary Clinton actually performed best among Democrats in the general election heats. Obama's margin of victory came from both Independents and a handful of Republicans, although he too performed extremely well among Democrats. Hillary Clinton lost handily among Independents in each match-up while Barak Obama won handily among Independents in each general election match-up.

Another poll, this time a primary election poll focused on the GOP candidates, taken Thursday and Friday narrows things a bit. This poll was taken prior to Romney's announcement so he is included. With Romney in the mix McCain narrowly won among Republicans:

24% Huckabee
32% McCain
31% Romney
6% Paul
8% Undecided

It seems the voters of Washington aren't very fond of the caucus system.

The newest poll was released this morning and excludes everyone but Dems and GOPers. It includes unusually extensive caveats and appears to have been gleaned from data collected for the previous poll (Feb. 7 & 8). It also excludes Romney. Which gets interesting because we can see where the Romney backers go and who benefits the most from Romney having backed out.

Among Republicans alone:

25% Huckabee
54% McCain
11% Paul
10% Undecided

45% Clinton
50% Obama
6% Undecided

Posted by Kevin at 11:14 AM |

February 08, 2008

Who Cut the Submarine Cables?

As soon as I heard about the submarine communication cables to the Middle East having been "accidentally" cut, probably by "ships' anchors" - all five of them - I knew we were being fed yet another load of you-know-what. Thankfully, someone named Bonnie has been doing a bit of digging into the matter. And she has uncovered some pretty good leads. Make sure you read the comments by her readers, too; they offer some very insightful additions.

Posted by Becky at 08:42 AM |

Sen. Wyden aid ponders Novick for Congress

The ever interesting and entertaining Jeff Mapes spoke with Josh Kardin, chief of staff to Sen. Wyden, about likely replacements for Congresswoman Darlene Hooley who just announced that she's retiring rather than seeking re-election.

My favorite comes from Josh Kardon, chief of staff to Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore. He talked up the idea of U.S. Senate candidate Steve Novick moving over to the 5th CD race.

"This is probably the only race where their bench comes close to ours," said Kardon. "The only potential candidate we could run with high name recognition across the district is Steve Novick and I have no idea if he has any interest."

Posted by Kevin at 08:08 AM |

February 07, 2008

Watch out for that Separation of Church/NFL

I'm torn between righteous indignation and fits of laughter at a bit of news I first learned about at the Media Monarchy blog: bill would end separation of church & super bowl

It seems that Senator Arlen Specter introduced a bill (S. 2591) this week that would allow Churches... er... houses of worship to show football games on big-screen televisions.

Now seriously, folks... Is that REALLY the best use of Specter's time and position? Are there no other... oh, I dunno... more pressing needs? Darfur perhaps?

Is it any wonder that the public's opinion of Congress as a whole is so incredibly low?

Posted by Kevin at 05:49 PM |

February 06, 2008

Well Articulated Description of the Problem with Hillary

My mother just pointed me to a reader comment posted on a news article about Barack Obama's having taken the lead in the delegate count. The comment is about Hillary Clinton and concisely explains the source of the revulsion many feel toward her. Sometimes it is difficult to remember the precise reasons why we feel the way we do about her, making it also difficult to intelligently debate someone who supports her. And considering how many times commenters here have challenged others to explain why they feel as they do about Clinton, it seems appropriate to quote here what was posted today by "naragonl" (comment #20):

interesting: Hillary Clinton has been telling America that she is the most qualified candidate for president based on her 'record,' which she says includes her eight years in the White House as First Lady - or 'co-president' - and her seven years in the Senate. Here is a reminder of what that record includes: - As First Lady, Hillary assumed authority over Health Care Reform, a process that cost the taxpayers over $13 million. She told both Bill Bradley and Patrick Moynihan, key votes needed to pass her legislation, that she would 'demonize' anyone who opposed it. But it was opposed; she couldn't even get it to a vote in a Congress controlled by her own party. (And in the next election, her party lost control of both the House and Senate.) - Hillary assumed authority over selecting a female Attorney General. Her first two recommendations, Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood, were forced to withdraw their names from consideration. She then chose Janet Reno. Janet Reno has since been described by Bill himself as 'my worst mistake.' - Hillary recommended Lani Guanier for head of the Civil Rights Commission. When Guanier's radical views became known, her name had to be withdrawn. - Hillary recommended her former law partners, Web Hubbell, Vince Foster, and William Kennedy for positions in the Justice Department, White House staff, and the Treasury, respectively. Hubbell was later imprisoned, Foster committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign. - Hillary also recommended a close friend of the Clintons, Craig Livingstone, for the position of director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of up to 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (“Filegate”) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, both Hillary and her husband denied knowing him. FBI agent Dennis Sculimbrene confirmed in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in 1996, both the drug use and Hillary's involvement in hiring Livingstone. After that, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office, after serving seven presidents for over thirty years. - In order to open “slots” in the White House for her friends the Thomasons (to whom millions of dollars in travel contracts could be awarded), Hillary had the entire staff of the White House Travel Office fired; they were reported to the FBI for 'gross mismanagement' and their reputations ruined. After a thirty-month investigation, only one, Billy Dale, was charged with a crime - mixing personal money with White House funds when he cashed checks. The jury acquitted him in less than two hours. - Another of Hil lary's assumed duties was directing the 'bimbo eruption squad' and scandal defense: ---- She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. ---- She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor. After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs. ---- Then they had to settle with Paula Jones after all. ---- And Bill lost his law license for lying to the grand jury ---- And Bill was impeached by the House. ---- And Hillary almost got herself indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice (she avoided it mostly because she repeated, 'I do not recall,' 'I have no recollection,' and 'I don't know' 56 times under oath). - Hillary wrote 'It Takes a Village,' demonstrating her Socialist viewpoint. - Hill ary decided to seek election to the Senate in a state she had never lived in. Her husband pardoned FALN terrorists in order to get Latino support and the New Square Hassidim to get Jewish support. Hillary also had Bill pardon her brother's clients, for a small fee, to get financial support. - Then Hillary left the White House, but later had to return $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork she had stolen. - In the campaign for the Senate, Hillary played the 'woman card' by portraying her opponent (Lazio) as a bully picking on her. - Hillary's husband further protected her by asking the National Archives to withhold from the public until 2012 many records of their time in the White House, including much of Hillary's correspondence and her calendars. (There are ongoing lawsuits to force the release of those records.) - As the junior Senator from New York, Hillary has passed no major legislation. She has deferred to the senior Senator (Schumer) to tend to the needs of New Yorkers, even on the hot issue of medical problems of workers involved in the cleanup of Ground Zero after 9/11. - Hillary's one notable vote; supporting the plan to invade Iraq, she has since disavowed. Quite a resume’. Sounds more like an organized crime family’s rap sheet.

Granted, a bit of right-wing bias has inserted itself here. But clearly Hillary Clinton has left a trail of bad decisions and has demonstrated a dismal lack of political savvy at many turns. She could be the most brilliant person in the world, but really, do we want to give this woman a chance to appoint federal officials after this record of underachievement? Doesn't all this make Barack Obama look even more like a real breath of fresh air?

Posted by Becky at 01:59 PM |

Obama rocks Washington state in new poll

A fascinating new poll taken just prior to the results of Super Tuesday being known shows Barak Obama as vastly more viable in General Election match-ups than Hillary Clinton.

Clinton and McCain tie at 46% each. Hillary tops Romney 51% to 41%. But check out Obama!

Obama annihilates McCain 55% to 38% and he beats Romney by a whopping 61% to 32%.

Posted by Kevin at 12:09 PM |

Paper or Plastic?

Next time you are asked that question, remember the disgusting plastic soup that is twice the size of the U.S. And remember it used to be an ocean.

Posted by Becky at 11:17 AM |

February 05, 2008

Why Isn't Sibel Edmonds Being Heard?

Philip Giraldi at Huffington Post tells of what I view as one of the most chilling stories of my lifetime, and one of which it seems few are even aware. Please go read "Sibel Edmonds Must be Heard." Here is an excerpt to whet your appetite:

Sibel Edmonds is the FBI translator turned whistleblower who decided to go public late in 2002 and has been seeking to tell her story about high level corruption in the United States government involving Turkey and Israel. What makes her story particularly compelling is that the corruption relates to the theft and sale of United States defense secrets, most particularly nuclear technology. Sibel obtained her information while translating Turkish language telephone intercepts directed against several Turkish lobbying groups who had contact with senior officials in the Bush Administration, both at the Pentagon and in the State Department. Many of the officials involved are apparently the same neoconservatives who cooked the books to enable the rush to war against Iraq and who are continuing to urge more wars in the Middle East, most notably against Iran and Syria. Several of them are close allies of leading Republican presidential candidate John McCain.

Keep in mind, this is the same John McCain who mysteriously is such a great pal of Hillary Clinton's (who, for some reason, the prominent right-wing wack-jobs of the day prefer over McCain).

For a more detailed report on Sibel Edmonds' claims - available only in the foreign press - see this report from the Sunday Times of London. Here is some of it:

Edmonds described how foreign intelligence agents had enlisted the support of US officials to acquire a network of moles in sensitive military and nuclear institutions.

Among the hours of covert tape recordings, she says she heard evidence that one well-known senior official in the US State Department was being paid by Turkish agents in Washington who were selling the information on to black market buyers, including Pakistan.

The name of the official – who has held a series of top government posts – is known to The Sunday Times. He strongly denies the claims.

However, Edmonds said: “He was aiding foreign operatives against US interests by passing them highly classified information, not only from the State Department but also from the Pentagon, in exchange for money, position and political objectives.”

She claims that the FBI was also gathering evidence against senior Pentagon officials – including household names – who were aiding foreign agents.

“If you made public all the information that the FBI have on this case, you will see very high-level people going through criminal trials,” she said.

And you thought only unscrupulous people from the former Soviet Union cared so little about the future of life on this planet that they would sell nukes to terrorists.

Posted by Becky at 03:06 PM |

McCain Leaves Prominent Republicans Noseless

Prominent Republicans Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are in the process of cutting off their noses to spite their faces. They so dislike John McCain that they are helping their worst nightmare, Hillary Clinton, move closer to the Oval Office. It's simply a jaw-dropping display - and one that will ultimately doom the GOP's chances at winning in November.

Posted by Becky at 12:47 PM |

GOP's Vance Day needs a new pair of shorts!

Seen late last night on PolitickerOR:

Day Continues to Swing at Merkley's Ad

By Lauren Lafaro

Vance Day, the Chairman of the Oregon Republican Party, continued to criticize Jeff Merkley today, following up on the letter he sent the candidate on Friday in reference to Merkley's new web ad.

The ad depicts Merkley continuing to work while suspended upside-down after a car crash.

At a press conference in Salem, Day lamented, "Why would he take political advantage of a sensitive issue? For thousands of Oregonians this isn’t a laughing matter."

"If he's willing to make a joke about something like careless driving, my opinion is he's not ready to serve, he's not ready for prime time," Day continued.

When asked to address Merkley’s policy stances, Day deferred, stating that while there is plenty of time to talk policy in the future, at state at the moment is the candidate’s character, how he acts in smaller matters.

Hey, Vance. It would have been faster and easier to just admit that the prospect of Gordon Smith facing Jeff Merkley in the General scares the crap outta you. Trying to hide it by criticizing Jeff's sense of humor just makes you look like a joyless pinhead with soiled shorts.

Posted by Kevin at 08:00 AM |

February 04, 2008

What they said about Jeff Merkley

The Rev. Chuck Currie has a post on his blog pleading with both the Merkley and Novick campaigns to put out formal plans for "reducing – even ending poverty."

I wrote up a long comment and submitted it for Rev. Currie's approval - he screens comments before allowing them to be posted to his blog. So, while waiting (and surfing the internets, checking email, etc.) it occured to me that the comment might make a good post all it's own so I've pasted it just below the fold. The gist is three ringing endorsements of Jeff Merkley's ethical and moral fortitude in general and his stubborn dedication to fighting for the little guy in particular. Each were posted as a comment to the Blue Oregon blog early last year by folk who know a thing or two about fighting for the little guy.

My comment to Rev. Currie:

If I may I would like to suggest that there is a difference between talking the talk and walking the walk. Getting formal policy planks up would be a good thing, don't get me wrong. But ultimately, the most those can realistically be is examples of talking the talk.

I'm not a member of the Merkley campaign. I'm not even a registered Democrat... yet. But I do read Blue Oregon regularly and took note last year of three comments that really stuck out to me because they were totally unsolicited and all three uniformly described a man who walks the walk.

Maureen Sloan, past president of Portland's Society of St. Vincent de Paul, explicitly thanked Merkley for his help "with low income individuals and families in crisis."

You probably know Dr. Rex Hagans of the Coaltion for Economic Fairness and also with a member of Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon Public Policy Advocacy Committee. Dr. Hagans had this to say about Jeff: "Speaker Merkley is the most stand-up political leader I have ever seen. A lot of folks want to tell you how they are for the "little guy," but Jeff is the real deal!"

Lastly, Commissioner Eric Sten staffer Rich Rodgers had this to say about his experience with Jeff back in the 1990s: "He was always unfailingly polite, unrelenting, and completely fair in his advocacy for the people..." & "He's brilliant, hardworking, and as principled as a day in June is long."

I too would love to see both campaigns spell out in more explicit terms things they believe would be most helpful for those living in poverty and desperation. But I strongly believe that in so doing we ought to take care not to needlessly cast aspersions on loyal allies for not talking the talk as loud as we may wish.

Jeff Merkley has walked the walk and there is every reason to believe that he will continue to walk the walk.

Posted by Kevin at 06:26 PM |

Novick: "I'm scared of real estate"

As Oregonians we have a vested interest in the mortgage industry.

According to 2000 census data, nearly 75% of homes in Oregon had mortgages on them - more than 485,000 homes at that time. It seems self-evident that Oregonians might want political representation by folks that can relate to and share our concerns about mortgage problems.

An opinion piece by Gene McIntyre published a week ago on the Statesman-Journal's website (A civic duty — regulating mortgages in Oregon) talks about state senator Ben Westlund's proposed bill for regulating mortgages in Oregon. This demonstrates to me the value and interest in having political representation by people who "get it," whether we agree with the specifics of their plans or not.

So it was with some shock that I discovered that U.S. Senate candidate Steve Novick has apparently never purchased a home, never had a mortgage and says that he's "scared of real estate."

The link above takes you to an audio clip of Steve on the Lars Larsen radio program dated 1.18.08. It's a 21:31 long file. The discussion on subprime mortages begins at the 8:11 mark where Novick advocates for making adjustable rate mortages into fixed rate. He speaks with a lot of conviction about what he thinks should be done. That is, until Larsen asks him to justify his reasoning. That's when things get shaky and Novick sounds very unsure.

Novick's plan sounds fine on the surface. But he can't justify the fact that people who took out fixed rate mortgages even though the adjustables were cheaper are still being sort-of penalized. After all, the adjustables are being bailed out and get to serve out the rest of their mortgage at the lower rate that is now fixed under Novick's plan.

I think a more fair alternative would be to cap the potential increase of an adjustable rate.

In other words, if I take out a fixed rate mortgage at 6% and my neighbor takes out an adjustable at 5.5%, it seems blatantly unfair that he now gets to keep his 5.5% as a fixed rate--even though I was smarter and wiser. So why not just cap the adjustable at, for example, 2%. That way, the fixed-raters still get the benefit of choosing stability.

Anyway, back to Novick on the radio.

12:31, Commericals. Then at the 17:29 mark, the show starts up again. After some banter about Steve's new ad and physical characteristics, the mortgage talk starts again. At 19:57, Larsen takes Novick to the woodshed:

Lars: Have you taken out a mortgage recently?
Steve: I have not.
Lars: When they- You- (sounding shocked) Do you- Do you own a home?
Steve: I do not because I'm scared of real estate.
Lars: OK...
Steve: And justly so, apparently.
Lars: Interesting qualifier.

The rest of the interview goes on as Lars walks Steve through the mortgage process (and sounds very condescending). Steve stumbles through his response (20:48): "Most people don't go around buying homes and taking out mortgages all the time. The mortgagers do."

Last I checked, most adults "do go around buying homes" a few times in their lives. If they didn't there'd be no concerns over mortgages. Not having the experience of taking out a mortgage puts Novick incredibly out-of-touch with a lot of working families in Oregon. Probably the vast majority.

I'm a well-known and vocal Merkley supporter. From what I know Jeff owns a modest home in Portland as well as a few rentals. It's obvious he's had to go through the mortgage buying process a few times. He has a family to support and can draw from those experiences to relate to people who've had to go through these processes.

Posted by Kevin at 06:34 AM |

February 03, 2008

A Brilliant Idea - Send Students to Auschwitz

The British government is planning on sending two students from every school in Great Britain to Auschwitz for a day to help insure that the lessons of the Halocaust live on through the next generation.

It's brilliant. Abso-friggin'-lutely brilliant! And it's something that I think our own government should do too.

Granted, Great Britian is much closer to Poland and are only going to be sending the students on a day trip - leaving in the morning and returning in the evening. And it would surely cost our government a lot more to accomplish the same goal. But I say it's easily worth it. And besides, BushCo has squandered hundreds of billions of dollars trying to force his will upon Iraq, only one country. Countless billions more have been spent trying to get the rest of the world to do his bidding too. Surely the costs of flying two students from each school in America to Auschwitz would cost but a pittance compared to those lofty sums.

It's about time someone in this gawd damn government got their priorities straight!

Posted by Kevin at 07:58 PM |

Exorcism killed his wife

This is just so sad...

Man Says Exorcism Led to Wife's Death

ODESSA, Texas (AP) — A man accused of killing his wife says he was trying to exorcise a demon from her when the devil entered his body and caused her to die, according to a police probable cause statement.

Jan David Clark, 60, was arrested Friday after authorities went to his home and found Susan Kay Clark's body wrapped in a bed sheet with a cross and sword on top of it.

Such a senseless death...

Posted by Kevin at 12:45 PM |

February 01, 2008

Deadheads for Obama!!

The Warfield Theatre in San Francisco Monday, February 4th, 2008 Doors 6:00 PM/ Show 7:30PM

Update: The video website Iclips will be producing a live simulcast streamed via the Internet on www.iclips.net at approximately 7:30pm PST.

Posted by Kevin at 10:23 PM |

Hillarious Web Ad

As many of you probably already know, U.S. Senate candidate Jeff Merkley and an aide were in a serious wreck last week while driving to Central Oregon. They hit some black ice, careened across U.S. 20 and flipped their car into the oncoming traffic lane.

Fortunately, while the Prius gave it's life for the cause, neither of them were seriously hurt and they soldiered on to make two of the three scheduled campaign stops for the day which they'd been headed to when the accident occured.

Being the fun-loving folk that they are, the campaign has produced a web-only campaign ad that spoofs the accident, all in good fun!

Posted by Kevin at 06:54 PM |

Stubborn Sizemore Threatens to Sue Some More

Somehow I intuitively knew that something today would require my writing about Bill Sizemore again. I was right. The news today is that the Secretary of State and Bill Sizemore are engaged in another argument, over which Sizemore threatens to sue (as if his five existing lawsuits weren’t enough). I actually agree with Sizemore on some of his complaints, but this newest complaint leaves me scratching my head. Let me explain.

Sizemore (as well as another of my favorite people, Russ Walker) is about to be ordered by Secretary of State Bill Bradbury to cease all signature gathering until he complies with the state’s new record-keeping laws. Those laws require the creation of a proper paper trail for wages paid to petitioners. Sizemore then has to provide his records upon request to the Secretary of State for purposes of verifying that he is paying by the hour and not by the signature. But rather than turn the records over, Sizemore is once again playing the martyr card, saying he will sue the “unbelievably arrogant” Bradbury, who, he claims, “works for the public employees’ unions.”

“They want all my initiatives shut down, and that's all they are doing.”

I don’t get this outburst. Surely Sizemore saw this coming from a mile away. After all, way back on August 2, 2007, Bradbury sent out a notice to Sizemore and all the other chief petitioners telling them that, beginning immediately, they were “required to maintain ‘accounts’” consisting of “any paperwork documenting contracts between chief petitioners and signature gathering companies, payroll records, employment manuals, copies of signature sheets etc.”

These accounts shall be made available for review by the Secretary of State. If a chief petitioner is unable to produce the required accounts, they are prohibited from obtaining additional signatures on their petition until they are able to produce the documents.

The Oregonian describes the reporting requirement this way:

Under the law, six months after an initiative is certified for signature gathering, the sponsor is told to submit payroll and other records to the Elections Division, the Attorney General's office or the Bureau of Labor and Industries. The sponsor then has 10 days to comply or stop gathering signatures.

Can we agree that Sizemore has no excuse for being surprised and outraged? That being the case, we must then assume he is feigning surprise and outrage. But why?

As I understand it, Sizemore has been working with Democracy Direct to gather signatures. Democracy Direct is owned by Tim Trickey. I’ve conversed with Trickey and with individuals I trust who know him, and by all accounts he complies faithfully with the law and is keeping Sizemore in line. At least, that’s what they tell me. That being the case, what is the problem with supplying the records to the Secretary of State, as Sizemore knew he would have to do and as the law requires?

I just love his excuse:

Sizemore … complained Thursday that the Elections Division is demanding that he match employees' signature sheets with their payroll records. He said that was impossible because he did not pay by the signature.

That just doesn’t make sense to me. You have a pay period. You collect dated signatures sheets and time cards at the end of that pay period. You copy those petition sheets as required by law. You issue a paycheck. You bundle that information and file it. How hard can this be? Particularly when you are working with a reputable company like Democracy Direct, whose website states:

Company Policy: Democracy Direct Inc. is committed to the integrity of the initiative process, and as such:

…Depending on the state in question, all circulators are paid only by the method allowed by law, with all payroll being reported accurately and taxes withheld.

All subcontractors of DDI are required to comply with all labor laws and engage in the legal practice of paying petitioners according to the proscribed method based on the jurisdiction of the petition(s) in question.

…Any employee who seeks employment with DDI must complete an employment contract and all legal paperwork before they may receive compensation for work.

Sizemore is simply being asked to verify for the enforcing agency of the government that he did what he claims he did - that he kept standard employment records. He worked with a reputable company that claims it complies with the law in terms of record-keeping. If Sizemore has the records, which surely he must (right?), then why not hand them over? Where is the trap here? In what way is this a public employee union scheme to keep his measures off the ballot? Surely I must be missing something.

I was so confused by the situation that I contacted the Secretary of State’s office myself this morning to find out what was going on. Summer Davis kindly explained the matter to me. She said that the Oregon Legislature created requirements for maintaining accounts and turning in signatures and Sizemore was informed about these changes. New petition sorting requirements did not kick in until January 1. Sizemore had already turned in signatures for initiatives 3, 19, 20, 21, and 25 prior to January 1, so those petitions were to be sorted according to the old rules - by the county in which they were collected, rather than by the petitioner.

Acceptable accounting practices, however, had to begin August 1, 2007. That means the accounting rules apply to Sizemore's five already-submitted initiatives. Again, he has known this for months. All the Secretary of State is asking is that Sizemore submit records that show some obvious correlation between the sheets turned in and the paychecks issued.

It certainly is not the job of Bradbury’s office to go through boxes and boxes of petition sheets and match them up with payroll records on the taxpayer dime, if you ask me; and were Sizemore a sane and honest taxpayer advocate, he would agree. Yet, if I understand the situation correctly, that is exactly what he is expecting them to do. Apparently, he wants to submit his payroll records and have them try to match those records up to the corresponding petitions.

Maybe it's a misunderstanding and Sizemore and Trickey just didn't quite understand that when the rules required keeping payroll records AND copies of petition sheets it was intended that the two be correlated. But then again, Mr. Trickey was able to submit at least partial accounting records for the Kevin Mannix measures he circulated. I can only assume that Trickey was less successful at keeping Sizemore in line than his advocates believed. Or maybe Sizemore