 |
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/syndicated.gif) daily_kos | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://rss.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/hso0tk_dTd8/-White-House:-No-Decision-Yet-on-Afghanistan In the past two days, several news reports have indicated that President Obama plans to add tens of thousands of new U.S. troops to the 67,000-member contingent that is already in the country. McClatchy first reported the supposed decision on Saturday and other media outlets, including CBS News, the Associated Press and others. But a chief White House advisor said absolutely no decision has yet been made. "Reports that President Obama has made a decision about Afghanistan are absolutely false," James Jones, US national security adviser, said in a statement. "He has not received final options for his consideration, he has not reviewed those options with his national security team, and he has not made any decisions about resources," said Jones, a retired general. "Any reports to the contrary are completely untrue and come from uninformed sources." Reporters for McClatchy Newspapers with a solid record for accurate reporting on the Iraq war wrote the decision had been all but made to send three army brigades and a marine brigade for a total of 23,000 combat troops, 7000 troops to run the operations at the new Regional Command South in Kandahar, the heart of the original Taliban's stronghold, and 4000 additional trainers for the Afghanistan National Army. If that turned out to be true, it would put the combined U.S. and NATO forces at 143,000. Republicans have pressed for a decision, and many at the Pentagon and in conservative political circles argue that Obama, who has little experience in military affairs, should back his commander and send him whatever troops he's requested. The president, they note, called McChrystal the best general the military had to tackle Afghanistan when he appointed him to his post last summer. Other military officers, particularly in the Army, warn that committing more troops to Afghanistan could risk "breaking" the force by reducing the time soldiers can spend at home between deployments, overtaxing equipment and destroying families. Those problems could worsen if Iraq's January elections are delayed or disrupted, and with them the administration's timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces from that country. Many Democrats, meanwhile, are urging Obama not to send more troops to Afghanistan. Some in his own administration, notably Vice President Joe Biden, aren't convinced that more troops would guarantee success and advocate instead more drone attacks and more training for Afghan forces. Obama told ABC News in an interview today: "I have gained confidence that there’s not an important question out there that has not been asked, and that we haven’t asked -- that we haven’t answered to the best of our abilities." No announcement of his decision - which will include details about far more than how many more troops will be added, according to several sources - is likely to be made until the President returns from his eight-day trip to Asia, which begins Thursday. Meanwhile, on Sunday, The Independent reported that General Stanley McChrystal wants to keep UK troops in Afghanistan out of harm's way so that casualties there do not inflame the British public in the run-up to the election there. Senior defence strategists fear that the death toll of British soldiers, currently 230, could be as high as 400 by the time of the election in six months, as Taliban fighters try to exploit UK public concerns about the war. The McChrystal plan would be welcomed by those arguing for a phased withdrawal in the face of rising British casualties. But it could be seen as a humiliating downgrading of Britain's status. A senior military source said: "Given the risks of a UK strategic withdrawal prompted by the high casualty rate over the summer, McChrystal feels the need to keep Britain 'in the fight' by withdrawing British forces from harm's way, by firstly pulling them back into a smaller area of operations commensurate with their resources; and secondly by transferring them to a 'capacity-building' rather than a 'frontline mission'." Such a move, of course, if it is part of McChrystal's plan, would mean more American troops in harm's way. So far, 916 American military personnel have been killed in Afghanistan since 2001, 286 of them since January. Whether or not a decision about a precise number of troops has been chosen, it seems increasingly clear that a general decision - the generals' decision has, in fact, been made. And that decision is to initiate a second surge in Afghanistan to match the one begun last spring. If the increase is what McClatchy and others have suggested, at some point, sometime around late January, the number of U.S. troops remaining in Iraq will match the number by then in Afghanistan. All of them to continue an occupation in favor of a tainted government that is corrupted by drug money at the highest levels and in league with war criminals such as the warlord Adbul Rashid Dostum. The counterinsurgency fight that General David Petraeus and General McChrystal have signed off on requires many times as many troops as Obama will announce he is sending no matter how many that is. The back-up plan of holding the cities and the major roads with occasional strikes against the Taliban in the countryside is an upgraded Soviet model, another loser. As for Iraq in 2003 (and years afterward), there is no timetable, no exit plan, just the endless grind of civilian casualties and a stream of flag-draped coffins flying into Dover Air Force Base. To what end? With what hope of success? • • • • • jlms qkw has posted the Overnight News Digest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
daily_kos | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://rss.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/atMIgfYOFmw/-Polling-and-Political-Wrap-Up,-11-9-09 As expected, the new week brings a smattering of polling data (mostly of the primary election variety), as people start finally boxing up all of their 2009 Election decorations and moving onward to the next trip to the ballot box. CA-Gov/CA-Sen: New LA Times/USC Poll Shows Intriguing '10 Landscape
There is no shortage of things to ponder in the new numbers coming out this week from the new poll sponsored by the Los Angeles Times and USC. In the survey, which was actually conducted by the D/R combo plate of GQR (the pollsters behind Democracy Corps) and Public Opinion Strategies, the presumptive GOP frontrunner to face Barbara Boxer, former tech exec Carly Fiorina, finds herself in fairly deep trouble. Not only does she have a reasonably strong incumbent (Boxer stands at +13 net favorable--49/36--which the Times notes is about where she was for each of her three Senate wins to date), but Fiorina herself has weak numbers. Her favorability spread is net negative (9/12), and she finds herself in a tie in the GOP primary against little-known state legislator Chuck DeVore, a favorite of the right-wing. On the gubernatorial side, likely Democratic nominee Jerry Brown, the former governor and current state Attorney General, has a fairly strong +17 spread in his favorabilities (44/27), which is considerably better than his less popular (though also less well-known) potential GOP rivals. In a trial heat of the GOP gubernatorial primary, former E-Bay executive Meg Whitman leads the field with 35%, but former Congressman Tom Campbell looms not far behind at 27%. As with other polls, state Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner lags well behind, at 10% in this particular poll. RI-Gov: Chafee Poll Hints 2010 Could Be Independent's Day
With the traditional and necessary caveat that this IS an internal poll, and thus should be taken with several grains of salt, we get the first real set of numbers out of what promises to be a very interesting gubernatorial race in the state of Rhode Island. Former Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee, who was often at odds with his party and only barely survived a Club for Growth fueled primary challenge for his Senate seat in 2006, has a poll from Alpha Associates taken late in October. Against either of the likely Democratic candidates (state Attorney General Patrick Lynch or state Treasurer Frank Caprio) and newly minted GOP candidate Rory Smith, Chafee holds a lead. Against the more conservative Democratic candidate (Caprio), Chafee's lead is well within the margin of error (36-34-8). Against Lynch, Chafee takes a bigger lead as social conservatives edge over to the little-known GOP candidate (37-24-15). NV-Gov: Is Gibbons Dead Meat in GOP Primary? New Poll Says "Yes"
A new poll sponsored by conservative Nevada political strategist Chuck Muth, and conducted by a mystery pollster of sorts called PMI, Inc., shows that incumbent Republican Governor Jim Gibbons would be the underdog in a potential GOP primary with former state Attorney General (and federal judge) Brian Sandoval. The poll, which for some reason felt the need to poll nearly 5000 Nevada Republicans (hello, overkill!), gave Sandoval a 36-24 lead over Gibbons, with North Las Vegas Mayor Mike Mantandon well back at 7%. The assumption, of course, is that Gibbons would make a much easier general election target than Sandoval, given that (a) Gibbons has been an incumbent governor in trying times for state executives (look at the poll numbers for incumbent Governors. Unless your name is Mike Beebe or Brian Schweitzer, they're pretty dismal) and (b) Gibbons' tenure in office had already been something of a train wreck. 2009 Post-Mortem: So Did Turnout Matter...Or Not?
Two fairly prominent polling entities are out today with intriguing reads on what led to the Republican victories in New Jersey and Virginia's gubernatorial races last week. The pollsters at Greenberg Quinlan Rosner (GQR) used post-election survey data to reveal that a core group of Democratic-friendly voters (which they refer to as the RAE--Rising American Electorate) chose not to participate in 2009, to the detriment of Democratic candidates. On the other hand, Pollster's Charles Franklin chimes in, as well. His thesis--changes in vote preference played a much greater role in the outcomes on November 3rd than a mere selective reduction in turnout. IN OTHER NEWS.... - Quite a bit of breaking news from late in this afternoon. The biggest news comes out of the land of the Nutmeggers, where incumbent Republican Governor Jodi Rell is retiring, rather than seeking re-election. There are several Democrats already in the field (with 2006 Senate nominee Ned Lamont being the most recent entrant). As for Republicans, the best bet is that Rell's Lt. Governor, Michael Fedele, will carry the banner for the GOP.
- In other late breaking Monday news, it looks like Colorado Governor Bill Ritter will not benefit from watching the GOP candidates bash each other into oblivion--state legislator Josh Penry is backing out of a gubernatorial bid, in all likelihood leaving the nomination to former Congressman Scott McInnis.
- Today was the day for Illinois Democratic Congressman Danny Davis, who filed for both re-election to Congress and for the Presidency of the Cook County Board of Commissioners, to pick one. Davis did: he is seeking re-election to Congress.
- Absolutely no one will be surprised to hear or see this, but the Club For Growth, having clubbed DeDe Scozzafava (and costing the GOP a House seat in the bargain), has picked their next victim: Florida Governor Charlie Crist. They officially endorsed insurgent candidate Marco Rubio.
- Speaking of potential targets for the Club for Growth, here is one: once anyone can figure out what New Hampshire Republican frontrunner Kelly Ayotte stands for, that is. A conservative alternative candidate, 1996 gubernatorial nominee Ovide Lamontagne, announced today that he is in.
- Conservative Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff's decision to back off of a primary challenge to US Senator Bob Bennett only bought the incumbent a temporary reprieve. Two other Republicans are now sounding out possible bids. Both lack Shurtleff's name recognition, but both have some official GOP pedigree: one was a 2004 gubernatorial nominee, the other a lawyer in former Governor Jon Huntsman's counsel's office.
- Speaking of the Nevada Governor's race, here is a bit of potentially dispiriting news. It looks like Rory Reid, whose polling numbers have been a disappointment, is the only game in town for Democrats. Oscar Goodman, while still not committed to a gubernatorial bid, has apparently decided that if he goes, it will be as an Independent, rather than a Democrat.
- A quick hit in the Burlington Free Press blog, VT Buzz, makes a potentially game-saving point for the Democrats in the open-seat contest to replace Republican Governor Jim Douglas--if Anthony Pollina, who has scored major percentages in the past as the Progressive Party candidate in the past, elects to run for Governor, it appears it will be as a Democrat.
- Wow...here is a shocker, a potentially serious candidate who is not running for Governor of Minnesota next year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
daily_kos | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://rss.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/glp4TOxrBv0/-Abortion,-Lieberman,-and-Reid So Joe's at it again, being with us on everything that matters, except the war and comprehensive healthcare reform. BTW, he's still lying about it. Ezra's much nicer about it, saying that maybe Lieberman has some special knowledge about how the public really will increase the deficit, while every economic analysis complete says the exact opposite. Ezra gives him the benefit of the doubt, probably because he's trying to get an interview from him, and can't that Joe knows he's lying about this and doesn't care because he's an unprincipled sack of shit. Which leads us to Harry Reid, as the ball is now firmly in his court, if the CBO ever finishes. Just after the House vote at 11 p.m. on Nov. 7, Obama released a statement urging the Senate to act. He repeated that message Sunday, telling reporters: "Now it falls on the United States Senate to take the baton and bring this effort to the finish line on behalf of the American people. And I’m absolutely confident that they will." However, the Senate has been in a holding pattern on its overhaul, with Reid and other Democrats saying Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates have been the biggest holdup. Reid has not released the Democrats’ bill, which will combine measures produced by the Finance Committee and the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.... Even with the absence of CBO scores, Senate Democrats are still working to get the 60 votes they will need to move past a cloture vote on their bill. To that end, Reid and Durbin are likely to spend this week meeting with their colleagues. Forget 60, Harry. Any compromise you have to make with Lieberman (and now Nelson and Casey on abortion) ain't gonna be worth it. Get serious about this and start, at the very least, making reconciliation a real threat. Go back to the Schumer split bill plan from this summer before Kennedy's seat was filled: Are you planning on having an interim appointment from Massachusetts? No, I don’t know. That would be up to the Massachusetts state legislature but I know they’re considering it. Ah, so, so the bottom line is that even with 60 or even if Olympia Snowe comes to some kind of agreement, it’s going to be hard, and I’ve always favored using reconciliation for good parts of the bill. I think that will get you the best bill, the strongest bill and the bill that will have the greatest positive effect on the American people. Ultimately, we’ll be judged not by whether we pass the bill, but ultimately we’ll be judged by whether it works. Leaving the bill as something that doesn’t work, even if we pass it, leading to hurting both the country and the party. Is it possible that using reconciliation will produce an ineffective bill, because of procedural problems like the Byrd rule? We’ve looked at it and you can’t use reconciliation for everything, [but] you can use it for a good number of things. There’s nothing wrong with using it for the places where you can use it and then trying to get the 60 votes on the places where when you can’t. You’d be surprised — the number of places where you can use it is larger than we first thought. Use it. Use reconciliation for the good parts of hte bill and pass the other critical insurance reforms, which are not controversial (despite the fact that Boehner forgot to include them in his bill) through the regular 60 vote process. We have a better chance of getting a strong public option and killing the Stupak Coathanger amendment this way. But Reid's got to have the spine to do it. And once he does that, the spine to get the caucus to do what it needed to do months ago--cut Lieberman loose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
daily_kos | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://rss.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/NVOvbYcPg_s/-Obama:-Hyde-Is-the-Limit The key passage in the Obama-Tapper interview, in which Obama said that Congress needs to change the Stupak Coathanger amendment, is this: "I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill," Obama said. "And we're not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions." Saying the bill cannot change the status quo regarding the ban on federally funding abortions, the President said "there are strong feelings on both sides" about an amendment passed on Saturday and added to the legislation, "and what that tells me is that there needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we're not changing the status quo."
... "I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test -- that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, but, on the other hand, that we're not restricting women's insurance choices," he said. I hope he follows up those remarks with phone calls to Ben Nelson and Bob Casey, because they're working on their own version of Stupak as we speak. Stupak goes well beyond Hyde, as President Obama iterates in this interview--this bill is not intended to change Hyde. The House bill already had Hyde language established, this amendment was superfluous and little more than attempt to make political hay off of a critical issue, to either try to kill healthcare reform altogether, or to set up a vote where a handful can still brag about how conservative they are back home, but not to have to vote against a highly popular bill. Both Senate reform bills contain Hyde language as well, with the SFC creating a firewall between the financing and the HELP committee leaving it up to the HHS Secretary to determine the policy within the confines of Hyde. It remains to be seen if Obama's warning will be enough to keep the Senate from following the House's lead, but if they're paying attention to their President, and if they're paying attention to their base, they'll leave well enough alone on this one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
daily_kos | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://rss.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/y-fwwCrJzOs/-Whats-Really-Pissing-Me-Off (Promoted from the diaries - SusanG) "Irrational." "Hypersensitive." "Overreacting." "Hysterical." Women recognize these words all too well. They're put-downs many of them have had thrown at them all their lives anytime they raise issues about their treatment in relationships, school, the workplace or society at large. These words and others of similar ilk have found their way into diaries and comments here at Daily Kos yesterday and today around the abomination known as the Stupak-Pitts Amendment. Calm down, little lady, is the tone. Get real. Be adults. Doncha know how politics really works? Pffffffft. Many of these sexist critiques are then followed up by a distortion of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment itself, all of which amounts to the view that this is no big deal, that it does nothing more than the Hyde Amendment, the sexist, classist abomination that has been on the books in one form or another since 1976. In fact, as mcjoan pointed out earlier today, the Stupak-Pitts coathanger amendment goes a good deal further than Hyde. So besides engaging in put-downs, the patronizers have it dead wrong. This isn't a tempest in a teapot. It matters. And it matters big time, as at least 40 members of Congress led by Colorado Rep. Diana DeGette have made pretty damn clear. If the Democratic leadership doesn't come to grips with this, they're heading the party for big trouble next November, an election month that already may be a difficult time for the party given the state of an economy that may be getting better on paper but is, at best, many months away from even beginning to trickle down to where people actually live their lives. Even those who aren't willing to back off from their cries of "irrational" and "too much emo" ought to recognize the anti-utilitarian nature of their views that Stupak-Pitts is a no-consequence blip. Money, organizing time, phone bank participation, precinct walking and, on election day, votes are going to be in much shorter supply in November than would otherwise be the case unless something is done to strip this amendment in the Senate-House conference. Right now, the prospects for that are dicey. About five minutes after the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade, the anti-abortion forces began a war on the rights confirmed by that decision. But their molester-enabling, coathanger-selling, health-shattering, woman-hating, forced-pregnancy campaign was two-pronged, a direct assault but also an asymmetrical war, a nibble here, a nibble there. And at every step of the way, some people who claimed they were pro-choice said that this little nibble or that little nibble wasn't such a big deal. It only affected a small group of people or it was only the case rarely, we were told. The activists who challenged these nibbles were characterized as "hypersensitive," "irrational," and "over-reacting." Not by their enemies. But by their supposed allies. Over the decades, while engaging in a campaign of intimidation, harassment and murder, the anti-abortion movement has managed, nibble by nibble, to get ever-more restrictive legislation into place. Ultimately, the right of affluent women to obtain an abortion hasn't been much affected - except in the case of late-term procedures. But affluent women always had options even when abortion was illegal in every state. They could fly to Puerto Rico or Japan and get a safe abortion there without having to risk potentially lethal chemicals or abortions at the hands of unlicensed doctors or other providers operating on somebody's kitchen table in less than sterile conditions. Thanks to Hyde, low-income women in most states are still at a disadvantage when it comes to getting an abortion. Stupak-Pitts, if it survives the conference process, will not only reinforce this classist attack on women, it will also broaden it. Being ferociously opposed to it is, therefore, not irrational or hypersensitive or over-reactive. It's called standing up for progressive values. Thirty-six years ago, just a couple of months after Roe v. Wade was decided, Dr. Bob MacFarland and 14 more of us got together in Boulder County, Colorado, to set up the Boulder Valley Clinic, now the Boulder Valley Women's Health Clinic. It was the state's first standalone abortion clinic, and one of the first nonprofit abortion clinics in the United States. We came from various walks of life - physicians, a nurse, two lawyers, a journalist, a professor, a librarian, a minister, two graduate students. Three of us were Republican women, veteran volunteers of Planned Parenthood. Our common goal: to provide women with a place to obtain the safe abortions the Supreme Court had ruled was their constitutional right. Abortion foes attacked us immediately, incessantly, from the Op-Ed pages of the local newspapers to the halls of the state legislature. Some legislators and city councilmembers, numerous doctors, and, of course, fanatics of the not-yet-named "right-to-life" community did their worst to shut us down. We were slandered and libeled repeatedly. Aborted fetuses, it was ridiculously claimed, were being dumped in cans in the alley behind the clinic, to be hauled away once a week by garbage trucks. Every member of the board received phoned and written death threats. Tires were slashed. Rocks were thrown through windows. Graffiti was sprayed. In early 1975, the clinic was the first of scores in the nation to be fire-bombed, with a Molotov cocktail. The terrorists struck at night, and either through bad aim or some other miscalculation in the darkness, set our garage on fire, which was quickly extinguished. Many a day one or more of us stood sentinel while sometimes aggressive foes of the clinic picketed, shouted Bible verses or epithets at patients and staff, or jostled and grabbed women in an attempt to persuade or intimidate them not to follow through on the choice they had made. We filled out dozens of police-incident reports. Across the nation, similar tactics were adopted. And far worse, of course, as abortion providers were gunned down, just as Dr. George Tiller was last May. The only doctor who openly does late-term abortions now won't sit in a window with the shades open because he's been threatened by some fanatic who told him a bulletproof vest won't do any good because his killer will aim for a head shot. Over time the number of America's hospitals that perform abortions has dropped to less than 10% and the percentage of counties with abortion providers has dropped to 13%. In the past decade, nearly 500 state laws have been enacted to restrict choice. Every state has passed at least one such law. More than 2800 abortion-restricting bills have been introduced at the state level, and more than 200 have passed. For those who might suggest this is one of those damned "social issues" that gets the Democrats in trouble on election day, let's not forget that it's at its core a class war, as Stupak-Pitts makes quite clear. Affluent women will always find a way to find a safe and legal abortion. Insurance or no insurance. Stupak-Pitts may only be another nibble, but it is the cumulative effect that matters. Eventually, lots of little nibbles equal the entire pie. Those who say our vigorous, uncompromising opposition to it is an irrational overreaction ought to be ashamed of themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
daily_kos | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://rss.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/xBCMO5RC1PA/-Late-afternoon-early-evening-open-thread What you missed on Sunday Kos .... - In The Case for Karen Armstrong, Devilstower reviewed The Case for God, which is "entertaining and informative" theological analysis--and a post, incidentally, that had (ahem) spirited discussion in the 1,000+ comments.
- In Interview with Elon Musk, DarkSyde discussed technology, innovation, space exploration and energy with Musk, who cofounded PayPal, SpaceX and Tesla Motors.
- In H1N1: More Illness, A Bit More Vaccine, Bruised Intentions, DemFromCT reviewed the controversy swirling around vaccine availability (particularly on Wall Street).
- In The Kids Are Alright: Some Thoughts About Same-Sex Marriage, Steve Singiser reflected on discussions with his children about the meaning of marriage and found reason to hope for the prospect of acceptance of gay marriage in the future.
- In The Future of Marriage Equality in New Hampshire, Laura Clawson laid out all the reasons why the future of gay marriage in the Granite State faces a much different probable outcome than what happened in Maine last week.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
daily_kos | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://rss.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/DOGD2einv2o/-Steele-against-rebuilding-Americas-infrastracture:-Thats-not-creating-jobs! On This Week with George Stephanopoulos, RNC Chairman Michael Steele came out swinging against the most popular aspect of the stimulus bill: massive spending to put people to work rebuilding America's crumbling infrastructure. Even though continuing to invest in infrastructure work has the potential to create millions of private sector jobs, literally paving the way to economic recovery, Steele said he's against it because it is "government contract work" and "that's not creating jobs." Steele was responding to DNC Chairman and Virginia governor Tim Kaine. Watch: Transcript: KAINE: OK, I’m going to answer. George, I’m a governor. STEELE: The reality of it is... KAINE: I am a governor, and we have got small businesses all over... (CROSSTALK) KAINE: ... small businesses all over Virginia that are doing infrastructure projects because of this stimulus bill. Water and treatment, water and sewage treatment plants, roads. A great example... STEELE: A government contract work. That’s not creating jobs! KAINE: Are you kidding me? STEELE: That’s not... KAINE: Innovation and construction is very, very important to the economy. In February, Steele made the same convoluted argument, also on Stephanopolous' show.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
daily_kos | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://rss.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/M3l3bi5BKCk/-FL-Sen:-Wasnt-the-Club-already-backing-Rubio From the folks who gave us an extra public option vote in NY-23: The Club for Growth’s political action committee announced Monday it is endorsing former Florida state House Speaker Marco Rubio (R) in the state’s open Senate race. The Club has been sharply critical of the race’s frontrunner, Republican Gov. Charlie Crist, from the outset, and last week debuted an advertisement against him. I thought they had done this months ago. Gov. Charlie Crist has more money than god, but is getting trounced by Rubio in conservative media and grassroots straw polls. As I've said ever since this picture was taken, this race won't even be close: 
It's their version of our own Lieberman-Bush "kiss", and no way Crist survives it. And unlike many of its other efforts, this isn't a bad call for the Club. The Democrats don't have much of a candidate, and while Rubio is a teabagger, he's still within electability bounds in Florida. So while Crist would be a guaranteed lock on the seat (absent any skeletons coming out during the race -- pun not intended), Rubio would still be favored if he emerges from the primary, and that makes it a smart play for conservatives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
daily_kos | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://rss.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/bh5QfZE_O9w/-They-must-have-a-political-deathwish Although men and women tend to have similar attitudes towards abortion, women aged 18-49 are consistently the strongest supporters of reproductive freedom, and most of the net Democratic advantage among women comes from unmarried women without children. In light of those facts, House Democrats who supported health care reform with the Stupak amendment intact need a reminder about some basic math about the gender gap from the past two House elections: Year Gender (% of tot) Dem GOP Net Dem advantage 2006 Female (51%) 55% 43% +12
Male (49%) 50% 47% +3 2008 Female (53%) 56% 42% +14
Male (47%) 52% 46% +6 In 2006, 55% of Democratic support came from women and in 2008, 53% came from women. Democratic support for reproductive freedom doesn't explain the entire difference, but it surely plays a significant role and represents a fundamental difference between the Democratic and Republican parties. From the Democratic Party's perspective, the Stupak amendment is electoral poison. As mcjoan wrote earlier, the amendment represents the most sweeping Federal restriction on abortion ever, and it would be crazy to think that won't impact support for the Democratic Party from pro-choice women. The Stupak amendment effectively barring plans that provide abortion-related coverage from participating in the health insurance exchange. As such, it represents exactly the sort of government intervention in the doctor-patient relationship that Glenn Beck warns his audience about -- only this time, it's being used to achieve one of Beck's top goals: restricting access to a full range of reproductive health services. At present, more than half of employer-based health plans cover some form of abortion-related services. Although the House health bill envisions a relatively modest health insurance exchange in the early years of the legislation, eventually the idea is that most if not all insurance will be purchased through the exchange, meaning abortion-related coverage will be eliminated for tens of millions of women, whether or not they receive government subsidies. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that stripping that coverage from millions of women would be a disaster for the Democratic Party. Without this defining difference between the Democratic and Republican parties, some women will undoubtedly drift towards the GOP, and others will drift away from politics. If Democrats think they can make up for those kinds of losses with anti-women social conservatives like the FRC, they are even bigger morons than we ever could have imagined. Democrats are on the verge of throwing women under the bus. If they do, they had better get ready, because in upcoming election cycles, pro-choice women will almost certainly return the favor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
daily_kos | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://rss.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/A6PAJxqGk8U/-Ditch-the-DCCC I wrote a week or so ago that donating to the DCCC was donating to anti-health care reform Dems. Here was the list, and their final vote: AL-02 (Bright, Blue Dog -- NO)
AL-05 (Griffith, Blue Dog -- NO)
AR-02 (Snyder -- YES)
CO-04 (Markey -- NO)
FL-08 (Grayson -- YES)
ID-01 (Minnick, Blue Dog -- NO)
IN-09 (Hill, Blue Dog -- YES)
MD-01 (Kratovil, Blue Dog -- NO)
MS-01 (Childers, Blue Dog -- NO)
NH-01 (Shea-Porter -- YES)
NM-02 (Teague -- NO)
OH-01 (Driehaus -- YES)
OH-15 (Kilroy -- YES)
OH-16 (Boccieri -- NO)
OH-18 (Space, Blue Dog -- YES)
TN-08 (Tanner, Blue Dog -- NO)
VA-02 (Nye, Blue Dog -- NO)
VA-05 (Periello -- YES) But that's not all. In addition to the ten who voted against final passage, and additional four voted for the Stupak-Pitts coathanger amendment: Snyder, Hill, Driehaus, and Space. So of that list of the 18 most endangered Democrats, the only ones who didn't cast a shitty vote Saturday night were Grayson, Kilroy, Shea-Porter, and Periello. And that's just the 18 most endangered, expand out to other competitive races, and it gets uglier. This is where the bulk of the DCCC's money is going to go -- supporting Democrats who didn't just vote against the party's most important piece of legislation in decades, but also threatened to vote against it if the legislation didn't get in the way of a patient and her doctor (along with obviously hypocritical Republicans) on a LEGAL procedure. So here's the bottom line -- skip any donations to the DCCC. Their first priority is incumbent retention, and they're (necessarily) issue agnostic. They'll be dumping millions into defending these seats. Instead, give to those elected officials who best reflect your values.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
daily_kos | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://rss.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/dMHnt26JSfY/-Pro-Choice-McCaskill-Could-Support-Stupak-Coathanger-Amendment Claire McCaskill needs to read the Stupak-Pitts amendment. Appearing on MSNBC's "Morning Joe", McCaskill was asked whether an amendment added by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) to the House's legislation would be too bitter a pill to pass the Senate. "I am not sure that it is," replied the Missouri Democrat. "Obviously, I have been a pro-choice candidate for my entire political career, and obviously there is controversy always surrounding this issue. But we are talking about whether or not people that get public money can buy an insurance policy that has a coverage for abortion. And that is not the majority of America. The majority of America is not going to be getting subsidies from the government...." That's a rather simplified view of what this amendment actually does, although it's quite handy to keep parroting the Blue Dog line that this is really nothing more than Hyde. McCaskill also needs to talk with her pro-choice colleagues in the House who take a far less sanguine view of this legislation. In a letter to Nancy Pelosi, a draft of which was provided to Greg Sargent, 41 House Democrats are pledging to vote against a final bill if it contains this amendment. A source sends over a working copy of the letter without the signatories, and a source says it currently bears the signatures of 41 House Dems. They’re all vowing to vote No on a bill if it contains the Stupak amendment — enough to sink the bill: As members of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, we believe that women should have access to a full range of reproductive health care. Health care reform must not be misused as an opportunity to restrict women’s access to reproductive health services. The Stupak-Pitts amendment to H.R. 3962, The Affordable Healthcare for America Act, represents an unprecedented and unacceptable restriction on women’s ability to access the full range of reproductive health servicesto which they are lawfully entitled. We will not vote for a conference report that contains language that restricts women’s right to choose any further than current law. That’s unequivocal, with no wiggle room. The Washington Post reported this morning that Rep. Diana DeGette had collected 40 signatures vowing a No vote, without noting the language of their vow or how this would be communicated. Lest you question to productivity of any group drawing a line in the sand over must-pass legislation, consider that the public option would have been dead months ago had not the Progressive Block done the same. This is a critical bargaining position, and members have to show that they are willing to walk away over these deal-breakers. That's how Coathanger Stupak got this amendment into the bill in the first place. Harry Reid needs to take this threat just as seriously as Nancy Pelosi does, and keep this amendment (which Ben Nelson and Bob Casey are already working on) out of the Senate bill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) bon_homme_dane | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes Ladies and Gentleman, it has been 20 years since the wall fell. Shocking....twenty years, and I thought the world was fucked up then??? I was 18 going on 19 when the wall fell. Just fresh out of high school, and without a fucking clue. Fast foward 20 years, and having a clue about the world, I don't think it's allot better. But I was in East Germany before the wall fell three times in the 70's and 80's. I can tell you this much, it was fucking miserable place. Filled with gray and drab. Today, Germany is tranformed. And now for a update? Back to life, it goes on. ruperthemoose and I have been here in The Capitol Region aka "albany n.y." 3 months. It's had it's rough moments, but we are settling in. I am settling in being a student...yet a grad student (shocking)...., my other half, settling in with being out of school and miserable economy and much unemployment. We miss the west coast, but we will be back soon. We have trips and so on planned. Next trip Boston in three weeks to see the Pixies. Soon finish painting the apartment with another 75 bucks and we are done, and we will make it together through the winter, sping, summer and next fall.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
daily_kos | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://rss.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/oZwhXZlt-u0/-What-the-Stupak-Pitts-Coathanger-Amendment-Does Here's what it says: The amendment will prohibit federal funds for abortion services in the public option. It also prohibits individuals who receive affordability credits from purchasing a plan that provides elective abortions. However, it allows individuals, both who receive affordability credits and who do not, to separately purchase with their own funds plans that cover elective abortions. It also clarifies that private plans may still offer elective abortions. There's been a lot of debate around here about what that exactly means. Here's what it means. Millions of women will not have access to a legal medical procedure. Remember that, the legal part? What's the harm, some say? It only makes sure that federal funding doesn't go to providing abortion, right? Wrong. Here's Jessica Arons, Director of the Women's Health and Rights Program at American Progress. - It effectively bans coverage for most abortions from all public and private health plans in the Exchange: In addition to prohibiting direct government funding for abortion, it also prohibits public money from being spent on any plan that covers abortion even if paid for entirely with private premiums. Therefore, no plan that covers abortion services can operate in the Exchange unless its subscribers can afford to pay 100% of their premiums with no assistance from government "affordability credits." As the vast majority of Americans in the Exchange will need to use some of these credits, it is highly unlikely any plan will want to offer abortion coverage (unless they decide to use it as a convenient proxy to discriminate against low- and moderate-income Americans who tend to have more health care needs and incur higher costs).
2. It includes only extremely narrow exceptions: Plans in the Exchange can only cover abortions in the case of rape or incest or "where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death." Given insurance companies’ dexterity in denying claims, we can predict what they’ll do with that language. Cases that are excluded: where the health but not the life of the woman is threatened by the pregnancy, severe fetal abnormalities, mental illness or anguish that will lead to suicide or self-harm, and the numerous other reasons women need to have an abortion. 3. It allows for a useless abortion "rider": Stupak and his allies claim his Amendment doesn’t ban abortion from the Exchange because it allows plans to offer and women to purchase extra, stand-alone insurance known as a rider to cover abortion services. Hopefully the irony of this is immediately apparent: Stupak wants women to plan for a completely unexpected event. 4. It allows for discrimination against abortion providers: Previously, the health care bill included an evenhanded provision that prohibited discrimination against any health care provider or facility "because of its willingness or unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions." Now, it only protects those who are unwilling to provide such services. Once again, just like in the pre-Roe days, the wealthy will have access to abortion, those who can't scrape several hundred dollars together won't. Because of how the exchange is structured, most of people covered through it will be receiving credits or subsidies. Therefore, most of the participants will not have access to a legal medical procedure. Additionally, the reality, as Arons says, is that the insurers participating in the exchange won't offer it at all, and the question remains whether they'll continue to offer it for women in employer-based programs outside the exchange, or whether it would just be easier for administrative and overhead purposes to stop covering it at all. Right now, nearly 90 percent of private, employer-based plans cover abortion services. This legislation could result in many of those plans dropping it, to make administration of plans simpler and more cost-effective. We know how critical the bottom line is to them. And take another look at those exclusions: "where the health but not the life of the woman is threatened by the pregnancy, severe fetal abnormalities, mental illness or anguish that will lead to suicide or self-harm, and the numerous other reasons women need to have an abortion." Even planned pregnancies are regularly terminated--legally--because of the health of the mother or severe fetal abnormalities. Forcing women to carry these pregnancies to term is dangerous and cruel. Forcing low- and moderate-income women to have to make hard financial decisions to try to come up with the money for the procedure is cruel. It's also diametrically opposed to the very principles of healthcare reform. This legislation is supposed to be freeing Americans from having to make horrible financial choices between basic necessities and medical care. Consider this real-life example: By broadly writing in that insurers can chose whether or not to cover "abortion services," pro-life amendments don't just affect their intended victims -- women seeking a way out of an unwanted or medically harmful pregnancy. They also affect another group of victims -- women whose pregnancies have already ended but have not yet miscarried. I'm one of those women, and this past Halloween I had what the hospital officially termed an "abortion." .... I had learned the day before that the baby I thought was nearly 12 weeks old had no heartbeat, and had actually died at 8 weeks. I was given three options: wait for a miscarriage to occur on its own, something I was told my body had no intention of doing anytime soon, take medication that would expel the fetus, passing it in my own home (classified a "chemical abortion") or come in for a D&C to remove the fetal materials. As much as I struggled with the sudden realization that the pregnancy was over, I also found myself trying to decide financially what I was willing to do. A chemical abortion would cost $40, but I would be alone, bleeding, and it could still be incomplete and I would require a D&C anyway, since my pregnancy was so advanced. Surgery would be quick, total, and under controlled circumstances, but would likely be our full maxed insurance amount of $1500. And of course, there was the free option of waiting for my body to finally realize I wasn't pregnant, but after 4 weeks the risk of infection was steadily climbing, increasing my chances of future miscarriage, infertility, or even death. With a toddler at home, and still nursing hopes for extending our family some day, this was not an option. I chose the quick and total route of the D&C, despite the costs, prioritizing my health and the health of possible future children. I was lucky, and could afford to make that choice, because currently, my insurance cannot chose to refuse to cover what the hospital as termed an abortion. This is the most expansive restriction on access to abortion Congress has passed. It goes well beyond Hyde, which has never been codified and which only governs federal, public plans. It's particularly galling that it comes under the umbrella of healthcare "reform." Remember the promises? Reform was about expanding choices, not allowing government to come between you and your doctor, no one will lose their coverage, and if you like your current plan you get to keep it. Apparently being female is a preexisting condition that exempts us from the promises, too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
daily_kos | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://rss.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/MCahoroHheo/-Jack-Reed:-Snowe-trigger-still-under-discussion-in-Senate Here's an unwelcome dose of reality after Saturday night's vote in the House: Jack Reed saying on CBS' Face the Nation Sunday that he believes Olympia Snowe's trigger is still alive in the Senate. BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you think, at this point, Senator Reed, that there are the votes in the Senate to pass the bill that the House passed? Because it does include the so-called public option--this government health care insurance program that would be run by the government. Do you think it’s-- that’s going to pass the Senate? SENATOR JACK REED (D-Rhodes Island, Senate Armed Services Committee): I believe we’re going to pass health care reform. I believe we must do this because it’s essential to not just the quality of life here, but our economic success in the future. Senator Reid-- Harry Reid has introduced a public option. There’s strong support there. But we are far from the-- the end of the debate in the Senate. It will take time. It will be careful, thorough, and deliberate. I hope that a public option is part of the final bill. BOB SCHIEFFER: But, candidly, right now, you don’t have the votes in the Senate for that. Am I not correct in saying that? SENATOR JACK REED: I think there’s a discussion about, as Senator Snowe suggested, a trigger to the public option. Senator Reid has suggested a opt-out by the states. There is a debate, or an active debate, about how the public option might come about. But, overwhelming, sixty percent of the American public want a public option. And I think we should be listening to them as much as listening to ourselves. Reed wasn't endorsing Snowe's trigger proposal, but he did seem to characterize it as a form of the public option, saying it was part of the "debate...about how the public option might come about." Lest he or any other Senator be unclear: a trigger is not a public option. It never has been, and it never will be. If a senator supports a trigger, then that senator opposes the public option. It's as simple as that. There is no middle-ground. Senators should remember that if they vote for health care reform legislation without the public option, they will be casting a vote to require all Americans to buy health insurance from the very same companies who created the system that this legislation aims to reform. If they don't realize what a political disaster that would be for them, then they should get their heads examined.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
daily_kos | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://rss.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/puZpNsDlgQU/-The-Dems-Who-Cast-the-Toughest-Votes While many Democrats in red districts voted against the House healthcare bill, quite a few representatives who hold tough seats did the courageous thing and voted "aye." These are the members of Congress who sit in Republican-leaning districts but still did the right thing: | District | Representative | PVI |
|---|
| ND-AL | Pomeroy, Earl | R+10 | | WV-01 | Mollohan, Alan | R+9 | | AR-01 | Berry, Marion | R+8 | | IN-08 | Ellsworth, Brad | R+8 | | PA-10 | Carney, Chris | R+8 | | OH-18 | Space, Zach | R+7 | | SC-05 | Spratt, John | R+7 | | AZ-01 | Kirkpatrick, Ann | R+6 | | IN-09 | Hill, Baron | R+6 | | WV-03 | Rahall, Nick | R+6 | | AR-02 | Snyder, Vic | R+5 | | AZ-05 | Mitchell, Harry | R+5 | | CO-03 | Salazar, John | R+5 | | VA-05 | Perriello, Tom | R+5 | | AZ-08 | Giffords, Gabby | R+4 | | TX-23 | Rodriguez, Ciro | R+4 | | KS-03 | Moore, Dennis | R+3 | | MI-01 | Stupak, Bart | R+3 | | NY-19 | Hall, John | R+3 | | PA-03 | Dahlkemper, Kathleen | R+3 | | FL-08 | Grayson, Alan | R+2 | | IN-02 | Donnelly, Joe | R+2 | | MI-07 | Schauer, Mark | R+2 | | NC-02 | Etheridge, Bob | R+2 | | NY-24 | Arcuri, Mike | R+2 | | OH-06 | Wilson, Charlie | R+2 | | TX-27 | Ortiz, Solomon | R+2 | | WI-08 | Kagen, Steve | R+2 | | CA-11 | McNerney, Jerry | R+1 | | IL-08 | Bean, Melissa | R+1 | | IL-11 | Halvorson, Debbie | R+1 | | IL-14 | Foster, Bill | R+1 | | MN-01 | Walz, Tim | R+1 | | NY-23 | Owens, Bill | R+1 | | PA-12 | Murtha, John | R+1 | | NH-01 | Shea-Porter, Carol | R+0 | | NY-01 | Bishop, Timothy | R+0 | | TX-28 | Cuellar, Henry | R+0 |
It's especially worth noting that quite a few of these incumbents will be very vulnerable in 2010 and have already drawn strong challenges, such as Tom Perriello, John Hall, Vic Snyder, Mark Schauer, and John Spratt, to name just a few. Also, special props to the "yes" vote from the newest member of our caucus, Bill Owens, who, as you probably know, now represents a district where some counties haven't sent a Democrat to Congress since before the Civil War.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back 
busy
bitchy
